UN Ukraine Summer Course 2014: The World We Want
Sustainable Development Goals –workshop
Monday 28 July,
6:30pm-8pm, UN House (1, Klovsky Uzviz, Kyiv)
Background material
GROUP
1: Equality of opportunities and social justice:
building an equitable socially inclusive society where exclusion and
marginalization are impossible
Results
of Post-2015 national consultations in Ukraine:
In the Post-2015 Development Agenda National
Consultations held in Ukraine during winter 2012-2013, majority of Ukrainians chose
“Equality of opportunities and social justice” as the most important area,
where Ukraine together with its citizens and authorities should take action for
the development of the country.
Most statements by the national consultation
participants concerned, one way or another, inadmissibility of existence of
rooted caste-based segregation in society, and of unfair and groundless
stratification on social, ethnic, age-related, gender or religious grounds.
That’s why all the groups centred their discussions around observance of human
rights (to work, to social protection, to medical aid, to education, etc.). The
disputants distinguished between social justice and social equality, stressing
greater importance of social justice for Ukraine.
The greatest support was provided to securing the
right to an adequate living standard (69.8% of responses by the national survey
participants and 34% by the National Crowdsourcing Platform participants), the
right to housing (52.7% of responses of the national survey participants), the
right to social protection and social security (46.0% of responses by the
national survey participants and 36.5% of statements by the national discussion
participants), securing social justice (31.8% of responses by the national
survey participants) and social equality (23.8% of responses by the national
survey participants).
The overwhelming majority (74.4%) of the consultation
participants were certain about the need for narrowing the existing gap between
the rich and the poor: the need to reduce property-based stratification was
mentioned by 32.8% of the national consultation participants. Taking about
various manifestations of inequality, the disputants accentuated on inequality
between the rich and the poor (28.4%), in income (11.2%), in property ownership
(10.2%), between men and women (9.2%), and between urban and rural residents
(8.6%). Most acutely perceived is not income-based inequality and not unequal
access to resources as such but the fact that the inequality is determined not so
much by personal qualities (education, working capacity, activity, etc.) as by
social affiliation.
Ukraine’s population regards
poverty problems among the most important ones though people not always clearly
formulate the poverty eradication itself in the system of development goals and
priorities. More often, they
talk about taking necessary measures.
For example, the national
consultation participants focused on the entire system of social protection,
improvement of which would directly result in poverty reduction. Therewith,
29.5% of the MY World survey participants stressed the need to support those
unable to work (because of age, health or other circumstances).
Importance of this development
area was mentioned by 47.4% of the participants; at the same time, members of
poor population groups paid much more attention to it (68.4% of those
describing their financial standing as very low and 61.8% of those regarding it
as low). Representatives of the expert community gave the separate ninth
position to poverty reduction, without highlighting types and forms of securing
human rights. Poverty reduction is associated with observance of human rights,
counteraction to large-scale rooted inequality (in terms of income and access
to basic social services and economic resources), prevention of inherited
poverty and of social exclusion of certain population groups (formed on any
ground – HIV/AIDS, sexual orientation, health, age, sex, ethnicity or religious
affiliation, etc.). In particular, the need to observe human rights,
particularly children’s rights, was stressed by 29.7% of the national
discussion participants, stigma and discrimination were highlighted by 12.7% of
the national survey participants, securing freedom from discrimination and
persecution was underlined by 28.4% of the MY World online survey participants,
securing political freedoms was emphasized by 27.1% of the MY World
participants, and the need to promote gender equality was pointed out by 12.6%
of the national discussion participants and 20.0% of those who participated in
MY World survey.
Inveteracy of inequality among social groups and
transformation of belonging to top levels of social infrastructure into a
stable preference ruin the basis of a true market mechanism, preserving only
semblance of market that secures further benefits to a privileged social group.
Such a society inevitable acquires attributes of being caste-based, which makes
development of democracy and eventually sustainable human development in
general impossible.
Expert commentary:
People’s excessive stratification in terms of income
and access to basic social services, loans and economic resources in general is
connected with high rates of income shadowing that one has been unable to
reduce for a long time already.
The greatest contribution into inequality is made by
wages (52.1%); in particular, the share increases to 58.0% in urban areas,
being only 31.6% in rural areas. Such large differences are caused both by
economic and demographic factors. Specifically, the differences are affected by
the fact that the share of persons aged 60+ in rural settlements reaches 23.3%
(vs. 20.2% in urban ones), employment among the population aged 30-39[1]
is 76.3% (vs. 78.8% in urban settlements) and among those aged 60-70 is 42.1%
(vs. 15.9% in urban ones), average wage in agriculture[2]
is UAH 1,800 (vs. 3,120 in industry[3]),
and average pension of rural residents is UAH 1,024.3 (vs. 1,316.3 for urban
residents). Accordingly, pensions in rural areas (the second component of
income for both urban and rural residents in terms of significance) provide for
30.5% of total inequality, the figure for urban settlements being 21.7%. On the
contrary, inequality among the urban population is much more affected by income
from entrepreneurial and individual activities (Table 2.1.2).
