Subscribe now

A recent UK drama-docu series Dirty Business has got people across the country up in arms over private equity ownership draining UK public services. Unfortunately, Thames water is just the tip of rotting refuse mound at the core public services, for both the UK and the rest of the world.

“They are good at what they do,” confides the beleaguered and disillusioned civil engineer Mikey Lazarus in ’ new series. “After they bought us, Macquarie [private equity firm] bought up our offices and then leased them back to us.”

What the character is referring to here has a name – a very unsexy one. It is called ‘dividend recapitalisation’ and is a very common tactic for private equity firms that buy up companies delivering public goods – from water to care, ambulances to prisons – and then work quickly to drain as much money from the company as possible. Before they sell up and moving on, that is.

Watching Dirty Business reignited an old injustice furnace that was first kindled whilst working on Oxfam’s Sick Development report with former Health Lead Anna Marriott. This report examines the privatization and financialization of healthcare provision around the world, and exposes how profit-hungry private equity firms and other private actors, are buying up hospitals in low-income countries – under the guise of ‘aid’ – and then using their old tactics to bleed them dry. Naturally, those that suffer more from this vampiric approach are the patients who face inflated costs and hopelessly low standards of care. Sick Development exposes the rot at the core of a neoliberal, private-sector-first approach to development.

Listen to this EQUALS episode with Anna Marriott and Dr Aquina Thulare on the cost of health privatisation around the world.

The tactics employed by private equity firms exposed in Sick Development are not new. In fact, they have been incubated by private equity firms across the UK and the US for years before being exported into other, less regulated contexts. An old colleague, Abha Jeurkar, and I examined an existing body of research on the privatisation of the Care sector across the UK to understand the impact. Spoiler: private equity firms are draining more than just the UK’swater ways.

In the 1980s, more than 90% of beds in care homes in the UK were provided by publicly owned care homes, and only 10% by independent providers. By 2016, this was reversed, with 90% of residential care now being delivered by independent providers, predominantly for-profit organisations. In fact, three of the biggest five care home groups that currently provide 20% of publicly funded care home beds in the UK are owned by private equity.

Private equity firms typically aim to double their money in three years or treble it in five years. Such steep returns often necessitate dramatically cutting cost by gutting companies, selling large assets and making swathes of the workforce redundant: one study in the US found that private equity firms have so far been directly and indirectly responsible for 1.3 million lost jobs across several sectors.

In the care sector, this manifests in big providers squeezing their staff and seeking to “optimise” the number of beds to ensure staff costs and overheads are kept to a minimum; they favour 60 – 70 beds per homes – despite research indicating that smaller care homes of 10 beds or fewer generally provide better outcomes. This is all done so they can continue to routinely offer 11% returns to investors. In fact, analysis found that private companies running care services took a whopping £250m in profits in just three English regions over the course of three years.

And what of the residents of these care homes and their workforce? The entirely predictable outcome of this erosion of the workforce and resources is deteriorating standards in these homes, with too many residents, too few staff and too little resources to deliver a high-quality service. In one case in Lancashire, a man named Norman’s family paid £1,000 per week for his place in a care home owned by the UK’s biggest care home operator, HC-One. The quality-of-care Norman received was poor and he ultimately died after suffering two falls and a stroke. In the subsequent investigation, HC-One apologised for the standard of care that Norman received and acknowledged that there was a problem with staffing and medication at the home. Despite this, the family paid £125,000 in total by the time of Norman’s death.

In another one emblematic case, the Four Seasons Care Home group – formerly one of the UK’s largest care home groups – was bought private equity firm Alchemy Capital and subsequently underwent round after round of buyouts by different private equity firms, each buying the firm at a higher cost and issuing more debt to cover the shortfall. By 2008, Four Seasons had accrued an external debt of over £1.5 billion and were liable to pay an annual interest payment of £100 million. Four Seasons was finally forced into default for being unable to make the debt repayments, and collapsed into administration in 2019 putting the homes and futures of some 17,000 elderly and disabled people and 22,000 employees at risk. Now, Four Seasons is in the final stages of winding down, with its remaining homes sold and parent companies moving into liquidation.

