Have you ever had the experience of speaking to someone about a problem, where you furiously agree that this thing is what is wrong with the world, but when you move to solutions, they think the complete opposite? If you’ve ever been out campaigning and tried to persuade someone how to vote, you’ll know the feeling.

Subscribe now

I felt that way last week in Bangkok, Thailand, at the Annual Meetings of the World Bank and IMF. Let’s take the IMF first. I went to a press conference given by Kristalina Georgieva, the Managing Director of the IMF. Her diagnosis: the world since 2020 has been very unstable and subject to a series of crises that have led to global economic shocks (COVID-19, energy and food shocks caused by wars, inflation and interest rate shocks, huge cuts to aid and trade wars). In response to these crises, governments have seen debts rise, either as they borrowed more where they could to help their populations have enough food or survive a global pandemic, or simply because their borrowing costs rose sharply with global interest rates.

This has left many countries, rich and poorer, on the edge of bankruptcy. What is worse, Georgieva said, is that we are long overdue a financial crisis. It has been almost 20 years since 2008, and even if we are not yet seeing an AI bubble, we should still be expecting a ‘significant disorderly market correction across asset classes’ to use IMF speak- in plain English a massive financial and economic crisis that could lead to mass unemployment and loss of savings.

(The IMF and World Bank are so good at developing new anodyne phrases to paper over recommendations that can literally kill people living in poverty, particularly women, racialized groups, the elderly and children. I have put a few at the end of this blog, and I am sure readers will have many others).

I found myself nodding at this diagnosis. It is exactly how I would describe what has happened since 2020. But then from there to Georgieva’s solution: all governments who find themselves in this position must implement massive austerity now, before things get even worse. Tax rises and cuts to public services should be ‘frontloaded’.

Furiously agreeing with the World Bank too.

For Ajay Banga, the World Bank President, there was one clear message for the Annual Meetings: the urgent need to ‘mobilise private capital’.

Like Georgieva, Banga also mentioned how governments are in a financial bind – particularly donor governments, their largest shareholders. Debts are high and there is very little public money to go around, and as a result, aid budgets have been slashed.

Yet at the same time, the world is awash with money. Private wealth, or capital has shot up; there is really an immense amount of private capital in the world. Humanity in this sense has never been richer. Banga’s solution is to mobilise this private wealth for the good of everyone.

Again, I found myself in agreement that we must make better use of that huge amount of private capital. But then his solution. Not taxes. Not rebuilding public wealth. Instead, the solution is that we need to use more public money and borrowing to ‘leverage private capital.’ Again, this needs translation. This means using public money to sweeten deals to such an extent that the private sector will invest in public goods by guaranteeing rich private investors a large enough and reliable enough profit.

You might think to yourself how could more borrowing be the solution to a debt crisis? I also think that is a fair question. The public answer is that these investments will drive such wonderfully high levels of growth and job creation, that increased public revenues will easily cover subsidising and guaranteeing the profits of private sector investors. (Another more honest answer I heard from one official is that expanded lending from the World Bank can be used by governments to pay off their much more expensive debts to private creditors, which would reduce their borrowing costs (and of course bail out the same private creditors).

Capitalist Buddhists

Maybe because I am quite old, and I have been to quite a few of these kinds of meetings, I was struck most by their almost wilful amnesia. A deliberate self-blinkering that makes them only look at the world as it is now. They ask very few questions about how we got here. No questions at all about what happened when countries tried their solutions in the past. Equally very few questions about what doing what they say will do to our collective future, or what world taking their advice might lead to, given historical experience.

They are a bit like capitalist Buddhists, determined at all costs to live in the present. Perhaps in fact this is something central to capitalism itself, because if you don’t do this, then many problems and contradictions come flooding in almost instantly. They have to live only in the present, keep moving, forget the past, don’t dwell on the future.

Looking back, looking forward

We know looking back, that public debts began to rise after the last financial crisis. Huge public debts were incurred to bailout the banks and the financial system. We know that huge borrowing and money printing was done again in the face of the global COVID-19 pandemic. Some of this money was used to help ordinary people and small businesses survive, but more was used to prop up financial markets once more.

This huge injection of public money meant that far more money was chasing the same assets, so it led to sharp increases in the value of financial assets like stocks, shares, bonds, and also physical ones like housing, fine art or private jets. It was public money that in large part drove the explosion in private wealth in the graph above. This was not about billionaires being super clever or working harder. We know too that the ownership of private wealth, as well as income from wealth, is skewed dramatically to the richest, and this is particularly true of financial assets.

We also know, again thanks to the IMF’s own research department, and from the World Bank, that high inequality undermines growth, and that reducing inequality is good for everyone. We know from history how to reduce inequality, too – use policies like strong regulation of financial markets and capital, and high levels of taxation on the richest.

We know, too, that the solutions on offer are highly likely to increase inequality. The austerity of the 2010s in Europe, by the IMF’s own admission, was self-defeating, undermining growth, and driving inequality. We know, by the World Bank’s admission, that the brutal period of ‘structural adjustment’ in the 1980s and 1990s drove poverty and suffering. The IMF showed us how neoliberal ‘reforms’ also often drove inequality. We know, again thanks in part to research by both the World Bank and IMF, that climate breakdown is already undermining growth everywhere. There is also plentiful evidence from the World Bank, the OECD and others that so called ‘Public Private Partnerships’ to deliver public goods like health, or education, very often fail and are extremely costly to the public purse.

These solutions are working, just not for ordinary people

There is one additional thread that I think perhaps that explains this, beyond a self-imposed wilful amnesia. It is that all these actions proposed by the World Bank and the IMF do have a consistent beneficiary: private capital. Austerity might cause pain, but bondholders are guaranteed a return. Using more public money to bribe private capital might not actually work for the investments themselves, but it will guarantee returns in a volatile market. A consistent thread is perhaps ever more creative and innovative ways to denude public wealth and use public money to create and subsidise private wealth and private incomes.

Equally, other more obvious solutions like debt cancellations, forcing private creditors to accept losses, stronger regulation of capital markets, of tax avoidance, of illicit financial flows, much higher taxation of the wealth and income of rich people and corporations, public provision of education, health, transport etc., will mean a reduction in private wealth and opportunities for profit.

My feeling is that there is nothing wrong with private wealth. If it is fairly distributed, it is vital. Every family needs savings to help build a future. But public wealth is to my mind even more important. It is public wealth, democratically owned, that can build a more equal, sustainable world for us all. If we are constantly creating ever more private wealth by denuding public wealth, and if that private wealth becomes ever more concentrated in the hands of a tiny group of extremely rich people, then it hard to see a positive future.

(For the record, I have nothing against Buddhism or Buddhists, quite the opposite in fact. In my life I have found the Buddhist teaching of the need to live a lot more in the present moment to be very good advice. I just think that when it comes to the IMF and World Bank that they could benefit from being a bit more historically aware and a little less short-termist when it comes to the future, too.)

END.

Share

Author: Max Lawson, Head of Inequality Policy at Oxfam International and EQUALS podcast co-host. He is also a visiting Professor in Practice at the LSE International Inequalities Institute and the co-chair of the Global People’s Medicines Alliance.

Oxfam’s latest research shows how the super-rich are directly contributing to climate disasters. They can insulate themselves from these disasters and, most worrying, profit from climate breakdown.

In this two-part series, we break down the findings of Oxfam’s new report “Disaster Divide: How Climate Chaos Deepens Inequality and Enriches the Few.”

Subscribe now

Disaster Divide, in numbers

First, the latest research on emissions inequality. The richest 8 million people emit more carbon than the poorest 3.5 billion people combined. They emit more than three times as much as the entire population of sub-Saharan Africa (1.3 billion people) and 37 times more than all carbon capture and storage plants remove in a year.

Sky-high emissions. There is perhaps no better symbol of the wasteful carbon emissions by the richest people than travel by private jet. In 2025, each flight caused 3.7 tonnes of CO2 on average – around what an average person will emit in a year. In total, the jets covered 4 billion kilometres, equivalent to circumnavigating the world 105,000 times. 68% of private jets departed from the US, despite just 4% of the world’s population living there.

Following the money. Oxfam tracked the investment portfolios of 1,000 billionaires and found that their investment emissions totalled 486 million tonnes of CO2e in 2025, equivalent to being the 19th most-polluting country in the world, just after Australia and ahead of South Africa. Most importantly, the research finds that billionaires’ investments tend to be in highly polluting industries: 71% of their investments are categorized as in “high climate-impact sectors” such as oil, gas or chemicals, compared to 63% of investments in the S&P Global 1,200 (an index covering 70% of the global market value of companies).

The emissions of the super-rich are contributing to immediate climate disasters. By using the latest models on climate attribution, Oxfam’s research found that the richest 0.1% have contributed 125 times more than the average person to the extreme heatwaves we’re experiencing today.

Cashing in on climate disaster. The very people responsible for the crisis are turning chaos into profit. The rich have long made profit from corporations that destroy the planet; now they’re turning their wallets to the global disaster recovery market, forecast to grow from $70 billion to $92 billion a year by 2029.

Double disaster dividend. To investigate this trend, Oxfam created the “Destroy and Rebuild” Index, a sample of 217 corporations. It consists of the usual suspects who are fuelling climate disasters, like oil and gas giants, alongside corporations preparing for disasters, like flood defence contractors, or recovering from them, like clean-up companies.

On average, the corporations in the “Destroy and Rebuild” Index made $1.8 billion in profit in 2025, paying out more than $1 billion to their shareholders. Ten asset managers have investments in over 90% of these corporations, with BlackRock and Vanguard invested in 92% of the corporations in the index. The pair’s total investments in these companies exceed $1 trillion.

Disaster capitalism 2.0. It doesn’t stop at cynical profiteering. Disasters have also been used to push through the privatisation of public services and deregulation. In Puerto Rico, for example, Hurricane Maria’s aftermath was used to advance the privatisation of the island’s electrical grid. After Hurricane Irma devastated Barbuda in 2017, reconstruction made way for luxury residences and a golf course on land that included natural coastlines and wetlands.

Something to read/listen to

Read Oxfam’s new report “Disaster Divide” (of course!)

Or if you prefer your reports in 1-minute videos….

Watch this short film from France’s wildfire first responders.

In non-climate news. This excellent blog about what Nvidia’s $235 billion stock buybacks program says about inequality in the AI economy.

Catch up on the latest Equals podcasts

Maaza: Hi, everyone. Welcome to EQUALS, a podcast about inequality. This is Maaza, and I am here with Annie today. Hey, Annie. I am so excited about our episode. Today we get to speak to Crismar Lujano, who’s a Venezuelan journalist, researcher, and political analyst based in Mexico City. She’s also one of the amazing Blueprints for New Economy fellows for this year. In her day job, she’s editor at Diario Red America Latina and presenter at Canal Red America Latina. And I know that she’s somebody who speaks so eloquently about who owns the narrative and how we can think more deeply about where we get our news and who tells our stories.

Annie: I’m excited, too. I’m really glad we have a journalist with us for this episode. Let’s dive right in.

(music)

Maaza: Crismar thank you so much for joining us for this episode of EQUALS. I am lucky enough to know you a little bit already, but could you start by introducing yourself to our listeners.

Crismar: Annie, Maaza thank you so much for having me, this is a real honor and pleasure to be with you here at EQUALS. Thank you. Well, you did a great introduction of me already, but I’m Crismar Lujano, I’m a Venezuelan journalist and I believe one of the easiest ways to explain why I became interested in politics and inequality. It probably starts with my own story, right? I was born and raised in Venezuela. This is a country that probably everyone knows for having the largest oil reserves in the world than for the damage done by neoliberal policies over decades. I would like to say I grew up, in a working class and low-income family. My mom was single mother who had to deal with economic hardship from a very early age. So even before I have the words to talk about all this, I was already experiencing it. When you grow up understanding that the circumstances you’re born into can determine how much of your life is going to be, why so many people have better opportunities and others are just there trying to survive, these shapes for sure your path in the world. The first time I became interested in Latin American politics, I can recall two specific moments. and the first one is one when I was nine years old, I was just a child, but Hugo Chavez came to power. And that was a very interesting moment, not only for Venezuela, but for the global South, I would say for Latin America specifically. Because Chavez, regardless of what everyone can think about, he led this social process that not only vindicates his own anti colonial tradition by renewing the thought of Simon Bolivar, the struggle for independence, for the unity of the Latin American nation, and the struggle as well for social justice, but also recover the people’s historical struggle during the 20th century against the US imperialism or any kind of imperialism. Under the leadership of these man, Hugo Chavez, a Latin American grassroots process challenged that neoliberal thought. And I think this is important because a small country whose people had already risen against, risen against neoliberalism during the Caracazo in 1989, began experimenting with a different political and economic path. Because we started talking about sovereignty, about regional integration, about redistribution of wealth and eventually what it was named, socialism of the 21st century. So of course, at nine years old, you don’t understand fully, you cannot grasp the whole thing. But I understood something, that it was more tangible, right? Like whether there was food at home or if we could pay the bills, or if my family felt that things were getting slightly better. So that was for me, probably the first political education. Because I started to see politics not as an abstract thing that is just played in parliament or in government offices, but politics as everyday life is whether you can eat properly or if you can go to school or study, if you can have access to healthcare, whether if you have a future, basically. And there was this other experience that really changed the way I saw Latin America. And it was when I lived in Canada. I was there for two years, and being outside the region obviously made me see and understand, not for the first time, what it meant to be Latin American as a whole. I started noticing, for example, that the stories told about Venezuela were often repeated about the entire region. Different countries, different political processes, different cultures, but often the same stereotypes and generalizations about, our problems and our future. So, I realized that we don’t only have to struggle over our, resources or political power, we also have to struggle over who gets to tell our story. And that became very important in my journalism. So, I would say that through all those experiences, one question keeps coming back to me, right? Like, how much of what happens inside our countries is actually decided inside our countries and, by our people.