No doubt, income-based inequality is only one – though
quite important – component of the population’s overall inequality that
combines unequal opportunities of access to social services, to financial and
economic and land resources, etc.
According to experts, the most
significant persistent manifestations of inequality in Ukraine are as follows:
·
residence-based;
·
gender-based;
·
in terms of household composition.
Residence-based
inequality. Residence-based inequality is connected with differences
among local labour markets and, hence, with income differences, different
infrastructure development rates, and finally different demographic situations.
Extremely important is territorial differentiation of
poverty (settlement type, residence locality, region) that results from
objectively existing differences in economic development and specialization of
regions, on the one hand, and from different quality of regional governance, on
the other hand. Impact of economic, historical, cultural and demographic
factors, which shaped steady differences during a long period of time, is
substantial. The influence of regional differences is to a certain extent
offset by persistence of tough financial centralization inherited from the
administrative command economic system. Despite that, however, territorial
differences in such aspects as living conditions, income, health, education,
opportunities for realization of potential considerably exceed the variation
acceptable for one country’s regions that determine degradation of some of its
territories.
Poverty is most common in rural areas and in towns.
Limited demand for labour force causes irregular employment and non-uniform
income generation. Labour market in rural areas is mainly confined to the
agricultural sector that obviously cannot absorb all the labour force supply.
As of early 2012, Ukraine’s rural population aged 18-64 totalled 8.9 million,
i.e. 29.3% of the overall population of residents of this age. Existence of
such a large-scale agricultural sector seems inconceivable. Accordingly,
probable employment of rural residents accounts for services or agricultural
produce processing and for labour markets of towns around. The latter is only
possible given availability of a developed road network. Restricted employment
opportunities in rural areas and lack of conditions for large-scale commuting
labour migration of rural residents cause rather high risks of unemployment
and, hence, poverty; impact of seasonality is also considerable.
Decline of the social infrastructure inherited from
the Soviet time not in the best possible conditions and, hence, restricted
access to social services, first of all education and health care, actually
“doom” not only adults but also children in rural settlements to poverty.
Having no opportunity to receive proper education, necessary medical aid, etc.,
they cannot be competitive in their adult life, i.e. they will not be able to
obtain high (or even acceptable) income. Thus, the current inequality in living
conditions produces poverty in the future even given sufficient funds.
Assessing unequal opportunities of access to quality
medical aid or to proper vocational – not necessarily higher – education, we
should emphasize that the main part in shaping them is played not only by
different income but also by locality of residence, i.e. circumstances beyond
the person’s control. In particular, low-income persons more often experience
inaccessibility of medical aid: on average, 16.7% of households are not able to
receive medical aid, buy medicines or medical supplies as necessary whereas the
share of such households is only 8.9% among 10% of the most wealthy ones and
19.8% among 40% of the poorest ones. However, to visit a doctor, particularly
of a specialized profile, most rural residents have to go to a town, connection
with which is not everywhere permanent and convenient.
Gender inequality. Traditionally “female” economic activities in Ukraine
include social security and health care, education, hotels and restaurants
where women account for 66.4% of staff. Women also prevail among those employed
in public administration and financial activities. However, even given the
numerous prevalence in employment, they generally work at lower positions with
low pay rates. Women’s extremely high concentration in these economic sectors
is a consequence of not so much economic as socio-psychological reasons and
impact of rooted stereotypes. Exclusively “male” economic activities still
include entrepreneurship and heavy industries (extractive industry, metallurgy
and heavy machine-building) while light, food and medical industries
traditionally remain the place where women’s labour is applied.
The top management sphere is the “pole” of male
employment: there is so-called “glass ceiling” – a set of unwritten rules and
practices removing women from opportunities of getting to highest management
levels. An example of artificial removal of women from prestigious positions
and occupations consists of “gender privileged” job advertisements, which is a typical
instance of “discrimination on the level of preferences” when employers hiring
staff prefer men, all other conditions being equal. For example, vacancies of
top and middle managers are advertised specifically for men whereas women are
usually given less prestigious positions of secretaries, accountants and office
managers.
As a result, a man’s average wage is 25-30% is higher
than a woman’s while the average wage gap in the EU-27 countries is 17% (2011).
The widest gender gaps in labour remuneration are typical for those economic
segments where wages are the highest: financial mediation, information and
communications technologies, some machine-building branches (e.g. production of
high-precision equipment and devices), and extractive industry. The lowest
differences exist in budget-funded sector branches – health care and social
assistance, education (in particular, women’s average wage in the primary and
secondary education segment is even somewhat higher and men’s), and agriculture
that generally feature the lowest labour remuneration rates. Having lower
income, women naturally encounter higher poverty risks.
Inequality in terms of household
composition. Nearly the weightiest poverty-shaping factor consists
of having minor children, which makes poverty of families with children one of
the acutest social problems. For example, during 1999-2011, the poverty rate of
such households was 1.3 times higher than the country’s average, and 1.9 times
higher than among households without children. Besides, poverty risk is
directly proportional to the number of minor children: whereas the percentage
of poor families is 25.5% among those having one child and 42.0% among those
having two children, it is 55.8% among families with three children. The ratio
actually does not depend on whether absolute or relative criterion is used.