Whilst there is abundant evidence on the insidious influence of private equity on care in the UK and US, this creeping financialisation extends beyond these geographies. The case of Thames Water presented after the decades long investigation of Ash Smith and Peter Hammond in Dirty Business should be seen as emblematic of both what is going on in UK public services more broadly and what is happened to global public goods around the world. With contaminated water in the UK public consciousness, the time is right to point to the rising tide of private equity ownership across a much wider range of public services – and crucially, as this blog highlights, in care.

In an age where shocking docu-dramas are seemingly manifesting more policy change than lobbyists shouting into the void – doffs cap to Gwyneth Hughes and Toby Jones – I’m left wondering, when will the series on the contagion of private equity in care take to our screens? Whilst it is great to see light being shone through the murky waters that is the Thames Water scandal, we need to widen our gaze and see this case for what it is – a symptom of the insidious role of profit-hungry private actors in public services.

END.

Author: Harry Bignell, EQUALS podcast project manager.

Listen to our latest podcast episode on inequality in Norway.

These studies show that for women under socialism, sexual relations were better, more fulfilling and more equal. The reason for this greater liberation in the bedroom is, according to , because women and men were far more equal overall in these societies. Critically, women were not nearly as economically dependent on men as they were in the West. State funded universal childcare, access to abortion and birth control, access to education, all radically reduced the unpaid care work of women and increased their economic independence. Women’s involvement in the workplace was far greater, women were scientists, engineers, even astronauts. Kristen grew up in the US, and aged 13 was inspired by Sally Ride, the first woman from the USA to go into space in 1983, only to discover that the first woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova, had gone up in 1963, 20 years before.

Valentina went on to become a global champion of women’s rights. Ghodsee documents how in the US, the government were seriously worried about the economic advantage women’s liberation was giving their soviet competitors and commissioned a series of comparative studies on this. More broadly, she shows how competition from the second world played a key role in driving governments in the first world to do much more to legislate and take policy actions that would increase gender equality and women’s economic freedom.

Of course, gender equality was very far from perfect under socialism, and the liberation of women was in part because it made sense economically, but there is no doubt that by a range of clearly empirical and objective criteria, women were genuinely much more economically and socially equal in these societies.

It was also very much at the core of socialist ideology from the beginning. International Women’s Day itself was the proposal of the incredible German socialist and feminist activist Clara Zetkin in 1910, building on the strikes of women garment workers in New York in 1908.

Just as in the west, ideals of democratic freedom, even though far from full realised in reality, put pressure on the countries of the east, so ideals of social equality and gender equality from the countries of the east, even if never fully realised, put clear pressure on the leaders of the west.

Subscribe now

Money can’t buy you love

Conversely, when communism fell, and former Eastern Bloc countries adopted free market economies, economic and gender inequality rose dramatically. Women were forced out of the workplace, social safety nets were dismantled, while right wing nationalist politics encouraged a return to harmful gender roles. Women were increasingly expected to leave the workplace and return to their homes and forced to take on the unpaid care responsibilities previously taken on by the state, restoring men’s financial power within relationships. They were once more put in the position where they had to rely on men to survive, and as a result, sex, marriage and relations with men became again far more transactional. In a kind of deeply dark, 21^st century version of Jane Austen, Ghodsee gives the example of new ‘gold digger academies’ in Russia. Aspiring gold diggers pay $1000 dollars a week in the hope of developing the skills to find themselves a wealthy male sponsor. Such sponsors are called ‘Forbses’ (after the Forbes rich list) and the women are called ‘tiolki’ or cattle.

This was not a simple snap back to sexist and misogynist ideas of ‘natural’ gender roles, artificially suppressed by socialism. There was nothing natural about this, but instead the answer lies in basic economics, Ghodsee maintains. The deep inequality and insecurity that free market capitalism brought is the key driving force.