Annie: Thanks, Crismar. That was really interesting. You’re practicing journalism at a time that’s, you know, complicated, at a time when truth is being heavily contested and media, agendas are being shaped by corporate and financial power. So, you’re passionate, and I think that comes out, you know, very vividly when you talk about who owns narratives, who owns knowledge. Can you share an example of a Latin American story that looks entirely different when it’s told from within the region rather than it’s told from outside the region, say from, I don’t know, Washington, from London or elsewhere.

Crismar: I think one of the things that interested me the most is who gets to define economic success in the global South. We often hear the words of developing country, failed state, debt crisis. And these are no innocent terms. And I think the task has to ask who created these categories, right? Like, or what are we measuring and whose experiences are we leaving out? As you, ah, as you said, in Argentina right now in the present moment is a very good example of this because under Javier Milei we have seen a very radical program of fiscal adjustment, deregulation and massive cuts, to the role of the state and internationally, especially among financial institutions and markets, there has been a very positive narrative around it, right, like fiscal discipline, lower inflation, reforms, etc. And then you look at people’s lives and poverty initially went above 50% in the first half of the 2024. It later came down as inflation fell. But unemployment and economic insecurity remain as important issues nowadays. So, I think one of the main questions is not simply did Milei succeed or fail, but the question is successful for whom? When you look at inflation, you might tell one story, but when you look at the wages, at the jobs, at the public services, and at ah, whether families can afford the basics you might tell another. Obviously as a Venezuelan, I would say that that’s another important example because often the story begins with Hugo Chavez, ah, like in the last 20 years. But you cannot really understand Venezuela about understanding what came before him. And it starts with the neoliberal policies and economic restructuring back in the decades of the 80s and the 90s and with the social consequences they produce. Venezuela has always been an oil rich country, but back in that time that didn’t mean that Venezuelans were living well. there was an extremely high inequality. So, his government made a political decision to use a much larger share of the oil revenues for health care, for education, for food, for housing, for social programs. So poverty and inequality fell significantly, during the Chavez years. But we will see in the media how Venezuela was treated, right, like through a completely different vocabulary like dictatorship, failed state, irresponsible government, economic disaster. And then there is this question of the sanctions which added well, enormous pressure to an economy that was already suffering from a severe crisis. So, and this is where the media framing becomes really important. When Argentina for instance, implement policies that are welcomed by investors or by the centers of power, the IMF or international financial markets, you will hear all over the media this vocabulary of stabilization, of fiscal responsibility, restoring investor confidence. But when a government like Chavez, or like the Cuban back in the time that challenged the economic consensus and nationalizes resources, expands social expending and tries to redistribute health, you will then learn the vocabulary that sounds more like populism, instability, irresponsibility. And when that country is subsequently subjected to sanctions, those external constraints can become almost invisible in the explanation of its own economic crisis. This happened to Venezuela. You will hear about the economy failures without talking about what actually made them possible in the first place.

Maaza: Super interesting, Crismar I feel like we could have a whole podcast series just, just on that topic, and hopefully we will get to do that, someday. But Crismar, I wanted to ask you a little bit about the, you know, the pull towards the far right. So, across Latin America, like in many other parts of the world, we’ve been seeing these dramatic political swings and this rising pull towards the far right. So, I’m curious, with all of your experience, you know, not only across Latin America, but elsewhere, how do you explain this shift and what are like, its drivers, in the way you see it?

Crismar: Well, Maaza that’s, a very tough question because I like to be careful, right, like when explaining the rise of the far right simply as a sudden ideological shift to the right. Because I think that what we’re seeing across Latin America, but not only also in Europe, for instance, is this crisis of the social, the political conditions that make democracy meaningful to people. Many young people are also entering adulthood in conditions of extraordinary economic insecurity. They are working multiple jobs. Often, they are precarious. They do it through platforms without stable contracts or social, protections. Housing is increasingly unaffordable. So, people are economically precarious, but culturally they are constantly told that they should become the next millionaire or the next influencer or the next tech entrepreneur. And when that doesn’t happen, because it cannot happen in the state of the current economy, the frustration can easily be redirected towards other vulnerable groups rather than towards the structures that are producing that insecurity in the first place. And I believe that this is where the rise of the far right cannot be understood only as a shift in ideology. it is also a crisis of meaning, a crisis of political education, a crisis of collective imagination. The far right here has been particularly effective because they take, very real frustrations and gives them very simple enemies and meanings. And because if you can convince people that politics are meaningless, that institutions are useless and the collective action doesn’t work, and that, the only thing that matter is individual success, then democracy obviously itself become very fragile. And that’s what I think that the Brazilian election, for example, is interesting beyond whoever wins or loses, because it tells something about the political environment in which Latin Americans are making decisions, right? Like how this economic insecurity, social media, and the search for simple answers are reshaping also the concept of democracy. Because democracy, we know, is not only just voting for someone every four years. Or it should be the idea that, ordinary people have a legitimate role in deciding how society is organized and how wealth and power should be distributed. I don’t think this all is inevitable. I think young people are also at the forefront of struggles for climate justice, for labor rights, for feminism, for racial justice and democratic rights. So, the question for the progressive left is not only how to defeat the far right electorally. I think it’s important, obviously, but it’s not the only thing. It is whether we can build a political project that gives people something that the far right is very good at, offering a sense of belonging, a sense of purpose, and a sense of believable future.

Annie: Crismar you’ve been interested about the relationship between Latin America and the rest of the global South. How Latin America connects to the rest of the global South. What fundamentally changes when journalists, like you, researchers, social movements, etc., in Latin America build direct ties with their counterparts in Asia, in Africa and the Caribbean, and they do so by bypassing traditional Western gatekeepers?

Crismar: I think something fundamental changes and is that we stop seeing ourselves as isolated regions and start seeing ourselves as part of a political and historical whole. Because for a very long time the relationships between, let’s say, Latin America, Africa and the Caribbean has been mediated through the same centres of powers. So even when the story is about us, us, the interpretation of our stories comes from somewhere else. And this has clear consequences because it means that we don’t only have an economic dependency, we also have a dependency in the production of knowledge. We depend on institutions, on, media organizations or an academic centre, in the global north to tell us what is important, what is credible, who and what counts as an expertise and, and sometimes even that what our own problems mean and what the solutions should be, right? So, when journalists such as me, researchers or social movements from the global south establish this direct relationship with each other, this changes the equation because it allows us to compare experiences that often are treated as completely separate. So, we can see, for example, and this is a very concrete one, like how countries that were subjected to colonialism have dealt with similar questions around our same problems like depth and natural resources, extractivism, the economic dependency sanctions, the corporate power, and overall, obviously the struggle for sovereignty. So, we also discovered that we have knowledge that the dominant system has taught us to underestimate. Because there is this tendency to think that knowledge travels from, you know, north to South. So, the north produces the theory and then the south provides the cases. And we need to reverse that relationship. Because the south doesn’t only have experiences to be studied. It has theory, concept, political traditions and cultural traditions and solutions of its own. For journalism, I believe is very important this direct south, south connections that can change not only who tells the story, but what stories become possible as well in the first place. And obviously this doesn’t mean rejecting knowledge from the centres of powers of Europe or the United States. For me, it means to break the hierarchy, right? Like it means moving from a system in which some countries are considered producers or producers of universal knowledge and other ones are treated as objects of study. Overall, I believe it is the colonizing knowledge. That’s what it really means. It’s not about replacing one century with another. It’s about creating a world with many centres. Building direct connections across the global south is not only about networking as well. It’s about actually building political capacity, intellectual autonomy and a different balance of power.

Maaza: Crismar, I’m sure that many of our listeners, and actually me myself, I would really love your thoughts on this as a journalist and somebody who thinks about these questions deeply. How do you think those of us who are consuming media, can try and consume it more critically? It’s not only about being aware, but I, I’m so curious to hear from you what the alternatives are. Are you seeing any like, good practices of powerful authentic storytelling and journalism that you can share with us and our listeners?

Crismar: Absolutely Maaza, I think in the, the first step is to, to stop thinking of media as a simpler window of, onto reality because media, there are also filters. So, someone behind the information decides what becomes news and whose voice is included, what context is provided and obviously what is ah, left outside that frame. So, when I consume a piece of journalism or when I write one myself, I try to ask these simple questions, right? Like who is telling me this story? And more importantly who owns the institution producing it, right? Who is being quoted? who is not being quoted? What historical context as well is missing here? And whose interests are served by presenting the story in this particular way? There is a question we need to still ask is who owns the infrastructure through which we receive information? So, Oxfam January’s 2026 reports actually makes this very clear because seven of the world’s, 10 largest media and press companies have billionaire owners and billionaires also control the major social media platforms on which billions of people now consume information every day. So that means that the concentration of power isn’t only happening in traditional corporate media, is also happening or simultaneously, in newspapers and television, but also in the digital platforms that decide, well, what becomes, becomes visible and what gets amplified and what disappears from our attentions. So, that’s a very important distinction because obviously we often talk about media, bias, and if it were only, you know, simple as a journalist choosing one political position over another. But there is a deeper structural thing. Who owns the newsroom and the platform and who designs this algorithm. I believe that if a handful of extremely wealthy people have the capacity to influence both the production of news and the distribution of information, then we are not simply dealing with a problem of media bias. We’re dealing with a concentration of political and informational power. For me, authentic journalism is not a journalism without perspective. It’s a journalism that is transparent about its perspective, its aim, but with rigorous, with facts. We are very often told that journalism has to be neutral. But neutrality can also mean reproducing the perspective of the most powerful actor and presenting it as the objective view, right. So, for people trying to consume media more critically, I would say don’t look for one perfect source. First of all, you have to build a plural information diet. Let’s say it that way. If you’re reading about Latin America, read Latin American journalists. If you’re reading about Africa, look for African journalists and, researchers. No, compare, reports with international media. I would say read beyond the headline, look at primary sources and obviously pay attention not only to who grow the story, but who owns the institution and who control the platform through which you encounter this. So, I think we should support alternatives too, like independent media, community media, investigative journalism, transnational collaborators in the media ecosystems that allow journalists from the Global south to tell their own stories and reach, ah, well, these audiences directly. Because ultimately, well, media literacy is not only just about learning how to identify misinformation, it’s about learning how to recognize power. And once you start asking who gets to tell this story, who owns the infrastructure and who doesn’t get to speak, you start to consume, media very differently. One of the most important alternatives we can build is not simply better consumers of information, but citizens who also understands that they also have a role in shaping the information ecosystem around them. And hopefully, and eventually we can create in the Global south, our own, infrastructures in which we have the power to tell our own stories and talk about our own problems and solutions.

Maaza: Wonderful. Crismar And I know that’s, that’s all part of what you’re working on, and it’s so great to hear you and going in depth about this here. I’m happy to note that we are almost right at the, at the end of time. But Crismar is there anything that you were wishing that you could add today that you weren’t able to talk about in this conversation?

Crismar: Yeah, Maaza, I think to add as a, as the last thing, right? Like for me creating networks of journalist, researchers and social movements that can work together on a regular basis, right? Like sharing information, developing joint investigations, translating even like each other, each other’s work and producing content across languages. Creating these mechanisms for journalists in the Global south to reach audiences directly in other parts of the south is so crucial. We must take or put our hands on this task because it might define the next decade of what stories we share and we, what world we want to live in. Because this also make us think about technology itself, right? Like if our communication networks especially depend entirely on platforms and infrastructures controlled by a handful of corporations, especially located in the global north, then we don’t have political or intellectual outcome, autonomy or this one remains limited. So, we not only need networks of people but networks of infrastructure. And I think for this I’m very grateful to EQUALS for this opportunity to try to reach to a wider audience about what it means to work for an independent media ecosystems to try to have open knowledge, platform share resources, researchers as well and technological cooperation in this important task of ah, funding models that are sustainable and then don’t make every south project dependent on institutions in the global North.

Maaza: Wonderful. Thank you so much Crismar

(music)

Annie: That was such an interesting discussion. Maaza, is there anything that, stood out for you?

Maaza: Oh! I loved it all. I thought she was great. But what stood out the most to me was this conversation about getting news directly from other Global south regions and building collaborations across the Global South. That’s something that always comes to mind for me that often Africans are getting news about Latin America filtered through the Global north. And that’s something that I hope we can stop going forward. And I love that Crismar is focused on that.

Annie: Yes, definitely. Definitely. And especially now, knowing that, you know, billionaires are buying up all the mainstream news platforms. I think she inspires us and pushes us to look for alternative, independent media outlets that we can rely on, listen to people’s voices who aren’t normally heard and whose interests won’t be served by, you know, the mainstream news. So, I really encourage everyone, and I will do it myself, to support alternative, independent and community journalism.

Maaza: Absolutely.

Annie: Thanks for joining us today and I hope you join us for the next interview. Don’t forget to share with your friends, your family, and to follow us on social media. EQUALS podcast is available anywhere you download your podcasts.

Maaza: Bye, everyone.

Annie: Bye. See you next time.

(music)

Subscribe now

Crismar makes a strong case for direct collaborations for journalists and researchers from global south, to reclaim knowledge and amplify local perspectives. She encourages people to question who owns the media outlets they rely on, whose voices are heard and how this influences the narratives.

Tune in for a clear look at why who tells the story shapes what is heard and what it would take to change the narrative.

If you enjoy the episode, please like, share, comment, and leave us a review. Follow us on X @EQUALShope and on LinkedIn.

Tune in to our previous episode with Isabel Ortiz on public spending cuts and rising cost of living.

There was no call from the IMF, for example, for greater debt cancellation or suspension of debt payments, and no push for a fresh issuance of the IMF Special Drawing Rights, which would channel new funds to boost the reserves of all nations (both of which happened during Covid-19 and really helped). There was basically no help on offer from the IMF and rich countries for those nations hit hardest, other than ‘advice’ on how to cut and slash most effectively.

This week’s Bulletin looks at how IMF austerity is hitting the countries most vulnerable to the economic fallout of the US/Israel war against Iran.