Despite the considerable size of childbirth benefit,
poverty rate among families having an under-3 child remains rather high
(36.0%). Another group at risk of poverty comprises the households that, in
addition to children, have at least one member of retirement age –percentage of
poor among them is 38.8%. Meanwhile, the share of poor households among the
households with children where all adults are of working age is 27.0%. However,
in reality, not the living of several family generations together is a poverty
factor but poverty is a reason of their living together.
Ukraine’s key problem consists
of not so much excessive as groundless (inequitable, in the majority’s opinion)
inequality. And this is absolutely adequately reflected in public conscience.
For example, as Ukrainians believe, success factors in Ukraine and abroad are
principally different. In particular, a person in Ukraine is required mainly to
be able to evade the law whereas high intellect and good education are
necessary abroad. Being convinced of inequitable character of inequality in
Ukraine and, due to that, also of the state’s injustice in general is an
inevitable consequence of such an opinion (Table 2.1.3).
Hence, inequality reduction – considering all
inequality components – is one of the core objectives for Ukraine’s post-2015
development. Successful achievement of this goal determines social stability
and people’s support for the system of socio-economic and political reforms. In
the opinion of the national consultation participants, inequality problems
should be addressed first and foremost by the government of Ukraine (81.0%),
local authorities (50.7%), and non-governmental organizations (34.8%).
Poverty reduction is a distinct element in the
construction of a socially just society. Contemporary poverty is no more solely
a problem related to low income, and the most typical attributes of belonging
to poor population strata are increasingly often reported to include inadequate
housing conditions, restricted or missing access to education, health care,
culture or safe environment, difficulties in maintaining social ties, lack of
free time and opportunities for proper rest, etc.
Substantial differences between the poor populations
defined by various criteria indicate that low living standards (and all the
more a corresponding feeling) of a considerable part of the population are not
necessarily a result of shortage of current income. Deprivation of normal
living conditions and impossibility of maintaining a normal way of living
generally accepted in society are often caused not by lack of money but by
underdeveloped (declined) social infrastructure (first and foremost in rural
areas). Some part of the population does live in normal conditions though their
current income is obviously not enough to secure an acceptable consumption
level. And, finally, out of 60% of the population regarding themselves as poor,
only 33.7% are deprived of normal living conditions, 30.3% have no proper income,
and 13.2% are recognized as poor simultaneously by three criteria.
Overall in 2011, 7.9% of the population met all 3
poverty criteria at the same time; 20.2% met the criterion of subjective and
deprivation poverty; 18.2% met the criterion of subjective and monetary
poverty; 9.4% met the criterion of monetary and deprivation poverty (Fig.
2.1.1).
Results of poverty research in Ukraine, poverty
modelling and multidimensional assessment as well as poverty monitoring during
1999-2011 give grounds for the following conclusions:
·
unemployment
is a major economic risk of poverty – having at least one unemployed person in
a household increases it 1.7 times compared to the country’s average;
·
having
minor children, especially under-3 ones, is a major demographic risk of poverty
– poverty rate in families with children is 1.3 times above average; poverty
rate in families with under-3 children is 1.5 times higher than average; and
the figure for large families[4]
is 2.3 times;
·
higher
education is the only reliable safeguard against poverty – having at least one
person with higher education reduces poverty risk by more than one-third, and
higher education of all adult household members decreases it by more than a
half;
·
subjective
poverty rate is 2.5 times higher than the rate determined by lack of income and
2.3 times higher than the rate determined by deprivation of normal living
conditions;
·
rural
and little town residents suffer both from lack of money and from deprivation
of normal living conditions most of all, which can be explained by
underdevelopment of local labour markets, road network and social
infrastructure generally;
·
the
most favourable situation possible is that of residents of cities, first of all
Kyiv.
Poverty eradication is to a
great extent connected with prospects of inequality reduction and social
infrastructure development. It appears that orientation on so-called group
interests (securing affordable medical aid, education, vocational training and
retraining, enhancing the road network, simplifying loan granting procedures,
etc.) is more effective than direct payment of benefits to poor families.
Undoubtedly, members of socially vulnerable population groups (chronic ill
ones, frail persons, elderly people, persons with disabilities) require
separate means of social support. Specifying the population group most in need
of state support, the national consultation participants paid special attention
to persons with disabilities – 40.4% of the disputants spoke out for them; the
level of support for persons with disabilities is inversely proportional to the
consultation participants’ age: therewith, young people naturally pay more
attention to support for families with children whereas pensioners concentrate
more upon assistance to elderly people.
Source:
Post-2015
Ukraine: The Future We Want –report http://www.ua.undp.org/content/dam/ukraine/docs/PR/Post%202015%20Ukraine%20eng.pdf
Немає коментарів:
Дописати коментар