She draws the link between this experience and the sharp increase in economic inequality under neoliberal capitalism in our modern world, and the concomitant, deeply concerning rise in misogyny, sexism, violence against women. The explosion in right-wing ideas and truly nasty high-profile figures like Andrew Tate and others, focusing on returning to some mythical ‘traditional’ role for women.

This is not simply an issue of scapegoating, or distraction, with young men encouraged to hate women and blame women for their lack of economic progress, although this is definitely a part of what is going on. For Ghodsee, it has a broader economic logic too, as when fewer jobs are available, and when governments are engaged in seemingly permanent austerity, it makes sense to push women out of the workforce, and to put them once again under the economic control of men.

This is not just about incomes but wealth too. Wealth is far more gender unequal than income, so the huge rise in wealth inequality, and in the importance of income from capital rather than income from work, also puts women back in a much more unequal position, with marriage being by far the most fruitful way in the US for a woman to get into the richest 1%.

Conversely, under socialism, and under the policies pursued by socialist countries, (as well as much more equal capitalist countries like Sweden or Denmark), gender relations were steadily and comprehensively decommodified, and relations between women and men were immeasurably better as a result, based on equality, not economic necessity.

This is not the only thing that is decommodified either; more equal societies, where things like health, housing and education are provided to everyone based on need, not on ability to pay, gradually take more and more of what matters in life out of the realm of money. Modern capitalism seeks to do the opposite, to put a price on everything, to turn water, health, education, clean air, greenspaces and even friendship and love into commodities to be bought and sold. In doing so, the inherent value of these wonderful things is strained, depleted and destroyed. Putting a price on something often devalues it, the point made by the philosopher Michael Sandel in his brilliant book, ‘What money can’t buy.’ I really agree with this. I feel personally, that the more of our common life we can take out of the realm of money and of driving profit for capital, the better it will be.

ENDS.

Subscribe now

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.

Listen to our episode with Kristen Ghodsee here.

I was staying at my mother’s house in Oxford recently and we went to the local public park with the kids. The park has an old stone house that now serves as the public library. Bury Knowle park and house were originally in private ownership. The house was built for a banker in 1800, and owned by a series of wealthy families, before being bought by the city council in 1930. It was turned into the park and library it still is today, as well as other uses such as being a baby clinic for young mothers.

Subscribe now

The UK has many such buildings and parks, formerly the large homes of rich people, now run for various government or public purposes- becoming libraries, hospitals, education colleges or various government training institutes. Many hundreds of other large houses and grounds are managed by the National Trust, which is an independent charity, and the public can pay to visit them. These properties are very popular, especially with the middle classes as the cost of entry remains a barrier. I love them, particularly the grounds, as they are generally beautiful landscapes with huge mature oak and other trees, an oasis from the industrial farmland that makes up most of our countryside. Great tea and cheese scones too.

A peaceful revolution

These houses and their transition from private ownership to public use are the very physical manifestation of an incredible reduction in wealth inequality that occurred during the 20^th century in the UK, where the share of wealth of the richest 1% fell from a peak of 72% to 18% in 1983.

In addition to many of these houses and their land being turned over to the public, many more were simply demolished, and the lands they controlled divided up. Over a thousand country houses were destroyed up and down the country.

Some of these houses were enormous, similar in size and stature to the fictional Downton Abbey, employing huge numbers of servants and other staff, all to support one family.

They were torn down, the many books in their libraries and their collections of art sold off, or given to the state in lieu of tax owed- today if you go around the National Gallery and look at the many amazing works of art, next to the name of the picture, you often see a short sentence saying, ‘donated to the nation by Lord X, in lieu of death duties’.

This radical shift was not the result of a violent revolution or insurrection, but the product of a peaceful, democratic transition that took the UK from being one of the most unequal countries in the world to being one of the most equal, on a par with Sweden. It is a story that is not well know at all and rarely told.

The reasons behind this dramatic destruction of privilege and great fortunes were multiple, the product of both deliberate policy and historical events, and the complex synergy between them. They have, I think, significant implications for today, where wealth is once again becoming far more concentrated in the UK and the rest of the world.