Subscribe now

IMF required austerity…in numbers

Most IMF program countries face austerity. 28 countries have ongoing IMF loan programs; 24 of those are being required to implement austerity cuts.

Brutal cuts. In Ecuador and Guinea-Bissau, governments are being required to implement austerity measures equivalent to more than 4 % of GDP. By the end of Sierra Leone’s loan program, austerity measures will be five times its annual healthcare budget. Bolivia is being required to implement austerity worth 8.5% of GDP by 2029, about twice its annual healthcare budget.

Austerity for those most affected by war. Oxfam looked at the food, fuel and economic pressures before the war began, using indicators that might suggest their vulnerability to the fallout of the US/Israel war against Iran and compared these 24 countries with the rest of the world.

• Food insecurity. 51% of people were moderately or severely food insecure in countries facing IMF austerity, 1.8 times more than in the rest of the world.

• Access to clean cooking fuel. As a proxy for a fuel indicator (there’s extremely little data on fuel affordability), Oxfam found that 57% of people lacked access to clean fuels and technologies for cooking, around 2.4 times more than in the rest of the world.

• Debt burden. External debt service was around 1.5 times higher than in the rest of the world.

In the face of falling aid. Overseas development assistance from DAC donors (some of the largest providers of aid) to these countries fell by 22% in real terms between 2021 and 2024.

Leaving countries vulnerable. IMF-imposed austerity risks leaving these countries even less able to withstand the fallout from the war against Iran and future shocks. Past crises have shown that cutting public spending during economic downturns can deepen poverty and inequality and push more people into hunger.

Front-loaded. As we revealed in the last Bulletin, the IMF recommendation of “front-loaded fiscal adjustment” is a euphemism for returning to the dark days of shock therapy, brutally cutting away social protection.

Something to read and listen to

Read how Oxfam is suing the French state over tax inequality

Read what Sam Wollaston learnt about excessive wealth, extreme emissions – and ecocide at Europe’s big superyacht show, quoting Oxfam’s research from a few years ago.

Read Rise in poverty is ‘a wake-up call for the world’, UN development chief

Subscribe now

He said he wished that these services are provided by the private sector. Infact, he said that water and power supply should be privatized. He gave an example of Safaricom, a Telecommunication private company in Kenya. He described how this giant company has been able to connect most places in Kenya, even those in marginalized areas. For a moment I was conflicted. I am a big believer that some services like water, healthcare, and education should not be privatised. But at the same time, I understood his frustrations.

My landlord’s experience and frustration are nothing new to Kenyans. We have experienced first-hand what a poorly managed public sector looks like. From poor management where leadership is based less on competence and more on political connections, to economy of ‘kitu kidogo (little something in Swahili, our nickname for bribes)’ where you must pay someone to offer you services that they are actually paid to deliver. But it can also be lack of motivation, accountability, or any drive to improve how service delivery is done. These are not small problems, and I do not think defending public services means pretending that they do not exist.

My biggest question is, is privatisation the answer to public sector problems? This reminded me a piece that my colleague and friend Harry Bignell wrote about what happens when essential public services such as water, health and care become privatized. Her examples are a useful reminder that private ownership does not automatically solve the problems of public provision, it can actually sometimes introduce other sets of problems, particularly when the pressure to generate profits and shareholders’ benefits begins to compete with the need to provide a good service.

The case of privatisation has been based on two principles. One, that the private sector will provide services more efficiently. This is the principle that my landlord was leaning into when he was citing Safaricom. It is built on the backbone of that they have incentives to offer better services more efficiently to people because they are chasing profits. Which makes some sense, but equally the chasing of profits can lead to lots of cutting corners, which we have seen in the UK with the large-scale pollution of rivers by privatised water companies and failure to fix leaks in the system. The second principle is that privatisation will provide the much-needed fiscal relief for the government in two ways. One, through the proceeds of privatisation which involve selling public assets and second, because the government will not have to fund that sector which has been privatised. This second principle made privatisation quite popular with governments which are financially constrained around the world. In fact, though this is often a false economy, as governments still need to subsidise private providers, and pick up the pieces when they fail. As the World Bank notes, privatisation is not a remedy to weak institutions and lack of regulations. Private monopolies can also replace public ones and the public end up losing control over essential services and end up with poor service provision, higher costs, and poor quality.

This is where my own discomfort with privatising water comes from. Private companies must think about markets, profits and returns. Which can be a good thing in some sectors. But for essential services provision, these can create a conflict over who is served. They will invest in and prioritize sections and markets that are profitable and neglect others especially when these low paying markets need infrastructure investments. The public sector, on the other hand, if well delivered, is built on the principle of delivering quality services to everyone without excluding people based on their ability to pay. It is supposed to provide services because people need them, not necessarily because they are profitable.

Water and health make the conversation about privatisation quite complicated because these are things that you cannot choose to go without. You can choose to move from one telecommunication provider to another, but you cannot simply decide that you do not want water because the price is too high. When privatised, these essential services risk being treated more like products than basic rights while citizens who are entitled to those rights become mere customers.

I do not mean that public sector should be defended at all costs. I understand there is a small comfort that can come with telling someone water should be publicly owned when the public provider is irresponsible and unaccountable and needs to be chased, begged and bribed to do their work. Public ownership should come with public accountability, and when it fails to do so it becomes an injustice. If anything, the frustration I felt listening to my landlord has made me more convinced that the argument for public services must be an argument for public services that actually work.

End.

Author: Simon Maina is the EQUALS Podcast & Blog Project Manager and the producer of EQUALS and Sick Development podcasts.

Listen to our latest episode to understand how public spending cuts affect the majority of the population.

Subscribe now

In this episode, Isabel Ortiz, one of the world’s leading experts on austerity, examines how this has become a global norm, harming billions of ordinary people. She explains how policies presented as technical reforms are in fact deeply political, benefiting the rich, deepening inequality, shifting the burden onto ordinary people and fuelling growing public anger

.She explains how the IMF and national governments in drive austerity, why the claim that there is no alternative is a lie, and what other choices could look like. From taxing the rich and tackling illicit financial flows to restructuring debt and investing in essential public services, Ortiz suggests practical alternatives to policies that leave so many people paying the price.

Time to fight back against austerity!

If you enjoy the episode, please like, share, comment, and leave us a review. Follow us on X @EQUALShope and on LinkedIn.

Our latest Bulletin examines the IMF's growing demands for spending cuts and the shrinking safety nets meant to protect people from their impact.

What’s even more worrying is the IMF recommendation of “frontloaded fiscal adjustment”, a euphemism for returning to the dark days of shock therapy.

In this week’s Bulletin we look at new Oxfam analysis of IMF-required austerity cuts. In the next edition we’ll be looking at how those cuts are hitting the countries that are most vulnerable to the impacts of the war against Iran.

Subscribe now

IMF austerity is back…in numbers

Austerity is back. Oxfam analysed the requirements set out for the 54 countries with IMF programs between 2019-2025. It found that nearly 25 of them were required to cut public spending by more than 2 percent of GDP over the course of their program. This is a stark increase compared to 2012 and 2017 where one-third of countries were required to make cuts.

Deep spending cuts. The median annual IMF-required “budget-balance targets”, banker speak for austerity cuts, increased from 0.21 percent of GDP between 2012 and 2017 to 0.85 percent of GDP between 2018 and 2025, a four-fold increase.

Shock-therapy is back. There are huge fears among civil society that what the IMF call “frontloaded fiscal adjustment”, banker speak for massive spending cuts imposed all at once, could be step back towards the dark era shock therapy.

Already low public spending. Low-income countries spend on average 0.8 percent of GDP on social protection, while spending on education remains below 4 percent of GDP.

Cutting away the safety net. The IMF has typically relied on “social spending floors”, banker speak for a spending safety net against their austerity. While more programs now include these floors, the protection they offer is shrinking. The median IMF-required social spending floor fell from 25 percent of current spending between 2012 and 2017, to 11 percent between 2018 and 2025.

Enough wealth to go around. In light of this, McKinsey’s latest global balance sheet of the world’s wealth is jarring. The world’s wealth stood at $1.8 quadrillion (that’s the one after a trillion) in 2025, up from $1.7 quadrillion in 2024. Global household wealth growth rose to a new high of $570 trillion, most of which is held in shares of corporations, which in turn are mostly held by the very richest in society.

Give me hope! Youth led ‘Gen-Z’ protests continue to sweep the world demanding better funding for health and education. Battles for progressive wealth taxes, like those being fought in California, are more important than ever.

Something to read/listen to/attend

Watch this amazing short film on Al Jazeera ‘The Meeting That Terrified The Superpowers’ on the Bandung conference of 1955, and why it matters today in the fight against inequality and in our world of geopolitical rupture.

Read Stiglitz making the case for the International Panel on Inequality

Watch the Walrus Talk on the Billionaire Problem.

Attend this event on austerity at the IMF next week (online available)

Subscribe now

90 years ago, in East London, fascists mobilised to march through a very poor Jewish area. At Cable Street, tens of thousands of people from different communities stood together and refused to let them pass. This confrontation is today known as the Battle of Cable Street.

At the same time, the Republicans were fighting against the fascists in the Spanish Civil War, and many young people from Cable Street went on to fight in Spain.

This week, historian David Rosenberg and campaigner Dolores Long, whose father fought in Spain, explore what made that antifascist resistance possible. They join Max Lawson and Maaza Seyoum to connect Cable Street and the fight against fascism in Spain to what is taking place today all over the world, with the rise of far-right politics and increased racism, especially towards migrants.

Together they examine how far right movements attract support across social classes and reflect on the need for solidarity across communities and the importance of working-class history and political education.

If you enjoy the episode, please like, share, comment, and leave us a review. Follow us on X @EQUALShope and on LinkedIn.

This is our second episode of the new season. Listen to our first episode with Branko Milanović on the changing global economic order.

Money earned from work versus money earned from wealth

In economics, there are two primary sources of income: money earned from work, known as labour income, and returns on savings, known as capital income. Together, labour and capital make up the total income of a nation.

Throughout the 20^th century, the traditional understanding in economics was that this would be broadly split, with 75% of income going to labour, and 25% to capital. This 75:25 split was taken to be what economists call a ‘stylised fact’ (which always makes me think of a very well-dressed fact). This is their way of talking about a kind of a priori law or rule; one that they maintain holds true across all economies. This one was called ‘Bowley’s law’ and was a staple of economics textbooks.

Earning money from savings and capital is in some ways everyone’s dream – literally, too, as it was immortalised by billionaire Warren Buffet’s famous warning: ‘If you don’t find a way to make money while you sleep, you will work until you die.

In recent years, there has been an absolute explosion in private wealth and capital - it is one of the defining economic developments of the last twenty years. Understanding who is actually making money from that capital has never been more important. So today, who is making money while they sleep?

Who actually receives income from wealth?

To answer that, a recent paper by Branko Milanovic and Marco Ranaldi, published by the London School of Economics (LSE), is absolutely vital reading. It draws on the incredible database of the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS), covering 43 countries and 4.6 billion people, spanning countries where virtually all global wealth is concentrated. They then use this as the basis to calculate global figures.

Milanovic and Ranaldi calculate two things: what proportion of the global population receives $100 or more a year in cash income from capital, and how that income from capital is divided up between them.

Their findings are dramatic. For most countries, especially in the Global South, the proportion of the population receiving zero income from capital is very high. For example, in Mexico it is 97%, and in South Africa 95%. In rich countries it is lower, but there is a lot of variation, too. In the UK it is 74% and in France it is 48%. This variation is due mostly to how widely spread and generous pension schemes are, because for the vast majority of people who do receive income from capital, it comes from their pension.

Overall, globally, the authors conclude that 88% of people receive zero income from capital.

How is income from wealth distributed between those who do get some?

They then look at how income is distributed among the 12% of humanity that does get more than $100 dollars a year in income from capital. The ‘good’ news they describe is that this has become progressively more equal, largely due to the impact of wealth growth in China. They calculate that the Gini coefficient of income from capital has fallen from 0.97 in 2000 to 0.94 in 2020.

Now, when you work on inequality, you see a lot of Gini coefficients - with 0 as perfect equality, and 1 as perfect inequality. The most unequal countries in the world have Gini coefficients of around 0.6. You very rarely see Gini coefficients of 0.9 or above- that is pretty close to total inequality. This gives you some idea of just how unequally divided incomes from capital are, and whilst a fall from 0.97 to 0.94 over 20 years is indeed a good thing, it still leaves an insane level of inequality. In contrast, the ILO calculates the Gini coefficient for income from work as around 0.57 - still high, and much higher that it was or should be - but far lower.

This means that even in those countries like France or the US where the proportion of people getting something in terms of income from capital is higher than in other countries, the distribution of that income is still extremely unequal- much more unequal than incomes from work.

Capital’s slice of the economic pie grows ever bigger

This also matters increasingly because income from capital has become a larger and larger slice of total national income. The latest estimates from the ILO show that the capital share has risen to 47.4%, or nearly half of total national income. This is up from around 39% in 1980. So much for that stylised fact in the economics textbooks.

AI may supercharge this process, favouring capital over labour

It is also likely that unless things change, this trend will both continue and be potentially accelerated by AI and automation. Buried in the recent Annual Economic Report by the Bank of International Settlements was this rather scary graph:

It projects under one scenario that AI could reduce the labour share of income to 20% - which without a total transformation in ownership and the economy would be catastrophic for almost everyone on earth, given that we know 88% of people only get income from work.

In the other scenario, what the Bank euphemistically calls the ‘demand bottleneck’, the labour share falls to 40%. What this means is that people are so impoverished by unemployment and poor pay due to automation that they can no longer buy the products that AI is producing, so ‘demand’ would decline sharply, which in turn they believe would inhibit the further ‘supply’ of AI.

Beating organised money with organised people.

So, what can be done to stop this? The good news is we are not short of policy solutions - I can think of three big ones.

The first is to ensure that the labour share of income does not continue to fall but rises - and here the power of trade unions and organised labour is critical. Much more money needs to go into paying people living wages rather than into profits, and the way to do this is for unions and workers to become more powerful.

