Inequality as covered in this report is a multifaceted concept. In the context of development, it relates to differences in outcomes and opportunities across individuals, groups or countries. These differences can be connected to any dimension of development – social, economic or environmental – and they have been receiving increasing international attention. For example, a core principle of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is to reduce inequalities “leaving no one behind.”
These inequalities may have arisen from circumstances beyond the control of the individual – ethnicity, for example, country of birth, family structure or gender. They can also arise from factors that are intrinsic to the individual such as talent and effort. However, a more significant contribution to the disparities is inequalities in opportunities – in access to education, for example, or health services or to the goods and services that people need to be able to make best use of their talents and efforts.11 Inequality of outcomes and opportunities are closely intertwined. The outcome for one generation affects the opportunities for the next – resulting in intergenerational transmission of inequalities.
Inequalities can be measured in terms of outcome indicators such as incomes, health standards or educational attainment – looking at gaps between countries and between individuals and groups, based on gender, age group, ethnicity or religion.12 Figure I2 illustrates the inequalities between country groups across several development dimensions. Despite considerable progress, there are still wide inter-country disparities. In upper-middle-income and high-income countries, the average share of the population living in extreme poverty is only 2 per cent, but in lower-middle-income countries it is 14 per cent and in low-income countries 45 per cent. Similar disparities are seen in child mortality rates and in the prevalence of underweight children as well as in education, particularly at higher levels: in 2018, in low-income countries only 41 per cent of the population in the relevant age group were enrolled in secondary education – compared with 90 per cent in upper-middle-income and high-income countries.
Every wave of progress was associated with sharper inequality between countries
from education to
health, from ICT
infrastructure to
electrification.
Progress has been faster for access to essential services such as clean water and electricity, but slower when it comes to access to basic sanitation and there are still wide disparities between low-income and other country groups. In low- and lower-middle-income countries, only 63 per cent of the population have access to basic sanitation, compared with 86 per cent in upper-middle-income countries, and universal access in high-income countries.
The low- and lower-middle-income countries also tend to have wider internal inequalities. This is illustrated in Figure I3 for selected SDG indicators. In 2018 in low-income countries, only 33 per cent of the rural population had access to electricity, compared with 70 per cent in urban areas. This gap was much narrower in lower-middle-income countries – rural 81 per cent and urban 96 per cent – and basically non-existent in upper-middle-income and high-income countries. Low-income countries also had more pronounced gender disparities in literacy rates, in the extent of vulnerable employment and in mortality-rates.
Figure I 2
Gaps between country groups, selected SDG indicators
Source: UNCTAD based on data from the World Bank and ESCAP.
Note: Some countries have moved between country groups during the period considered in the various charts.
0
Poverty headcount ratio at $1.90 a day (2011 PPP)
(percentage of population) Mortality rate, under-5
(per 1,000 live births)
Prevalence of underweight, weight for age
(percentage of children under 5) School enrollment, secondary (percentage)
Population using basic drinking water services
(percentage of population) Population using basic sanitation services (percentage of population)
(percentage of population) Material Footprint, total
(Tons per capita)
Low income Lower-middle income Upper-middle income High income
Figure I 3
Inequality within countries, selected SDG indicators
Source: UNCTAD based on data from World Bank and ESCAP.
Existing inequalities also have severe effects on the capacity of people to weather shocks (Box I1).
Box I 1
Inequalities and resilience in times of COVID-19
75 95 90 96 88 98
Population using basic drinking water services, 2017
(percentage of population) Population using basic sanitation services, 2017 (percentage of population)
Access to electricity, 2018
(percentage of population) Mortality rate, under-5, 2018 (per 1 000 live births)
Literacy rate, adult, 2018
(percentage of adults ages 15 and above, by sex) Vulnerable employment, 2019
(percentage of employment, by sex)
Rural Urban
COVID-19 has accelerated some global trends, such as digitalization, while decelerating others, including greenhouse gas emissions. The pandemic has led to abrupt changes in work practices, and in educational methods and health arrangements. In so doing it has further widened many inequalities.
Even within the most developed countries the pandemic has increased poverty and reduced access to food.13 During lockdowns, much of the burden has fallen on women, who are also 70 per cent of the front-line workers.
At the same time, there has been an increase in domestic violence and child abuse.
As schools closed, much education moved online. Some students started working online early on in the crisis, while others had no access to online platforms – particularly students in less advantaged areas within developed nations.
Work has also been moving online. During the lockdown in the EU more than one-third of the labour force was teleworking. But not everyone could do so; lower skilled workers employed in “high-touch” jobs such as food retail or transport had to show up for work, exposing them to COVID-19. These jobs were usually less well paid,
less secure and offered less access to healthcare. In most cases, the poorer the country, the harder it is to telework.
During the pandemic, there have been some benefits from frontier technologies. For testing, for example, machines are not only able to analyse lab results and work 20+ hours and perform over 600 tests a day, but they also help professionals with social distancing.
How can the international community best respond, and transform the COVID-19 crisis into an opportunity? The key is building resilience. This is understood at the country level as the capacity to recover and rebuild.14 This notion should now be further expanded to transform societies in a sustainable, fair, and democratic manner.15 In other words, resilience should enable a nation to bounce forward, to come out stronger and better prepared for future shocks.
There have been some attempts to measure national resilience to external shocks. For example, in a forthcoming study the European Union assessed countries on their ability to bounce back, on financial coping and life attitudes.16 It found that the people most resilient were those in Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Luxemburg and the Netherlands.
Resilience originates in people, in their internal strengths, and in their safety nets, jobs, savings and well-being.
It also relies on well-functioning financial systems, digital infrastructure, social protection, and health systems as well as on trust in governments. Governments act as the ultimate absorbers of risks and will need to build resilience to prepare for future shocks.
Source: UNCTAD.