The purposeful destruction of extreme wealth

While peaceful and democratic, this shift did not happen without a fight. This was a dramatic battle between the newly enfranchised, newly organised and vocal working and middle classes, and the historically wealthy, many of whom could trace their wealth back to the Norman conquest of Britain.

The removal of trade protections on corn, and the competition from corn grown in the USA or Argentina, made farming less profitable, and not enough to support such palaces and the style of living that came with them.

Taxes on wealth, inheritance and incomes, played a huge role in this demolition of wealth. The ‘supertax’ introduced on the incomes of richest by the Prime Minister Lloyd George, who faced a huge battle to do it with the House of Lords. The estate tax, known also as ‘death duties’, which was introduced in 1894, reached a peak of 85% in the 1960’s.

The first World War saw many young men who were the heirs to fortunes killed on the battlefield, mown down by machine guns, leading their men over the top. It also saw many servants go to fight, and many houses temporarily requisitioned to become hospitals. Many did not come back either, over 720,000 were killed in WW1, around one in eight who fought. The emancipation of women, in part also driven by the war, but also the suffragette movement and the availability of better paid jobs that did not entail servitude, meant a collapse in the numbers willing to work as housemaids, parlour maids, ladies’ maids or cooks. Men too had better options than being stable hands, footmen or butlers, driving up the cost of having an army of servants.

Harder to quantify, but equally important, was a big shift in the public mood, that crystalised with Winston Churchill being ousted from government in July 1945, and the election of a labour government on a landslide.

Britons from across the political spectrum saw the old world as one that had led them into destitution, economic hardship and two world wars. They wanted a new, modern Britain, which would no longer tolerate such wealth inequality. The deference of the past was replaced by a new self-confidence that the future of Britain should be built by and for ordinary people, not the historically privileged elite.

Importantly, this reduction in wealth inequality was not simply the inevitable product of events. It was done with purpose, by politicians, acting on the will of the majority for a more equal country. Events such as war and stock market crashes of course contributed, but it was the policy responses to these events that mattered as much as the events themselves.

Even the richest were in many ways resigned to this new world. Whilst their wealth was much diminished, many remained extremely wealthy, and do so to this day. Often, they owned more than one of these houses, so were happy to see a few torn down or given away, content to keep their one country estate. The owners of Streatham House simply retreated to Glamis Castle in Scotland. This was not a complete revolution. Britain was left with a significant number of rich people who still owned one in every five pounds of national wealth.

High time we remembered how we made a more equal Britain

It is something we have all forgotten really. As people make their way into the library in Bury Knowle House to return a borrowed book to the desk situated in the former ballroom, little do they know about the quiet revolution to which they owe this opportunity.

Having reduced dramatically, wealth inequality is on the rise again. Old houses used by the government are in some cases being sold back to new rich owners, who often immediately close them to the public, making them once again private palaces only accessible to the richest.

Our current government in the UK, despite huge public support, remains far too timid to enact a wealth tax. They have increased the inheritance tax at least. Yet they have done not nearly enough to tackle the huge problem of wealth concentration, and with it the huge rise in inheritance, which is driving inequality across the country. UK millennials have much higher wealth inequality than previous generations, and our society is once again becoming one where your economic standing depends on your parents’ wealth, and not on your own endeavour.

High time I think to do more to tell the story of how we took on extreme wealth and won, and built a far fairer, more equal nation. If we did it before, we can do it again.

ENDS

Subscribe now

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.

Listen to our latest podcast episode ‘How Migrants Are Used as Scapegoats for the Real Crisis’

My pro-apartheid grandfather then forced us to return to South Africa in the worst days of apartheid, when black children were forced to live with their grandparents in the “homelands” (the least fertile bits of desolate land), and only blacks of working age were allowed anywhere near the whites. But a woman who worked in our block of flats had smuggled her son who was same age as me (eight) into the building, and we used to play together. One day, a gang of white teenage thugs decided it would be fun to throw bricks and rocks at us, and try to stone us to death. Thank God my aunt showed up and stopped the police arresting – not the thugs, but my friend for being in white area!