The second is we need to stop jobs being automated away - just because a robot can drive your delivery van or care for your elderly mother does not mean it should. This requires democratic and not oligarchic control and ownership of new technology to ensure its deployment for the benefit of all.

The third is to dramatically increase the taxation of wealth and income from capital, and ensure that revenue is distributed fairly and widely, either through direct cash payments or through universal public services like health, education, transportation and energy.

None of this is easy, though, because the owners of capital are very powerful, and very influential. The central thing that has beaten them historically, short of revolution, is workers power translated into organised people’s movements and progressive parties that were able to rebalance the scales in favour of ordinary people. Or as the philosopher Cornell West more pithily put it: ‘The only countervailing force against organized money at the top, is organized people at the bottom.’

(this blog was inspired by the first interview of our new EQUALS podcast season, with Branko Milanovic- who is one of the most interesting thinkers in the world. Do have a listen it was an a great conversation, ranging from the Soviet Union to AI to his ideas on how neoliberalism is dead globally but alive and well nationally.)

Share

END

Author: Max Lawson, Head of Inequality Policy at Oxfam International and EQUALS podcast co-host. He is also a visiting Professor in Practice at the LSE International Inequalities Institute and the co-chair of the Global People’s Medicines Alliance.

Five years ago, as the Covid-19 pandemic was wreaking havoc over the global economy, the international community made the right decision to allocate $650 billion-worth of Special Drawing Rights (SDRs), an asset that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) can create to increase liquidity in the global financial system.

Subscribe now

An ex-post evaluation found it to be an unmitigated success. It helped stabilize the global economy and decreased borrowing costs in the Global South. Some countries spent them on medical supplies needed to tackle the pandemic or on emergency social protection programs for their citizens. In Zambia, for instance, the pension budget increased by 100% in 2022, the medical drugs and supplies budget by 54%, and the cash transfer programme budget by 124%. SDRs did not cause inflation, nor incentivize widespread economic mismanagement as some had feared.

The IMF’s statutes mandate its management to make a recommendation about allocating SDRs, or not, every five years. It must consider both political (i.e., consensus within the IMF board) and economic factors (i.e., the projected need for reserve assets). The time has come. A number of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) called for a new allocation.

IMF management released their analysis… and it is a big disappointment.

In fact, the report reads like an afterthought, like IMF management had forgotten about it and cobbled something together at the last minute. It stands in sharp contrast to the thoughtful analyses made in 2009 (special allocation following the global financial crisis), 2011, 2016, and 2021. Indeed, there are only three useful sentences in its six pages.

First, the IMF makes the point that reserve assets in the Global South have grown by 21% since the last allocation. That is irrelevant: what matters is not the past, but the future long-term needs for reserve assets, which previous reports did estimate and this one fails to.

Second, the IMF argues that SDRs represent a higher share of global reserves than the historical average. That is not a reason not to allocate more of them. There is no official target for the proportion of global reserves that should take the form of SDRs. Both the historical average (around 2.5%) and the current level (about 5%, and going down) are very low.

There is a strong case to rely much more on SDRs: compared to the accumulation of foreign exchange through current account surpluses or external borrowing, SDRs are cost-free, more stable in value, provide unconditional access to liquidity with no roll-over risks, and do not cause balance of payments imbalances. While the IMF provides data showing that the Global South can access liquidity at this time by borrowing on international financial markets, it fails to consider the cost. Many countries are honouring their debt while defaulting on development. The IMF should allocate about $200 billion-worth of SDRs annually to the Global South alone (since reserve currency-issuing countries don’t need them).

The IMF’s third point is that the current war on Iran is not a great argument for a new allocation at this time because it creates both winners and losers and its length is uncertain. The report ends with teasing the possibility of a special allocation before the next five-year review if the global economic situation worsened.

On the political front, the IMF is plainly right that there is insufficient support within its board for a new allocation at this time. The United States has previously opposed new allocations, and can alone block it. But support has ebbed among Europeans, too. Concerns over inflation and moral hazard remain alive among European central bankers: if SDRs were allocated in excessive quantity and spent, they could cause global inflation and incentivize macroeconomic mismanagement.

CSOs must maintain pressure. The best way to promote SDRs is to advocate for them on their own terms. Although SDRs can be spent in any way, they are not meant to be a money tree. Their purpose is to be saved, and spent only to relieve temporary balance of payment shortfalls. That still makes them incredibly useful. They do contribute to development and the climate transition indirectly. They help stabilize economies, which lowers risk and hence borrowing costs. They also make it less likely that governments will be forced into austerity measures like spending cuts when an external economic shock hits, which can free up government resources to fight inequality and climate breakdown. In short, they are a very valuable tool for the world, and one that the IMF should take more seriously.

Share

Author: Didier Jacobs is the Development Finance Policy and Research Advisor at Oxfam International.

Listen to our latest episode with on his latest book The Great Global Transformation.

This week saw dramatic progress towards the establishment of a new International Panel on Inequality (IPI). The idea of this panel came out of the G20 in South Africa, and the report prepared for that summit by an Extraordinary Committee led by Professor Joseph Stiglitz. The IPI would do for the inequality crisis what the IPCC does for the climate crisis- build strong scientific consensus on the scale of the problem, its drivers, its consequences and its solutions.

Subscribe now

The Fantastic Four

Since then, the governments of South Africa, Brazil, Spain and Norway have joined the original Extraordinary Committee members to lead the fight for this panel. Their leaders: Lula, Sanchez, Ramaphosa and Store all very strongly personally committed to making it a reality. This has gathered momentum all year and took a big step forward in the last few weeks and at the UNGA annual leaders meeting this week in New York.

Academics all agree

Now that is not a sentence you often read. Yet it does seem that academics from all disciplines agree on the scale and dangers of the inequality crisis and support the urgent establishment of the IPI. Last week over 1500 academics from over 100 countries signed a strong letter in support of the IPI. Academics got together to send their own national letters too in many countries including the UK, Chile, Germany, France and Sri Lanka. Some really famous people signed too- there can’t be many open letters signed by both Jason Hickel and Janet Yellen- that is what you call cross-party support.

Boosted by the BRICS

At the BRICS summit in the second week of September, the inequality crisis was put firmly on the agenda by Brazil and South Africa and figured in the communique: ‘We take note of ongoing high-level discussions on global inequality and we recognize that inequality within and among countries is at the root of most challenges... Expressing our resolve to act in a collective manner and take concrete steps to tackle inequality, we take note of the proposal of South Africa and Brazil to establish an international panel on inequality.’

Former Leaders also in Favour

Last week too thirty-eight former heads of state and government from the Club de Madrid published an open letter in September 2026 urging world leaders to establish the Panel- including Germany’s Olaf Scholz, Ireland’s Leo Varadkar, Nigeria’s Olusegun Obasanjo, Malawi’s Joyce Banda and New Zealand’s Helen Clark.

Current Leaders Concur

All of this was building up to a High-Level event at the UNGA meetings in New York yesterday, Wednesday 21^st of September. All UN member states were invited by the four founding governments to show their support for the establishment of an International Panel on Inequality. The event saw many do this. The Prime Minister of Barbados, Mia Mottley gave a passionate speech in support, saying: ‘Greed is man-made, and therefore, if it is man-made, it can be unman-made’. She was joined by many other countries including Germany, Japan, Bangladesh, Uruguay and Mexico in getting behind the IPI.

Following this High Level event a big public meeting is being held today in New York with over 200 civil society activists in support of the panel, to plan the next phase of the campaign.

Seeking rapid resolution

The next steps are to continue to build the Panel, which will be under the United Nations University, and simultaneously work to build wide support for the IPI from UN member states for a resolution to be passed by the UN General Assembly. This resolution will give the Panel a strong mandate to produce analysis and evidence for all governments and policy makers, to help them take the actions needed to end the inequality crisis.

Some hope when it is in short supply

This will clearly not be an easy thing to achieve in today’s fractious and fearful multilateral system. The UN itself is under attack, and it is understandably hard to get nations to look beyond their national interest in a world of bullies and belligerents. Nevertheless, this week the International Panel on Inequality came significantly closer to becoming a reality- a glimmer of hope and cooperation in a very dark world.

ENDS

Share

EQUALS podcast is back! Season 9 kicks off with exploring one big question: Is neoliberalism dead? Listen now.

And we’re starting with a massive question: Is neoliberalism dead?

To answer it, we are thrilled to welcome back one of the world’s greatest economists on inequality and globalization, , to discuss his ground-breaking latest book, The Great Global Transformation.

In this season premiere, we pull back the curtain on:

The Changing Global Economic Order: Why the old-world order is giving way to a new doctrine of “national market liberalism,” blending market economics with far-right nationalism.

The Extraordinary Concentration of Capital and Income: The shocking underlying data showing how cash income from property is hyper-concentrated in the hands of the few.

The Rise of a New Global Elite (Homopluteia): A look at the unique, workaholic class who are simultaneously rich through capital and highly paid through their labor—and how their strict view on meritocracy shapes modern inequality.

The Hidden Link to International Conflicts: How extreme inequality historically pushes powerful countries toward zero-sum geopolitics and imperial expansion.

We also dive into how artificial intelligence is poised to drastically pivot income inequality, why the economic ideology of the 1990s managed to disguise itself as mere “common sense”, and Branko’s thoughts on establishing an International Panel on Inequality.

If you enjoy the episode, please like, share, comment, and leave us a review. Follow us on X @EQUALShope and on LinkedIn.

This is Branko’s second appearance on EQUALS. If you missed his first incredible insights, listen to the previous episode here.

Brank is also the author behind the Substack publication

Private jets typify the callous indifference of the super-rich who profit from destroying the planet, then jet off to air-conditioned mansions to hide from the consequences.

Our friends at Inequality.org and the Institute for Policy Studies have given us access to a new tool that tracks private jets. As this week’s Bulletin reveals, climate disasters haven’t held rich polluters back.

Subscribe now

Private jets in numbers

Plane awful. So far in 2026, there have been almost 2 million private jet flights, 8,906 on average per day. Emissions from these jets total 9.4 million tonnes of CO2, that’s more than the average annual emissions of 2 million people.

Or, if you prefer your stat in cow form…it’s equivalent to the belching and farting of 5.4 million cows.

Short haul. 22% of the flights travelled less than 300 km, 1 in 14 flights were less than 30 minutes. Have these people not heard of a train or a bus?

There’s been almost 3,000 London/Paris flights so far this year (13 per day), a journey that takes just over 2 hours on the Eurostar. 858 flights have done the Madrid/Barcelona trip which is just 2 ½ hours by rail.

Taking off. 2026 follows the ever-growing trend of private jets. Compared to 2025, there have been 6% more flights and emissions have increased by 7%. On a totally different note, the world is set to cross 1.5°C global warming within a few years.

A carry-on summer. You’d think that the wildfires in Europe, especially around Madrid and Bordeaux, would be a visceral deterrent for billionaire climate vandals. Yeah right!

Private jet departures around Madrid during the fires (July and August) increased by 12% compared to last year.

President Emmanuel Macron described France’s wildfires as the toughest situation the country has faced since World War II. That didn’t stop private jets during their summer. While the total departures from Bordeaux were down by a quarter compared to 2025, overall private jet flights increased in France by 4%.

Coolcation. England and Wales faced back-to-back heatwaves, so tourists have been heading to Scotland for a ‘coolcation’ – private jets arriving in Scotland from England were up by 16% in June and July compared to the same period last year. Global flights into Iceland were up by 19%.

Fear not, there’s a better solution, the rich are now building snow rooms for their mansions.

Having a ball. During the World Cup, the team at Private Jet Accountability Project tracked the increase in private jets around games. They found that over 90,000 private jets flew in and out of World Cup host cities.

In a flap. It’s fair to say billionaires don’t like it when they’re held to account. In the US, private jet owners can now anonymise their registration information, a longstanding demand of the wealthy elite. Bernard Arnault, CEO of the LVMH luxury goods company, sold his private jet to avoid being tracked. He said, ‘the result now is that no one can see where I go because I rent planes when I use private planes’.

They also probably don’t appreciate the successful campaigning efforts by colleagues at Oxfam Scotland, where the government has now committed to introduce a Private Jet Tax from April 2028. In 2024, the UK government increased air passenger duty by 50% for private jet users following pressure from civil society, including Oxfam.

Many thanks to the team at the Institute for Policy Studies and Private Jet Accountability Project for access to their fantastic database so that we could do this analysis.

Something to read/listen to

Read this article in the Lancet that finds that implementing wealth redistribution policies could mitigate the health impact of the current Official Development Assistance (ODA) defunding crisis.

Meet the 2026 Ig Nobel Prize winners who amassed evidence that upper-class people are more likely to steal candy from a child…and other kinds of unethical behaviour.

Read this article in DW on how climate change and food insecurity could fuel more conflicts.

Note on methodology

The code for the private jet tracker is available on Github. We used the private jet emissions trackers’ EUROCONTROL Fast Model using CO2e tank-to-wake only which is direct fuel combustion, for the date range 1 January 00:00 UTC to 13 August 00:59 UTC (unless states). The distances were calculated by using the great circle between the take-off and landing airport coordinates rather than the route actually flown. Global average CO2 emissions are 4.73 tonnes CO2. We assume 1.75 tonnes CO2e/cow/year.

I hope this finds you well.

Please see below an email sent yesterday from Joe Stiglitz asking academics worldwide to show their support for the establishment of an International Panel on Inequality- through signing the open letter and other potential actions. Please sign the letter and pass the email on to your networks. We have a real chance of securing and IPI in the next few months which is very exciting.

(French, Spanish and Arabic translations below)

Dear Friends,

We need your help to get a new International Panel on Inequality at the United Nations.

I am writing you to ask for your support. We share a deep concern about the scale and trends in global inequality. High inequality represents a crisis that undermines all aspects of human endeavor and indeed the future of our planet.