When I came back to Britain, I also saw institutionalised inequality. My mother had to travel round the country for work and enrolled me briefly in a private school before I went to a government school. I saw how the “school apartheid” in the UK which continues to this day. Wealthier children who are no brighter than poorer ones still get most of the highest-paying and most powerful jobs, perpetuating inequality through the generations.

At university, I realised that debt injustice was wrecking the lives of billions of people. My PhD became a book called The Crumbling Façade of Africa’s Debt Negotiations: Chaos, Arrogance and Secrecy. It traced how because creditors held 100% of power in secret debt negotiations, they decided the amount of debt relief based on the position of the most recalcitrant creditor, leading to a chaotic system where countries came back repeatedly for relief, while cutting spending on the things their people really needed – education, food, health and water.

I realised that debt was inextricably linked with poverty and inequality. Some borrowing was essential – helping to fund all the things citizens want and need; but when countries ran out of money to pay it back, they faced a debt crisis and ordinary citizens paid the price. The creditors (external or domestic) are nearly all rich, dominated by financial institutions and people making money out of wealth they hold in financial investments. On the other hand, those who pay the biggest price in a debt crisis are poor and middle-class citizens who see “austerity” - spending cuts in education, health, social protection, and public sector wages; and tax increases - to repay the debt. When there is a debt crisis, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

In the 1990s/2000s, I was at the centre of the fight for debt relief, advising the Jubilee debt cancellation movement and helping global South countries (the group known patronisingly as Heavily Indebted Poor Countries) to fight their case to negotiate maximum debt relief. We achieved a huge amount – including getting creditors to bring debt payments down to 10% of budgets. This allowed countries to double or treble social spending – providing free primary education to all children and saving millions of lives. In countries like Rwanda, governments invested in rural roads and small markets to create sustainable livelihoods for the poor. These efforts set up those countries for a decade of strong growth and poverty reduction.

How did we do it ? By combining a massive popular Jubilee campaign movement, analysis coming up with workable and affordable solutions. and tough lobbying by the beneficiary countries (evaluators later said they achieved US$27 billion of the US$100 billion cancelled).

Lots of people object to debt relief on the grounds that the countries are corrupt. It is true that corruption by lenders and borrowers is frequent – I and many others have been threatened with violence by the crooks when we have investigated them. To stop it we need strong laws at both ends. The UK anti-corruption law of 2010 was used by Mozambique in 2025 to help spare its citizens from having to pay US$2 billion of crooked loans, and many other countries need to strengthen their laws to cover debt contracts. Also vital is transparency and accountability to citizens and parliaments of the global South, not just by publishing data and contracts online, but through national accountability processes supported by capacity-building for parliaments and citizens to stop bad deals, and for government officials to produce the analysis citizens need. Last time, to ensure the proceeds of debt relief were spent, there was a revolution in accountability: countries designed their own Poverty Reduction Strategies, with strong citizen participation, and then committees of government, civil society and development partners oversaw the spending: that’s why the debt relief achieved so much development progress.

On the other hand, the big thing we didn’t achieve was to change the system. The creditors remained in charge, and decided by 2010 to abolish almost all the advances of the 2000s, and go back to decisions based on financial not development criteria. When in around 2015 creditors began to cut grant aid, and push countries to borrow in financial markets, just when the world had set new development goals which required trillions of dollars of financing, I could see that we were heading for a new debt crisis: and now we are in the worst crisis in history.

Why is it the worst crisis ever ? With the HIPCs, many of them had been in arrears for many years and so weren’t paying much debt service (except to the IMF and World Bank). But now almost all countries in the global South have astronomical debt payments. At Development Finance International we have built a Debt Service Watch database, the only one which compares external and domestic debt service with core social spending for 2025-26. It shows that on average countries of the global South are paying 35% of their budgets on debt.

As you can see from the map below, in almost all countries, debt payments are higher than education spending. Overall, 5.2 billion people live in countries where debt payments are higher than total social spending. On average, debt service is 3 times education spending, 5 times health spending and 9 times social protection spending. And in almost all of these countries, the high debt payment burdens go on for the next decade.