Last year, I was privileged to chair the Extraordinary Committee on Inequality commissioned by the Government of South Africa as part of their presidency of the G20. A main recommendation was to establish an International Panel on Inequality (IPI) at the United Nations to address the global inequality crisis.

This panel would play a similar role to the IPCC in tackling the climate crisis; bringing together the important work of academics to develop a strong and clear consensus on the scale of the inequality crisis, its drivers, its consequences and the potential policies that can be put in place to reduce inequality to safe levels.

The good news is that our recommendation was enthusiastically taken up by the governments of South Africa, Brazil, Spain and Norway, and also fully supported by the UN Secretary-General. We have spent the first half of this year working with the four governments to sketch out the design of this panel, its work program, where it will sit in the UN system, its potential composition, and when, to whom, and how it will report.

Many of you have been involved at various times in supporting this, whether by attending meetings or consultations, signing supportive letters or helping speak in favor of it to policymakers and the media. Thank you. It has already made a big difference.

The next key milestone is an UNGA High-Level Leaders’ Event in New York in support of an IPI on September 23rd at 10:30 a.m., with the Secretary-General and the leaders of the four governments. We need as many world leaders to attend as possible.

A Save the Date has gone out to all World Leaders from the South African government on behalf of the four founding governments. Your government will have received this through their New York mission. An invitation letter from the leaders of the four governments will follow early next week. All world leaders have been invited to attend, and in addition have been asked to consider endorsing a short vision statement and concept note in support of the IPI, which they have also received through their New York mission, from the South African government.

We now ask for your help to ensure that as many leaders as possible do three things:

1. Attend the High-Level Leaders event on September 23rd,

2. Sign the vision statement for an IPI and

3. Join the coalition of governments supporting the urgent establishment of an IPI.

We have one month to do this. We would be extremely grateful if you could help make this happen.

There are some key steps you could take to show your support.

First, if you would sign up to, and share, this open letter (also copied below) in support of the IPI, which will be sent to all member states calling on them to attend the High-Level event and support the vision statement. By clicking on this link you can sign up very quickly and easily, and please share this email and open letter within your academic networks and encourage others to sign.

Second, if you could help by mobilizing at the national level, using what contacts you have with your political leadership to support this initiative, and using whatever private and public channels you have access to, we would be grateful. To give one example, an open letter was sent by over 40 leading academics to the new UK Prime Minister to encourage him to attend the UN meeting and support the IPI initiative, and was on the front page of the Guardian. It would be wonderful to have similar letters and opinion pieces in the media in countries all over the world to signal global support.

If you need more information on any of this or any additional support, please contact us at anthony@inequalitycommittee.com.

We have the chance to secure a victory in the fight against inequality and to provide governments with the scientific knowledge to take concrete action and suggest effective and efficient tools and policies. Please do all you can to express your public and private support. Thank you so much.

Sincerely,

Joe.

sign the letter here

An International Panel on Inequality | Academics Letter to World Leaders

Dear World Leaders,

We write to you as academics and inequality experts from XX countries to call for your support for the creation of an International Panel on Inequality, an independent, scientific body tasked with assessing the state of knowledge on inequality, with an uncompromising commitment to academic rigor, independence and credibility. Inspired by the role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an IPI would stand in a strong tradition of scientific bodies that have contributed to policymaking in crucial areas through rigorous presentation of evidence and analysis.

The establishment of an International Panel on Inequality was the primary recommendation of last year’s G20 report on inequality, written by a group of inequality experts chaired by Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz at the request of President Ramaphosa during South Africa’s chairing of the G20. This proposal has received widespread international support, including that of the UN Secretary-General, and the Governments of South Africa, Brazil, Norway and Spain have been working with the academic experts on the committee towards the founding of the IPI.

High levels of inequality within and between countries drive many of the economic, political, societal and environmental challenges we face today, leading many to conclude that we have an inequality crisis just as we have a climate crisis.

As experts from a wide range of disciplines, including economists, political scientists, climate scientists, sociologists, epidemiologists, anthropologists, historians, geographers and philosophers, we all recognise that inequality touches every aspect of human life and progress. We are profoundly concerned that extreme concentrations of income and wealth translate into undemocratic concentrations of power, unravelling trust in our societies and polarising our politics.

We believe too that inequality is a policy choice and can be reversed. To address these extreme concentrations of wealth and income requires a shared scientific consensus on inequality. An International Panel on Inequality would help the world to create such a consensus. It would provide the knowledge basis for addressing the inequality crisis in the most effective way.

There are three ways you can show your support.

South Africa, on behalf of the four founding governments, has invited you to attend a key High-Level Leaders’ Event on the morning of the 23rd September with the UN Secretary- General. We urge you to attend this High-Level Leaders’ event on 23rd September, to express your support for the creation of an International Panel on Inequality.

We also call on you to support the vision statement for an IPI, also circulated to you by the South Africa on behalf of the four governments.

Finally, we urge you to agree join them in a growing coalition of governments in support of establishing this panel as soon as possible.

We believe that the establishment of an IPI is in the interests of all policymakers and leaders who recognise the importance of this issue and understand the need to base our international response on sound data, evidence and analysis, wherever they are on the political spectrum. It would be a vital first step towards building a more just and equal world.

Yours,

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Queridos Amigos,

Me dirijo a usted para solicitar su apoyo. Compartimos una profunda preocupación por la magnitud y la tendencia de la desigualdad global. La elevada desigualdad representa una crisis que socava todos los aspectos de la actividad humana y, de hecho, el futuro de nuestro planeta.

El año pasado, tuve el privilegio de presidir la Comisión Extraordinaria sobre la Desigualdad, creada por encargo del Gobierno de Sudáfrica en el marco de su presidencia del G-20. Una de las principales recomendaciones fue crear en la ONU un Panel Internacional sobre la Desigualdad (IPI) para poder hacer frente a la crisis global de desigualdad.

Este panel desempeñaría un papel similar al que ha desempeñado el Grupo Intergubernamental de Expertos sobre el Cambio Climático (IPCC) a la hora de abordar la crisis climática: reunir el importante trabajo de los y las académicas para desarrollar un consenso sólido y claro sobre la magnitud de la crisis de la desigualdad, sus factores impulsores, sus consecuencias y las posibles políticas que pueden ponerse en marcha para reducir la desigualdad a niveles seguros.

La buena noticia es que nuestra recomendación fue acogida con entusiasmo por los gobiernos de Sudáfrica, Brasil, España y Noruega, y también recibió el pleno apoyo del Secretario General de la ONU. Hemos dedicado la primera mitad de este año a trabajar con los cuatro gobiernos para esbozar el diseño de este panel, su programa de trabajo, su ubicación dentro del sistema de la ONU, su posible composición, y cuándo, a quién y cómo rendirá cuentas.

Muchos de ustedes han participado en distintos momentos para apoyar este proceso, ya sea a través de sus investigaciones, asistiendo a reuniones o consultas, firmando cartas de apoyo o ayudando a defender la causa ante los responsables políticos y los medios de comunicación. Gracias; estas acciones ya han marcado una gran diferencia.

El próximo hito clave será un evento de alto nivel de líderes, que se celebrará en Nueva York en el marco de la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas, en apoyo al Panel Internacional sobre Desigualdad (IPI), el 23 de septiembre a las 10:30 a. m., coorganizado por el Secretario General y los líderes de los cuatro gobiernos.

El Gobierno sudafricano, en nombre de los cuatro gobiernos fundadores, ha enviado una invitación para que se reserve la fecha a todos los líderes mundiales. Su gobierno la habrá recibido a través de su misión en Nueva York. Se ha invitado a todos los líderes mundiales a asistir y, además, se les ha pedido que consideren la posibilidad de respaldar una breve declaración de visión y una nota conceptual en apoyo de la IPI, que también han recibido a través de su misión en Nueva York por parte del Gobierno sudafricano.

Ahora solicitamos su ayuda para garantizar que el mayor número posible de líderes hagan tres cosas:

1. Asistir al acto de alto nivel que se celebrará el 23 de septiembre

2. Firmar la declaración de visión para un IPI y

3. Unirse a la coalición de gobiernos que apoyan la creación urgente de un IPI.

Tenemos un mes para hacerlo. Por favor, considere dedicar un tiempo a hacer lo que pueda para que esto sea posible. Hay algunas medidas clave que podría tomar para mostrar su apoyo.

En primer lugar, le agradeceríamos que firmara y compartiera esta carta abierta en apoyo del IPI, que se enviará a todos los Estados miembros instándoles a asistir al evento de alto nivel y a respaldar la declaración de visión.

En segundo lugar, le agradeceríamos que ayudara a movilizar a la opinión pública a nivel nacional, utilizando los contactos que tenga con sus líderes políticos para respaldar esta iniciativa, así como cualquier canal público o privado al que tenga acceso para lograrlo. Por poner un ejemplo, más de 40 destacados académicos/as enviaron una carta abierta al nuevo primer ministro del Reino Unido para animarle a asistir a la reunión de la ONU y apoyar la iniciativa del IPI, y apareció en la portada de The Guardian. Sería estupendo contar con cartas y artículos de opinión similares en los medios de comunicación de países de todo el mundo para demostrar un apoyo global.

Si necesitas más información sobre cualquiera de estos temas o necesitas ayuda adicional, no dudes en ponerte en contacto con nosotros; puedes enviarnos un correo electrónico a ati@inequalitycommittee.com.

Tenemos la oportunidad de lograr una victoria en la lucha contra la desigualdad y para proporcionar a los gobiernos los conocimientos científicos para actuar de forma concreta y les sugieran herramientas y políticas eficaces y eficientes. Por favor, haz todo lo que puedas para expresar tu apoyo, tanto en público como en privado.

Atentamente,

Joe

Un panel internacional sobre la desigualdad | Carta de académicos a los líderes mundiales

Estimados líderes mundiales:

Les escribimos en calidad de académicos y expertos en desigualdad de XX países para solicitar su apoyo a la creación de un Panel Internacional sobre la Desigualdad, un organismo científico independiente encargado de evaluar el estado de los conocimientos sobre la desigualdad, con un compromiso inquebrantable con el rigor académico, la independencia y la credibilidad. Inspirándose en el papel del Grupo Intergubernamental de Expertos sobre el Cambio Climático (IPCC), un Panel Internacional sobre la Desigualdad (IPI) se inscribiría en una sólida tradición de organismos científicos que han contribuido a la formulación de políticas en ámbitos cruciales mediante la presentación rigurosa de pruebas y análisis.

La creación de un Panel Internacional sobre la Desigualdad fue la recomendación principal del informe del G20 del año pasado sobre la desigualdad, redactado por un grupo de expertos presidido por el economista y premio Nobel Joseph Stiglitz, a petición del presidente Ramaphosa durante la presidencia sudafricana del G20. Esta propuesta ha recibido un amplio apoyo internacional, incluido el del Secretario General de las Naciones Unidas, y los gobiernos de Sudáfrica, Brasil, Noruega y España los cuáles han estado colaborando con los expertos académicos del comité para la fundación del IPI.

Los elevados niveles de desigualdad dentro y entre los países son la causa de muchos de los retos económicos, políticos, sociales y medioambientales a los que nos enfrentamos hoy en día, lo que lleva a muchos de nosotros a concluir que nos encontramos ante una crisis de desigualdad, al igual que nos encontramos ante una crisis climática.

Como expertos de una amplia gama de disciplinas —entre los que se incluyen economistas, politólogos, climatólogos, sociólogos, epidemiólogos, antropólogos, historiadores, geógrafos y filósofos—reconocemos que la desigualdad afecta a todos los aspectos de la vida y el progreso humano. Nos preocupa profundamente que la concentració extrema de ingresos y riqueza se traduzca en una concentración antidemocrática de poder, que socave la confianza en nuestras sociedades y polarize nuestra política.

Creemos también que estos altos niveles de desigualdad son el resultado de decisiones políticas que pueden revertirse. Para hacer frente a esta concentración extrema de riqueza e ingresos se requiere un consenso científico compartido sobre la desigualdad. Un Panel Internacional sobre la Desigualdad ayudaría al mundo a crear dicho consenso. Proporcionaría la base de conocimientos necesaria para abordar la crisis de la desigualdad de la manera más eficaz.

Hay tres formas en las que pueden mostrar su apoyo.

Sudáfrica, en nombre de los cuatro gobiernos fundadores, le ha invitado a asistir a un importante acto de alto nivel para líderes que tendrá lugar el 23 de septiembre por la mañanacon el Secretario General de las Naciones Unidas. Le instamos a que asista a este acto de alto nivel para líderes el 23 de septiembre, para expresar su apoyo a la creación de un Panel Internacional sobre la Desigualdad.

Asimismo, les instamos a que respalden la declaración de visión para un IPI, que también les ha sido remitida por Sudáfrica en nombre de los cuatro gobiernos.

Por último, le instamos a que se sume a la creciente coalición de gobiernos que apoyan la creación de este panel lo antes posible.

Creemos que la creación de un IPI redunda en beneficio de todos los responsables políticos y líderes que reconocen la importancia de esta cuestión y comprenden la necesidad de basar nuestra respuesta internacional en datos, pruebas y análisis sólidos, independientemente de su posición en el espectro político. Sería un primer paso fundamental para construir un mundo más justo e igualitario.

Atentamente,

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chers Amis,

Je vous écris pour solliciter votre soutien. Nous partageons une vive inquiétude face à l’ampleur et aux tendances actuelles des inégalités dans le monde, dont les niveaux élevés constituent une crise fragilisant l’ensemble des activités humaines ainsi que l’avenir même de notre planète.

L’an dernier, j’ai eu le privilège de présider le Comité extraordinaire sur les inégalités, mandaté par le gouvernement d’Afrique du Sud dans le cadre de sa présidence du G20. L’une de ses principales recommandations proposait la création, au sein des Nations Unies, d’un Panel international sur les inégalités (PII) afin de répondre à la crise mondiale des inégalités.