As a result, increasing numbers of governments - and especially citizens - are shouting much louder about the need for debt cancellation. They are angry because since COVID-19, their governments have been cutting social spending and increasing taxes even faster to make rapidly rising debt payments. We have seen this clearly in the 2024 Commitment to Reducing Inequality Index which we produce with Oxfam, where many governments rolled back anti-inequality policies in 2022-24 (though some countries continue to fight inequality well).

In addition, citizens are basing the demand for debt cancellation on new arguments such as reparations, decolonisation and paying for climate and nature justice (on average debt payments are 98 times higher than what governments are spending on climate !).

On the other hand, two things haven’t changed since the first crisis -though they are often used as excuses by the creditor community to say they make debt relief much harder.

1. Commercial creditors are more prominent. Banks have mostly been replaced by bondholders and investment funds. Both in their day have acted like the Wild West in terms of overcharging countries. Last time it took “moral suasion”, tax incentives and strong laws to get most creditors to participate in relief. Once again a minority are refusing to provide relief and launching lawsuits against countries (most recently Ethiopia). One of the things I am most proud of is helping in 2010 to design the UK “anti-vulture fund” law which forced recalcitrant creditors to participate. We urgently need an update of that law.

2. China is more prominent. China has been lending since the 1970s, and at the forefront of debt relief since 1977, providing as much or more than Western countries. It always wants to use its own processes, and not be corralled into action by the G7 or G20. Its lending shot up and became more expensive in the 2010s, and now it wants to be sure that Western commercial creditors and multilateral institutions will deliver their fair share of relief.

What can we do to end the crisis ? It is easy to design solutions which can achieve massive relief at relatively low cost. We need to focus on cancelling or cutting payments due in the next decade (rather than cancelling all the debt which would cost far more), to free up space for governments to spend money on the SDGs. Countries fall into three groups:

1. 40 lower-income countries need major service reduction, bringing down their payments from 35% of spending to 10% over the next 10 years (the HIPC target). As they don’t routinely borrow commercially, this would not negatively affect their “market access”.

2. 25 are regularly hit by natural disasters (earthquakes, hurricanes, pandemics). They need us to move beyond “pausing” their debt payments for a few years which just worsens the problem, to reducing debt payments for 5 years to allow them to recover.

3. 35 (mostly wealthier) countries, like South Africa, constantly borrow on financial markets to fund their budgets: they need comprehensive measures to reduce their borrowing costs.

To spend the proceeds, countries should build Just Green Transition Strategies to fight extreme inequality, climate crisis and nature loss at the same time – and participatory structures to hold them accountable for implementation. If we fund these with debt cancellation (and new money), we can make massive progress on the SDGs and the post-2030 agenda. But none of this is happening now because world leaders aren’t prioritising this crisis. To get them to focus on ending extreme inequality and poverty, and confront the climate and nature crises, a global popular movement is rapidly growing across the world – please join it now!

END.

Author: Matthew Martin, Executive Director, Development Finance International

Matthew discusses these issues in more depth in our latest podcast episode, unpacking how debt, inequality, and political choice intersect — and why things don’t have to stay this way. Listen here👇

EQUALS

Who Pays When Countries Fall into Debt?

When countries fall into debt, who actually pays the price…

Listen now

3 months ago · Equals Bulletin

Subscribe now

The Adam Smith Institute, a right-wing think-tank set up in his honour, is our nemesis every year when we release Oxfam’s Davos report on inequality. I have been in lots of debates with their representatives over the years, where they question the importance of worrying about inequality, and especially taxation, and instead explain that the answer is simply more free markets.

Interestingly this was not all Adam Smith said though. He is very selectively quoted. Unlike many modern economists who prefer theoretical mathematical models that abstract from reality, Smith was an empiricist, observing not just the UK economy (which at that time was very similar in shape to many countries in the Global South today) but also other countries all over the world. He made use of what concrete data he could get to help support his theories.