Ce panel jouerait un rôle similaire à celui du Groupe d’experts intergouvernemental sur l’évolution du climat (GIEC) face à la crise climatique. Il rassemblerait les travaux des chercheur·euses afin de construire un consensus solide et clair sur l’ampleur de la crise des inégalités, ses facteurs déterminants, ses conséquences, ainsi que sur les politiques à mettre en œuvre pour ramener les inégalités à des niveaux acceptables.

Notre recommandation a heureusement été accueillie avec enthousiasme par les gouvernements d’Afrique du Sud, du Brésil, d’Espagne et de Norvège, et bénéficie également du plein soutien du Secrétaire général de l’ONU António Guterres. Nous avons consacré la première moitié de l’année en cours à travailler de concert avec ces quatre gouvernements pour esquisser la structure de ce panel, son programme de travail, son ancrage au sein du système des Nations Unies, sa composition potentielle, ainsi que le calendrier, les destinataires et les modalités de remise de ses travaux.

Nombre d’entre vous ont apporté leur soutien à cette initiative à divers moments, que ce soit en participant à des réunions ou des consultations, en signant des lettres d’appui ou en prenant la parole en sa faveur auprès des dirigeant·es politiques et des médias. Je vous en exprime toute ma gratitude : votre engagement a déjà eu un impact significatif.

La prochaine étape clé est un événement de haut niveau réunissant des leaders mondiaux pour soutenir la création du PII lors de l’Assemblée générale des Nations Unies (AGNU), qui se tiendra à New York le 23 septembre à 10 h 30. Cet événement sera coorganisé par le Secrétaire général de l’ONU et les leaders des quatre gouvernements précédemment mentionnés.

Le gouvernement d’Afrique du Sud a transmis une invitation à l’ensemble des leaders mondiaux au nom des quatre gouvernements fondateurs. Votre gouvernement l’aura reçue par l’intermédiaire de sa mission auprès des Nations Unies à New York. Tous les leaders mondiaux ont été conviés à y participer et invités à signer un bref énoncé de vision ainsi qu’une note conceptuelle en soutien du PII, également transmis par le gouvernement sud-africain via leur mission à New York.

Nous sollicitons aujourd’hui votre aide pour veiller à ce que le plus grand nombre possible de leaders puisse accomplir les trois actions suivantes :

1. Assister à l’événement de haut niveau le 23 septembre ;

2. Signer l’énoncé de vision du PII ;

3. Rejoindre la coalition de gouvernements en faveur de la création d’un PII dans les plus brefs délais.

Nous disposons d’un mois pour atteindre cet objectif. Nous vous serions très reconnaissants de contribuer activement à sa concrétisation.

Voici quelques démarches clés que vous pouvez entreprendre pour manifester votre soutien:

Tout d’abord, nous vous prions de bien vouloir signer et partager cette lettre ouverte en faveur de la création du PII. Elle sera adressée à l’ensemble des États membres pour les inviter à assister à l’événement de haut niveau et à apporter leur soutien à l’énoncé de vision.

Ensuite, vous pourriez contribuer à renforcer l’appui à cette initiative dans votre pays en mobilisant vos dirigeant·es politiques et en recourant à tous les canaux publics et privés à votre disposition. À titre d’exemple, une lettre ouverte signée par plus de 40 chercheur·euses de renom a été adressée au nouveau Premier ministre britannique Andy Burnham pour l’encourager à assister à l’événement de haut niveau de l’AGNU et à soutenir la création du PII. Celle-ci a fait la une du Guardian. Il serait hautement souhaitable que des lettres et articles d’opinion similaires paraissent dans les médias du monde entier.

Si vous souhaitez obtenir davantage d’informations ou bénéficier d’un appui supplémentaire, nous vous invitons à nous contacter à anthony@inequalitycommittee.com.

Nous avons aujourd’hui l’opportunité de remporter une victoire majeure dans la lutte contre les inégalités en mettant à disposition des gouvernements les connaissances scientifiques nécessaires pour agir de façon concrète et en proposant des outils ainsi que des politiques efficaces et adaptés. Nous vous remercions par avance pour tout ce que vous entreprendrez afin de manifester votre soutien, tant dans l’espace public que dans vos échanges privés.

Sincèrement,

Joe

Un Panel international sur les inégalités | Lettre de chercheur·euses adressée aux leaders mondiaux

Mesdames et Messieurs les leaders mondiaux,

En tant que chercheur·euses et expert·es des inégalités issu·es de XX pays, nous vous écrivons afin de solliciter votre appui à la création du Panel international sur les inégalités (PII). Cet organisme scientifique indépendant aura pour mission d’évaluer l’état des connaissances sur les inégalités, selon les plus hauts standards de rigueur, de neutralité et de crédibilité académiques. S’inspirant du rôle du Groupe d’experts intergouvernemental sur l’évolution du climat (GIEC), le PII s’inscrirait dans la lignée d’organismes scientifiques qui, par la présentation de données et d’analyses rigoureuses, contribuent à éclairer les décisions publiques sur des enjeux majeurs.

La création du Panel international sur les inégalités constitue la recommandation phare du rapport sur les inégalités présenté lors du dernier sommet du G20. Ce rapport a été rédigé par un groupe d’expert·es présidé par l’économiste et prix Nobel Joseph Stiglitz, à la demande du président Cyril Ramaphosa durant la présidence sud-africaine du G20. Cette proposition a reçu un large appui international, notamment de la part du Secrétaire général de l’ONU António Guterres. Les gouvernements d’Afrique du Sud, du Brésil, de Norvège et d’Espagne travaillent désormais aux côtés des chercheur·euses du comité chargé de concrétiser la création du PII.

Des niveaux élevés d’inégalités au sein des pays et entre eux alimentent nombre des défis économiques, politiques, sociétaux et environnementaux actuels, amenant beaucoup à considérer que nous traversons une crise des inégalités, au même titre qu’une crise climatique.

En tant qu’expert·es issu·es de disciplines variées – économistes, politologues, climatologues, sociologues, épidémiologistes, anthropologues, historien·nes, géographes et philosophes –, nous faisons toutes et tous le même constat : les inégalités traversent toutes les dimensions de la vie humaine et du progrès de nos sociétés. Nous nous alarmons de constater que la concentration extrême des revenus et des richesses se traduit par une concentration antidémocratique du pouvoir, une dégradation de la confiance au sein de nos sociétés et une polarisation de notre vie politique.

Nous croyons également que les inégalités résultent de choix politiques et peuvent être réduites. Faire face à la concentration extrême des richesses et des revenus requiert un consensus scientifique sur les inégalités. Le PII aiderait la communauté internationale à construire ce consensus et à constituer la base de connaissances nécessaire pour lutter contre la crise des inégalités de la manière la plus efficace possible.

Vous pouvez manifester votre soutien de trois façons différentes.

Au nom des quatre gouvernements fondateurs, l’Afrique du Sud vous invite à participer à un événement de haut niveau réunissant des leaders mondiaux aux côtés du Secrétaire général de l’ONU. Nous vous invitons vivement à assister à cette rencontre, qui se déroulera dans la matinée du 23 septembre, afin d’exprimer votre soutien à la création du PII.

Nous vous appelons également à apporter votre soutien à l’énoncé de vision du PII, transmis par l’Afrique du Sud au nom des quatre gouvernements fondateurs.

Enfin, nous vous invitons à vous joindre à la coalition grandissante de gouvernements en faveur de la création de ce panel dans les plus brefs délais.

Nous sommes convaincu·es que la mise en place du PII est dans l’intérêt de l’ensemble des décideurs et leaders politiques qui reconnaissent l’importance de cet enjeu et comprennent la nécessité d’appuyer notre action internationale sur des données et des analyses rigoureuses, quelles que soient leurs orientations politiques. Il s’agirait d’une première étape essentielle vers un monde plus juste et plus égalitaire.

Sincèrement,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

أصدقائي الأعزاء

رسالة إرفاق:

أكتب إليكم لأطلب دعمكم في اغتنام فرصة بالغة الأهمية. نشاطركم قلق عميق إزاء حجم واتجاهات عدم المساواة في عالمنا.

فالمستويات المرتفعة من عدم المساواة تمثل أزمة تقوّض جميع جوانب المساعي البشرية، بل ومستقبل كوكبنا نفسه.

في العام الماضي، تشرفت برئاسة اللجنة الاستثنائية المعنية بعدم المساواة التي كلفتها حكومة جنوب أفريقيا في إطار رئاستها لمجموعة العشرين. وكانت التوصية الرئيسية هي أنه لمعالجة أزمة عدم المساواة العالمية، نحتاج إلى إنشاء هيئة دولية معنية بعدم المساواة (IPI) في الأمم المتحدة.

وستؤدي هذه الهيئة دورًا مماثلًا للدور الذي أدته الهيئة الحكومية الدولية المعنية بتغير المناخ (IPCC) في معالجة أزمة المناخ؛ حيث ستجمع بين العمل المتميز الذي يقوم به أكاديميون مثلكم في جميع أنحاء العالم لبلورة توافق قوي وواضح حول حجم أزمة عدم المساواة، والعوامل الدافعة لها، وعواقبها، والسياسات المحتملة التي يمكن وضعها لتقليل عدم المساواة إلى مستويات آمنة.

والخبر السار هو أن توصيتنا تبنّتها بحماس حكومات جنوب أفريقيا والبرازيل وإسبانيا والنرويج، كما حظيت بدعم كامل من الأمين العام للأمم المتحدة. وقد أمضينا النصف الأول من هذا العام في العمل مع هذه الحكومات الأربع لوضع الخطوط العريضة لتصميم هذه االهيئة، وبرنامج عملها، وموقعها ضمن منظومة الأمم المتحدة، وتكوينها المحتمل، ومواعيد تقديم تقاريرها، والجهات التي ستُقدَّم إليها، وكيفية تقديمها.

وقد شارك الكثيرون منكم في أوقات مختلفة في دعم هذه الجهود، سواء من خلال حضور الاجتماعات أو المشاورات، أو التوقيع على رسائل الدعم، أو المساعدة في التعبير عن التأييد أمام صانعي السياسات ووسائل الإعلام. نشكركم على ذلك؛ فقد أحدث هذا بالفعل فرقاً كبيراً.

المحطة الرئيسية التالية هي في 23 سبتمبر، خلال الاجتماعات الرفيعة المستوى للجمعية العامة للأمم المتحدة في نيويورك عند الساعة ال10:30 صباحًا، حيث سيعقد حدث رفيع المستوى للقادة، دعماً لمبادرة IPI «الهيئة الدولية المعنية بعدم المساواة»، يستضيفه الأمين العام وقادة الحكومات الأربع.

وقد أرسلت حكومة جنوب أفريقيا، نيابة عن الحكومات المؤسسة الأربع، “إشعارًا لحفظ الموعد“ إلى جميع قادة العالم. وستكون حكومتكم قد تلقت هذا الإشعار عبر بعثتها في نيويورك. وقد دُعي جميع قادة العالم للحضور. كما طُلب منهم النظر في تأييد بيان رؤية موجز ومذكرة مفاهيمية لدعم مبادرة IPI «الهيئة الدولية المعنية بعدم المساواة»، والتي تلقوها أيضًا عبر بعثاتهم في نيويورك من حكومة جنوب أفريقيا.ونحن الآن بحاجة ماسة إلى مساعدتكم لضمان قيام أكبر عدد ممكن من القادة بثلاثة أمور:

1. حضور فعالية القادة رفيعة المستوى في 23 سبتمبر،

2. التوقيع على بيان الرؤية الخاص بمبادرة IPI «الهيئة الدولية المعنية بعدم المساواة»،

3. والانضمام إلى تحالف الحكومات الداعم لإنشاء مبادرة IPI «الهيئة الدولية المعنية بعدم المساواة» بشكل عاجل.

أمامنا شهر واحد للقيام بذلك. يرجى التفكير في تخصيص بعض الوقت للقيام بما في وسعكم لتحقيق هذا الهدف. هناك بعض الخطوات الأساسية التي يمكنكم اتخاذها لإظهار دعمكم.

أولاً، نرجو منكم التوقيع على هذه الرسالة المفتوحة الدعمة لمبادرة IPI «الهيئة الدولية المعنية بعدم المساواة» ومشاركتها، حيث سيتم إرسالها إلى جميع الدول الأعضاء لدعوتها إلى حضور الحدث الرفيع المستوى ودعم بيان الرؤية .

ثانياً، نرجو منكم المساعدة من خلال حشد الدعم على المستوى الوطني، بالاستفادة من علاقاتكم مع القيادات السياسية لدعم هذه المبادرة، واستخدام أي قنوات خاصة أو عامة متاحة لكم لتحقيق هذا الهدف. على سبيل المثال، أرسل أكثر من 40 أكاديميًا بارزًا رسالة مفتوحة إلى رئيس الوزراء البريطاني الجديد لتشجيعه على حضور اجتماع الأمم المتحدة ودعم مبادرة IPI «الهيئة الدولية المعنية بعدم المساواة»، وقد نُشرت هذه الرسالة على الصفحة الأولى من صحيفة «الغارديان». ونأمل أن نرى رسائل ومقالات رأي مماثلة في وسائل الإعلام حول العالم للتعبيرعن دعم هذه المبادرة.

إذا كنتم بحاجة إلى مزيد من المعلومات حول أي من هذه الأمور أو أي دعم إضافي، يرجى الاتصال بنا — يمكنكم مراسلتنا عبر البريد الإلكتروني علىanthony@inequalitycommittee.com

هذه فرصة رائعة لتحقيق انتصار حقيقي في الكفاح ضد عدم المساواة، وتزويد الحكومات بالمعرفة العلمية التي من شأنها تحفيزها على اتخاذ الإجراءات اللازمة واقتراح أدوات وسياسات فعالة وذات كفاءة. نأمل أن تبذلوا كل ما في وسعكم للتعبير عن دعمكم علنًا وفي قنواتكم الخاصة.