Class warrior Smith

In doing so, he was one of the first economists to theorise the idea of social classes to help understand the economy, dividing society into workers, landlords and capitalists. He also had a very low opinion of rich people, seeing them either lazy or indolent, living off the rents from their land, or as monopolistic, rapacious capitalists.

He was the first economist too to introduce the idea that the prosperity of a nation should be measured on how well the working majority are doing, and whether their lives are becoming measurably better, rather than only measuring the opulence of the richest.

Because of this I actually think he would have liked Oxfam’s Davos paper this year, Resisting the Rule of the Rich, which is about the dangers of economic power turning into political power, and the suppression of liberty and freedom for the many to protect the wealth of the few. He was deeply concerned about the influence of rich capitalists over politics and government policy, and he felt that if they were allowed to pursue their self-interest in this way this would run contrary to the common interest. That this would in fact be a very visible hand, and would instead lead to increasing monopoly power.

Anti-colonial Smith

This led him to be very negative about colonialism. He was opposed to the companies like the East India company that used their monopoly power to colonise and oppress other countries and reap huge profits, so he would probably have liked our Davos paper last year on colonialism too.

He was not a fan of big government either. He felt that governments were a very poor substitute for the free market. Branko Milanovic (whose brilliant book, Visions of Inequality inspired this blog) reckons Smith’s state would represent about 10% of GDP, whereas modern welfare states are more like 40% of GDP. There we would definitely disagree. I think that modern, accountable welfare states, using progressive taxation to provide universal free healthcare or education, and protecting the young, the old and those who are struggling, are one of the greatest thing humans have ever invented.

Smith believed that competition was the best way of regulating capitalists, and not government, as government can be captured by the rich and powerful – something he saw all the time. Politicians can be captured by wealth and money; that is as true today as it was in the 18^th century. His answer to this though was to keep government as small as possible. The trouble is I think that regulation of the market by a small government is likely to be very weak as they have very limited economic power to face up to rich capitalists. This surely leaves the capitalists free to conspire and form monopolies even more. For me, modern, accountable states that answer to the people and not to organised money are the best way to counterbalance the power of capital; rather than shrinking a state that is captured, we should be capturing it back.

Anyhow, given the focus of our Davos paper this year on civil and political freedoms and inequality, I began to wonder what kind of a foreword Adam Smith might have written for the paper, and I have assembled the following from his writing:

Wherever there is great property, there is great inequality. For one very rich man, there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many.

As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce. The wood of the forest, the grass of the field, and all the natural fruits of the earth, which, when land was in common, cost the labourer only the trouble of gathering them, come, even to him, to have an additional price fixed upon them. [yes Smith, and not Karl Marx wrote this!]

What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable… If [justice] is removed, the great, the immense fabric of human society, that fabric which to raise and support seems in this world if I may say so has the peculiar and darling care of Nature, must in a moment crumble into atoms.

The mean rapacity [of]… merchants and manufacturers ... [shows that they] neither are nor ought to be the rulers of mankind. People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices…The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order [of people], ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.

In the courts of princes, in the drawing-rooms of the great, where success depends not upon merit but upon favour, truth is seldom heard. This disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful… is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments. [I can’t think of a better description of Davos.]

One feels we must all combine to resist the rule of the rich in our society.’

[Ok I wrote the last sentence, but the rest is direct quotes I promise]

ENDS

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.

2025 has been a year of resistance: the people versus the powerful. Life has become unbearably difficult for ordinary citizens and now - from Nairobi to Bangladesh, Italy to Peru - workers of the world are downing their tools and demanding better, rejecting a global economic order that treats their suffering as necessary for profit.

Subscribe now

Growing up in Mathare, one of Nairobi’s biggest slums, I know first-hand the violence of poverty, the preventable loss of lives lived hand to mouth, the indignity of hungry babies one cannot feed, rent one cannot pay, healthcare and education one cannot afford. Poverty is not a natural condition. It is engineered, maintained and ingrained by systems and governments that decide who thrives and who struggles. These are not accidents of fate, but political choices.