مع تحياتي،

جو

هيئة دولية معنية بعدم المساواة | رسالة من الأكاديميين إلى قادة العالم

قادة العالم الأعزاء،

نكتب إليكم بصفتنا أكاديميين وخبراء في مجال عدم المساواة من XX دولة، لنطالبكم بدعم إنشاء هيئة دولية معنية بعدم المساواة -International Panel on Inequality (IPI)-، وهي هيئة علمية مستقلة مكلفة بتقييم المعرفة المتاحة حول عدم المساواة، مع الالتزام الراسخ بالدقة الأكاديمية والاستقلالية والمصداقية. مستوحاة” من دور الهيئة الحكومية الدولية المعنية بتغير المناخ (IPCC)، ستسير الهيئة الدولية المعنية بعدم المساواة على نهج الهيئات العلمية الراسخة التي أسهمت في صنع السياسات في مجالات حاسمة من خلال تقديم الأدلة والتحليلات على نحو يتسم بالدقة والصرامة العلمية.

كان إنشاء «هيئة دولية معنية بعدم المساواة» التوصية الرئيسية لتقرير مجموعة العشرين حول عدم المساواة الصادر العام الماضي، والذي أعده فريق من خبراء في مجال عدم المساواة برئاسة الاقتصادي الحائز على جائزة نوبل جوزيف ستيغليتز، بناءً على طلب الرئيس رامافوسا خلال رئاسة جنوب أفريقيا لمجموعة العشرين. وقد حظي هذا الاقتراح بتأييد دولي واسع النطاق، بما في ذلك تأييد الأمين العام للأمم المتحدة. وتعمل حكومات جنوب أفريقيا والبرازيل والنرويج وإسبانيا مع الخبراء الأكاديميين في اللجنة من أجل تأسيس هيئة دولية معنية بعدم المساواة.

وتُعد المستويات المرتفعة من عدم المساواة داخل البلدان وفيما بينها من العوامل المحرّكة للعديد من التحديات الاقتصادية والسياسية والمجتمعية والبيئية التي نواجهها اليوم، مما دفع الكثيرين إلى استنتاج أننا نواجه أزمة عدم المساواة تماماً كما نواجه أزمة المناخ. وبصفتنا خبراء من مجموعة واسعة من التخصصات، بما في ذلك الاقتصاديون وعلماء السياسة وعلماء المناخ وعلماء الاجتماع وعلماء الأوبئة وعلماء الأنثروبولوجيا والمؤرخون والجغرافيون والفلاسفة، فإننا ندرك جميعًا أن عدم المساواة يمس كل جانب من جوانب حياة الإنسان وتقدمه. ويساورنا قلق عميق من أن يؤدي التركّز المفرط للدخل والثروة إلى حصر السلطة في أيدي قلة على نحو غير ديمقراطي، مما يقوض الثقة في مجتمعاتنا ويؤدي إلى استقطاب سياسي.

ونعتقد أيضًا أن عدم المساواة هو خيار سياسي ويمكن عكس مساره. ويتطلب التصدي لهذا التركّز المفرط للثروة والدخل توافقًا علميًا بشأن عدم المساواة. ومن شأن تشكيل «هيئة دولية معنية بعدم المساواة» أن يساعد العالم على التوصل إلى مثل هذا التوافق. وستوفر هذه الهيئة الأساس المعرفي اللازم للتصدي لأزمة عدم المساواة بأكثر السبل فعالية.

هناك ثلاث طرق يمكنكم من خلالها إظهار دعمكم.

دعتكم جنوب أفريقيا، نيابة عن الحكومات المؤسِّسة الأربع، لحضور فعالية رئيسية رفيعة المستوى للقادة صباح يوم 23 سبتمبر/أيلول بحضور الأمين العام للأمم المتحدة. نحثكم على حضور هذه الفعالية رفيعة المستوى للقادة يوم 23 سبتمبر، للتعبيرعن دعمكم لإنشاء «هيئة دولية معنية بعدم المساواة».

كما ندعوكم إلى دعم بيان الرؤية الخاص الهيئة الدولية المعنية بعدم المساواة، الذي عممته عليكم جنوب أفريقيا أيضًا نيابةً عن الحكومات الأربع.

وأخيرًا، نحثكم على الموافقة على الانضمام إليهم في تحالف متنامٍ من الحكومات الداعمة لإنشاء هذه الهيئة في أقرب وقت ممكن.

ونعتقد أن إنشاء «هيئة دولية معنية بعدم المساواة» (IPI) يصبّ في مصلحة جميع صنّاع السياسات والقادة الذين يدركون أهمية هذه القضية وضرورة أن تستند استجابتنا الدولية إلى بيانات وأدلة وتحليلات موثوقة بصرف النظر عن توجهاتهم السياسية. وستكون هذه خطوة أولى بالغة الأهمية نحو بناء عالم أكثر عدلاً ومساواة.

مع تحياتنا،

The report paints a bleak picture and yet does not cover the severe disruption in global food production and affordability because of the war in the Middle East, and now again in Ukraine, as it is up to 2025- factors together with climate breakdown and El Nino, that are very likely to worsen global hunger.

Recent reductions in hunger but the world is still worse off than a decade ago

The number of people facing moderate or severe food insecurity fell by 86 million between 2024 and 2025 to 2.1 billion people. Despite this welcome reduction, this still means one in four people worldwide is food insecure today, compared to 1 in five in 2015, an increase of more than half a billion people from a decade ago.

While the gap between the share of men and women facing food insecurity narrowed between 2024 and 2025, the proportion of women facing food insecurity is still slightly higher than that of men.

Food insecurity is highest in poorer countries; for instance, it affects 56% of Africans. But ordinary people in rich countries are also increasingly facing food insecurity. In North America and Europe, nearly 100 million people, or 1 in ten, are food insecure.

Healthy food is unaffordable for a third of the global population

Having food to eat is one thing, and affording a healthy meal is another. A lack of healthy meals costs lives, leads to preventable diseases, and costs economies. For children, it has lifelong impacts on well-being, health, educational outcomes, and lifetime earnings. Globally, 2.7 billion people cannot afford a healthy diet.

Food is more expensive in poor countries than in rich ones

The cost of a healthy diet has risen sharply over the past few years and is 37% up compared to 2019. Higher food prices disproportionately affect ordinary people and low-income earners because food makes up the largest share of their incomes.

Food costs more in poorer countries than in rich ones. In Africa, a healthy diet costs a fifth more than in Europe and North America. This means that people in poor countries not only have lower incomes, but they face higher food costs than those in rich countries.

The world is producing enough food, so why are billions hungry?

Hunger is a problem of inequality, not of overall levels of available food. Farmers are producing enough food for everyone in the world. However, rising food prices, the financialisation of global food markets, low and stagnating incomes, unfair global trade rules, and weak social protection systems mean hundreds of millions of people cannot afford it, even when it’s available. Wars, export bans, and a lack of basic infrastructure to move food from farmers to consumers hinder access. As much as 20% of the food produced goes to waste.

Climate change is making food production more expensive and impacting farmers’ livelihoods. Dismal public investment in food security in poorer countries adds another layer that perpetuates food crises, leaving them at the mercy of the global food system.

The people making money out of global hunger

An exploitative global food market and profiteering deliver bumper profits to global multinationals and their wealthy owners.

In 2022, when the world faced high food prices and disruptions to food supply and production that pushed millions into hunger, the food and energy billionaires made a $453 billion windfall, and 62 new food billionaires were created.

Multinationals and the wealthiest people have greater influence over policies and politics than ordinary people, so they can shape global food rules and food production in ways that benefit them.

Looming Food crisis from war, climate and now a super El Niño

A series of shocks are combining to drive up hunger in the next year. The looming El Niño is expected to worsen hunger. Unlike recent El Niños, this one is likely to be the severest in over a century an comes on top the rapidly growing impact of climate breakdown on food production. Excessive precipitation in some regions and severe droughts in others will severely disrupt food production and livelihoods. Yet governments and the international community are doing little, if anything, to avert this looming food crisis.

How to make the world food secure

No one on earth should be hungry. It is the ultimate inequality. Enhancing food production matters, as does ensuring food is accessible and affordable for everyone. So what can we do?

First, we must drastically reduce current high economic inequality and the influence of the richest and other mega corporations on the global food market. A fairer, more equal world is a food-secure one.

Secondly, we must prioritise universal social protection so people have income to buy food. This will also ensure that a failed harvest doesn’t push small-scale farmers into poverty. Low-income earners, women and children will benefit disproportionately. A universal social protection system could even increase food production because farmers can invest in improving their yields.

Thirdly is regulating the global food market, including its financialisation, speculation, and profiteering. Doing so will make food more affordable and accessible and ensure that mega global corporates and traders do not rip off farmers and consumers. On top of this, fair global trade rules will support food security for many countries of the Global South.

Fourthly is increased public investment in agriculture, especially in low- and lower-middle-income countries, many of which are net food importers. But many of these countries face a high debt burden, which transfers money to wealthy lenders while worsening food security as governments are left with nothing. Global support and cooperation in tackling debt burdens is therefore critical.

Lastly, rich countries must fulfil their climate finance commitments, which will help tackle food insecurity in developing countries, which are most vulnerable to climate and food shocks.

Join the conversation on LinkedIn

The conversation doesn’t end when the newsletter lands in your inbox. We’re on LinkedIn sharing ideas, asking questions and bringing more people into the conversations around inequality, power and how we build a fairer world.

Follow and engage EQUALS on LinkedIn — and tell us what you think. We’d love to hear from you.

In this week’s Bulletin we review inequality numbers for 2026 so far.

Subscribe now

2026 inequality… in numbers

Pollutocrat day. Unless you’ve been hiding under an air-conditioned rock, you’ll have noticed the planet is on fire. The world’s richest people can take a bow for their disproportionate contribution to that. Just 10 days into 2026 and the richest 1% had burned up their annual carbon budget. The top 0.1% used theirs up in 3 days.

Davos week. As sure as a setting sun will rise again or that the rich will dodge tax, January brings Oxfam’s blistering analysis of global inequality. Timed as world leaders and oligarchs meet at the Swiss ski resort to celebrate their winnings (which Oxfam kindly counts for them), it always captures l’essence of a divided world.

2025, was a record-breaking year for billionaires. Since Donald Trump came to office, billionaire wealth increased three times faster than the past five-year average. Trump’s agenda of championing deregulation and undermining agreements to increase corporate taxation has benefited the richest everywhere.

Resisting the rule of the rich. The events of 2025 made one thing painfully clear: the world’s super-rich have not only accumulated more wealth than could ever be spent – they have used this wealth to secure the political power to shape the rules that define our economies and govern countries and the world.

Oxfam estimates that billionaires are at least 4,000 times more likely to hold political office than ordinary people.

Thank God the UK has a bin to take on the billionaires buying their way into politics.

Defaulting on development. After all those tax cuts for the rich, there was clearly nothing left for investments into health, education, and fighting climate change. The Global South faces a mounting debt crisis while aid spending is been slashed.

5.2 billion people live in countries where debt payments are higher than total social spending. The World Bank rates over half of low-income countries as “at high risk of debt distress” or “in debt distress”. Debt holders are doing nicely, rich bondholders of six countries that recently restructured their debt made an average profit of 38%.

Aid budgets plummet. Aid has fallen by 28% between 2023 and 2025. The United States is the biggest scrooge, but many other countries including France, Germany and the United Kingdom are to blame as well. They have announced further cuts through 2030. Projected aid cuts will kill about 9 million people by 2030.

A celebration for CEOs or the working class? International Workers’ Day is a time to celebrate victories for worker organisations. This year, however, Oxfam and the ITUC revealed that CEO pay soared 20 times faster than workers’ pay in 2025.

But hey, when we win the fight to tax the rich, those fat cats will be nice and plump.

Who wants to be a trillionaire? The moment we’d been waiting for. The Oxfam statistical rage-bait team were refreshing the Forbes billionaire list like they were tickets for Glastonbury. Rocket man, Elon Musk, saw this wealth officially reach the stratosphere (if only he’d go there and not come back), becoming the world’s first (temporary) trillionaire.

For a while there, Musk was wealthier than the combined wealth of 3.8 billion people.

Spoils of war. Big Oil have been making Big Bucks, an exclusive Equals investigation found. The second quarter combined profits of the Big 6 increased to $50.6 billion - a 220% increase on Q1.

But how to spend all that war money? Perhaps ramping up investments in renewables (after all, the world is on fire)? Of course not, time to Drill Baby, Drill! By 2030, the six corporations plan to increase oil and gas production by 14% compared to 2024 levels. Big Oil’s emissions were sufficient to cause around 1 in 4 heatwaves reported globally between 2000 and 2023 – heatwaves that would have been virtually impossible without human-made climate change.

Of course, we’re the ones feeling the heat, not rich polluters.

Scope for hope? While members of the Equals team specialise as prophets of doom, we are becoming increasingly up-beat about the momentum behind taxing the rich. Wealth tax economists are becoming household names, and people are marching in the street calling for taxes named after them! Just in the last few years, wealth taxes on the super-rich have been introduced or strengthened in Norway, Spain, Tunisia, Argentina and Bolivia. And new proposals are popping up everywhere.

I agree. But I think there is a missing question. What makes a demand powerful?

Institutional advocacy often assumes the room is neutral, its occupants await a proposal, and the limits of what we can ask are fixed rather than shaped by politics and power. But a demand is not powerful simply because it is radical. Radicalism can clarify, but it can also avoid the harder work of organising, negotiating and winning change. In my view, moral clarity must come from evidence, judgement, law and lived experience.

For Palestinians, this is not abstract. During a genocide in Gaza and accelerating ethnic cleansing, demands once treated as beyond the pale have become the minimum required by law, morality and reality. End occupation. Ban settlement trade. Halt arms transfers. Pursue accountability. Recognise apartheid and name genocide. The question is not whether we are radical enough, but whether we are clear about what is right and strategic enough to make it harder to ignore.

None of these demands are extreme. What is extreme is that they had to be fought for while civilians were starved, bombed and displaced. For too long, debates on pauses, access, corridors, trucks and fuel obscured the choices driving mass death.

Advocacy should not make cruelty more efficient, occupation more tolerable or aid delivery more compatible with siege. I don’t think we should be campaigning for more comfortable slave ships. We should be demanding freedom. But neither should we stand safely on shore while people already aboard go without food, water or protection.

Abolition was not won by the right words alone. It took organising, legal strategies, campaigns, alliances, risk and sacrifice. A bold demand in a press release is not a movement.

Building another room cannot mean abandoning every existing one. Sometimes a technical point, made in the right room at the right moment, can be revolutionary. For someone facing bombardment or hunger, an achieved incremental demand can matter more than a perfect demand dismissed. Not everyone has thirty years to wait for justice to become realistic.

Moral clarity is not power on its own. Demands become forceful when carried by organised communities, partners, coalitions, unions, legal networks, students, diaspora groups and movements. They must be owned by those affected, not borrowed for institutional credibility.

In my view, Oxfam is not a grassroots or liberation movement, trade union or mass membership organisation. Mistaking reach for power is dangerous. Nor should we confuse sharper language with building power, bringing partners into rooms with sharing power, or alignment with movements with accountability.

Oxfam’s added value is not that we are the movement, but that we can connect the field, the street and the room. We can translate demands into policy, carry information from decision-making spaces back to those organising outside, and help make partners’ demands harder to ignore. Used well, our presence, expertise, relationships and access can turn moral clarity into political, legal and economic pressure.

This is what the Palestine work has shown. Oxfam did not invent these demands. Palestinians, partners and movements were already making them. Our role was to make them harder to dismiss through presence, technical knowledge, coalition work, legal argument and access. It was not moderation. It was strategy.

This is why operational presence and technical work matter. Communities demand humanitarian response when local systems are overwhelmed or attacked. Used badly, humanitarian work can narrow advocacy to access without confronting siege, displacement without occupation, aid without accountability, or hunger without naming starvation as a method of war. Used well, it exposes the political choices hidden behind technical language.

I don’t think the answer is to choose between being in the room, in the field or in the street. Humanitarian work can reproduce colonial power when it manages suffering without confronting what causes it. But it can also demonstrate solidarity, support protection and challenge power relations. The point is influence. It is about shifting power, resources and decision-making to community-rooted actors.

Our task is not to perform radicalism. It is to build the conditions in which radical demands become unavoidable by connecting presence to pressure, evidence to accountability, partners’ demands to political openings, and access inside institutions to power built outside them.

Saying genocide, apartheid, occupation and ethnic cleansing matters. But so do concrete demands and actions. Stop arms transfers. Ban settlement trade. Uphold international courts. End the siege. Protect UNRWA. Fund GBV protection. Resource women-led organisations and organisations of persons with disabilities. Reject displacement and containment.

So, in my view, the question is not whether we used the most radical word or demand available. It is whether we shifted power. Did we help partners’ demands travel further? Did we make it harder for governments to hide behind ambiguity? Did we connect humanitarian evidence to political accountability? Did we use access to open space, not close it? Did we strengthen the people closest to the crisis, or borrow their legitimacy?

Radical demands need power behind them, and a strategy to build it. Oxfam’s role is not to pretend it is the source of that power, but to use its evidence, presence, relationships, voice and access to help build it.

The task is not only to enter the room. It is to build power outside it, carry that power inside when needed, and never forget who the room was built to exclude.

END.

Author: Bushra Khalidi is the Oxfam’s Global Humanitarian Policy Lead.

Disclaimer: This piece reflects author’s views and should not be read as an institutional position of Oxfam.

Njoki dedicated her life to building a more just world. She was a Pan-African feminist, a fearless organizer, and one of the most influential voices in the global fight against inequality. Her passing leaves an enormous void, but her ideas, courage and generosity continue to inspire movements across the world.

To honour her memory, we’re resharing one of the most personal conversations we’ve ever recorded.

In this special Valentine’s episode, Njoki and her late husband, fellow activist Soren Ambrose, reflected on 23 years of love and activism. They spoke about meeting in the struggle against the World Bank and IMF, building movements together, sustaining a marriage while challenging injustice, and finding hope in collective action.

It’s a conversation that reminds us that movements are built not only on strategy and conviction, but also on friendship, care, joy and love.

Rest in power, Njoki. Thank you for showing us that another world is possible—and that it is built together.

This conversation was originally published on 14 February 2020 as EQUALS' Valentine's Day special. Today, we reshare it in loving memory of Njoki Njehû and Soren Ambrose, whose lives and partnership continue to inspire us.

As ever, do subscribe to the podcast, and do share with your friends and your family! Email us your ideas, suggestions and feedback to equals@oxfam.org

A major new investigation by Equals reveals how fossil fuel corporates have reaped huge windfall profits following the US and Israel war against Iran. It also highlights the impacts of their carbon emissions on extreme heatwaves and outlines the revenue potential for a ‘rich polluter profits tax.’

Exclusive new analysis of Big Oil reveals that:

• Their 2026 second quarter (Q2) profits are expected to nearly double, compared to the first quarter (Q1). Corporate polluters like ExxonMobil are making up to $1,800 a second.

• They are forecast to make more profit this year than the previous 21 months combined.

• Their emissions sufficient to cause around 1 in 4 heatwaves reported globally between 2000 and 2023 – heatwaves that would have been virtually impossible without human-made climate change.

• They plan to increase oil and gas production by 14% by 2030, the equivalent of producing an additional 2.5 million barrels of oil a day.

• A ‘rich polluter profits tax’ could raise up to $400 billion and help phase out fossil fuels.

Subscribe now

Equals Investigates...Big Oil profits

Windfall war profits. The six Big Oil corporate: BP, Chevron, Eni, ExxonMobil, Shell, and TotalEnergies, will publish their Q2 financial results over the coming week. Equals’ new research, based on financial analysts’ projections, finds that, overall, their Q2 net profits are expected to have almost doubled in the last three months (compared to Q1 profits) from $23 billion to $45 billion. Q2 results fully reflect the spike in oil prices following the unlawful US and Israel war against Iran.

Bumper profits for US corporations. The two corporations headquartered in the US are expecting especially massive windfall profits. Chevron’s Q2 profits are predicted to be over four times higher than in Q1, while ExxonMobil’s profits are forecast to more than triple.

ExxonMobil has made $1,800 a second in profits during the last three months. Chevron has pocketed $1,200 a second, and Shell $1,000.

The war against Iran has driven bumper profits for major oil and gas corporations. In 2026, the six Big Oil corporations are expected to make $147 billion, more than their combined profits over the 21 months from Q2 2024 to Q4 2025.

Profits driving inequality and the climate crisis. Big Oil’s windfall profits are being used to drill for even more planet-destroying fossil fuels and to enrich wealthy shareholders.

Shareholder payouts. In 2025, the six corporations paid out a total of $55 billion in dividends and $62 billion in share buybacks, which went to line the pockets of shareholders who are predominantly the world’s richest people.^[i] In the US, the richest 1% own more corporate shares than the other 99% of the population combined.^[ii] 85% of people globally are “capital destitute” (i.e. they get no income from financial assets).^[iii]

Bumping up production. By 2030, the six corporations plan to increase oil and gas production by 14% compared to 2024 levels, equivalent to producing an additional 2.5 million barrels of oil a day.^[iv] Just a 6% increase in global oil and gas production could lead to a 2.9º C increase in global temperatures by the end of the century.^[v] In 2025, major oil and gas companies BP and Shell cut their targets for future low carbon investments by 73% and 37% respectively.^[vi]

Emissions adding fire to heatwaves. Analysis of peer reviewed data^[vii] finds that, of the 213 heatwaves recorded between 2000 and 2023, 55 would have been virtually impossible without human-induced climate change. The historical emissions of Chevron, BP, ExxonMobil, Shell, and TotalEnergies (data for Eni not available) were, on their own, enough to cross the threshold that made nearly all those heatwaves over 10,000 times more likely (50 heatwaves for TotalEnergies, 51 for the four others). This means that the emissions of any of those five companies were enough, on their own, to cause around 1 in 4 of the heatwaves.

Costing the world. The same research shows that the emissions of 180 largest carbon majors (fossil fuel and cement producers) contributed to roughly half of the increase in global heatwave intensity since pre-industrial times. The five oil corporations alone account for 8% of this increase in intensity. Their contributions to global warming, as a whole, was about 0.1°C (6.5%) in 2023 and caused about 8% of global warming between 2000 and 2023.

Massive direct emissions. In 2025, BP, Chevron, Eni, ExxonMobil, Shell, and TotalEnergies reported emitting a combined 358.3 million tonnes of scope 1 and 2 CO2e emissions from their operations (this doesn’t include their supply chain or customers). This is equivalent to the annual emissions of 55 million people. The estimated direct and indirect environmental damage costs, calculated by translating the quantity of resources used and pollutants emitted into monetary terms (using S&P Capital Trucost figures) $60 billion in 2025.

Disasters across the world. Big Oil’s quarterly profits come as record-breaking temperatures sweep across Europe and North America — extreme heatwaves that climate scientists warn would have been virtually impossible without the climate crisis driven by burning fossil fuels.^[viii]

India and Pakistan have also faced sustained extreme heat in 2026. In May, 97 of the 100 hottest cities in the world were in India.^[ix] Ghana, Nigeria, Ivory Coast and other West African countries are experiencing devastating flooding.

The worst is likely yet to come. A “Godzilla El Niño” is forming over the Pacific Ocean which is forecast to drive global temperature to record highs, bringing with it extreme weather events. Poorer communities, already vulnerable to climate impacts, are bracing themselves for extreme heat, droughts and floods. The UN’s World Food Programme is appealing for funds for drought-resistant seeds, flood defences, water storage systems and cash transfers to avert a global hunger crisis before it happens.^[x]

Compounding global crises. Global crises are compounding, each piling onto the last. There is a global debt crisis: half of low-income countries are “at high risk of debt distress” or “in debt distress”.^[xi] At the same time, official development assistance has been gutted, with aid has falling by 28% between 2023 and 2025^[xii]. With food and energy prices already out of reach, those already vulnerable to extreme weather events are left even more dangerously exposed. Many countries are poorly prepared for the unfolding crises ahead.^[xiii]

Rich countries derailing progress. Against the backdrop of compounding global crises, last month’s essential Bonn Climate negotiations, which sets the groundwork for COP31, were derailed by rich countries.^[xiv] Negotiations to scale up cuts to global emissions and fund climate adaptation faced “gridlock.”^[xv]

Case for rich polluter profit tax. Oxfam has modelled a ‘rich polluter profit tax’^[xvi] which could raise up to $400 billion globally in its first year (based on 2024 figures), comparable to the estimated $290 billion to $1.045 trillion needed annually by 2030 to pay for the loss and damage caused by climate change in the Global South. This type of tax would be permanent, unlike one-off ‘windfall profit taxes’.

Political momentum for taxing rich polluters is building. Finance ministers in Italy, Germany, Spain, Portugal and Austria have called for a new windfall tax on energy profits^[xvii]. In Australia, where Oxfam research found that one in three coal, oil and gas corporations are paying no corporate income tax^[xviii], the government is considering options to tax the windfall profits from liquefied natural gas.^[xix]

Our research into the positions of 60 countries finds that 28% have implemented a temporary windfall tax on excess profits from fossil fuel companies, with a further 13% supportive. Just 12% are explicitly against the move.^[xx] Most countries that recently supported windfall taxes on fossil fuel producers/energy companies did so in response to energy price surges following the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Rich polluters must be made to feel the heat. Not us.

The full methodology note for the research is here.

Note: the calculations were based on estimates made before TotalEnergies’ Q2 profit announcement on 23 July 2026. For the corporation’s second-quarter results, see its website.

^[i] Eni has significant state ownership

^[ii] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/release/tables?rid=453&eid=813804&od=# Share of Corporate Equities and Mutual Fund Shares in Q1 2026 Top 1% held 50.2%

^[iii] https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/inequalities/2025/09/17/new-capitalism-in-america-part-iii/

^[iv] Oxfam analysis based on https://www.transitionpathwayinitiative.org/publications/uploads/2026-transition-planning-2026-decarbonisation-strategies-in-oil-and-gas-and-diversified-mining.pdf

^[v] https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2025

^[vi] https://www.ft.com/content/ce4da4e0-192a-494a-a1a7-bea940b146f3

^[vii] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09450-9

^[viii] https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/fossil-fuels-are-heating-americas-250th-birthday/ https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/fossil-fuel-emissions-have-rapidly-worsened-european-heatwaves-in-just-a-few-decades/

^[ix] https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/India/97-of-world-s-100-hottest-cities-in-india-why-balangir-banda-are-out-boiling-sahara-and-death-valley/ar-AA23OLGN?cvid=6a10edaccd5c4857b7409a05f90afb88

^[x] https://www.wfp.org/news/bracing-el-nino-fao-and-wfp-launch-joint-appeal-protect-88-million-people-extreme-weather

^[xi] https://www.equals.ink/p/default-on-debt-not-on-development?utm_source=publication-search

^[xii] https://www.equals.ink/p/rich-countries-turn-their-back-on

^[xiii] https://www.equals.ink/p/rich-countries-turn-their-back-on

^[xiv] https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/oxfam-reaction-2026-bonn-climate-negotiations

^[xv] https://unfccc.int/news/written-statement-of-unfccc-executive-secretary-on-closing-of-un-june-climate-meetings-sb64

^[xvi] https://www.oxfam.org/en/blogs/rich-polluter-profits-tax-could-raise-400-billion-and-help-phase-out-fossil-fuels

^[xvii] https://www.politico.eu/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/04/Letter.pdf

^[xviii] https://www.oxfam.org.au/blog/freeloaders-how-gas-corporations-are-paying-little-tax/

^[xix] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/jul/03/australia-gas-tax-lng-exporters-predicted-windfall

^[xx] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aocqBrvMKJJeF-F5hyKFnVWa2Pv8IHwH/edit?gid=798616290#gid=798616290