For instance, in Kenya we once had free primary education – now we do in name only, with a multitude of ways in which parents must actually pay. This retreat from education, health and social protection is not incompetence, it is deliberate austerity imposed on the poor while the wealthy continue to extract with impunity. Ordinary people are heavily taxed despite an already unbearable cost of living. Meanwhile, corporations receive exemptions and political elites shield their wealth. This became fertile ground for the Reject the Finance Bill protests of 2024 and 2025. We marched with fire in our bellies and radical hope in our voices. Hope that the future must be better. We are not asking for anything grandiose, we simply want to live in dignity. The state responded with violence and many lost their lives. We have seen this brutality repeated in Cameroon, Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria, Peru, and Tanzania. All are reminders of what can happen when the elite feel threatened.

As the liberation leader Amílcar Cabral reminded us, people do not fight for abstract ideas. They fight to change their material conditions, to secure their children’s future, to live better and in peace. Yet today that future feels uncertain. Young people are delaying families because they cannot sustain themselves. Climate change and ecological collapse remind us daily that even the earth is pleading for an end to exploitation.

Still, I hold a deep belief that there is enough for everybody, enough land, enough water, enough joy, enough love, if we put solidarity, unity and humanity at the core of our politics. There is no scarcity, only hoarding and systems designed to keep abundance in the hands of a few.

The Gen Z protests have revealed the interconnectedness of all our struggles, from the economic protests of Nairobi to post-election protests in Maputo, from the barrios of Latin America to the townships of South Africa, I learned this as a grassroots activist at the Mathare Social Justice Centre. People’s struggles are always struggles for dignity and social justice. These must be the priorities of any government that claims to serve its people. A democracy that cannot feed, house, or protect its people is democracy in name only.

We cannot wish poverty away, it must be systemically eradicated, just as it has been systemically entrenched. This requires courage to confront capitalism, colonial legacies and the political elite. This change is not only necessary, it is inevitable. That world is calling us now, and we must answer.

END.

Author: Wanjira Wanjiru, Kenyan grassroots activist who co-founded the Mathare Social Justice Centre and won the Mawina Kouyate Daughters of Africa Award for activism

Subscribe now

This year’s report, Resisting the Rule of the Rich, once again lays bare something the public has known for a long time: the problem is not lack of information, but the deafening silence that surrounds the obvious.

Billionaire wealth has grown at three times the pace of the previous five years, reaching $18.3 trillion. Just over 3,000 billionaires own wealth equivalent to six times the combined GDP of Africa – a continent home to more than 1.5 billion people. At the same time, one in four people globally faces hunger. But the core message of the report is not about billionaires’ wealth or hunger. It’s about power – who holds it, how they use it, and what it costs the rest of us.

Common sense understands power. It always has.

The Normalisation of Oligarchy

Most people already know that extreme wealth tilts the playing field. They see how money buys influence, sets political agendas, shapes media narratives, and insulates the richest from accountability. Oxfam’s report states plainly that billionaire power now actively dismantles progressive policies and erodes civic and political rights – and that this is happening across the world, not in isolation.

For years we have been told that questioning concentrated wealth is divisive – and those who dared to question it were labelled. But common sense knows better: no democracy can function when the rules are shaped by those who can afford to rewrite them, or when those same rules apply differently depending on the size of one’s purse.

The Climate of Power

Resisting the Rule of the Rich also highlights how extreme wealth drives extreme damage – not just economically or politically, but environmentally. Drawing on Oxfam’s climate inequality report, Climate Plunder, it shows that the richest 0.1% produce more carbon in a single day than the poorest half of humanity emits in an entire year. Meanwhile, ordinary people – especially those least responsible for the crisis – have already reduced their emissions, while Europe’s richest 0.1% have increased theirs.

This is not a side‑issue. It is part of the same pattern: a global order where excessive wealth buys the right to decide who bears the burden.

Why Common Sense Matters

For too long, inequality has been treated as a technical problem – a matter of tinkering, modelling, and marginal gains. But today’s inequality is not technical. It is structural – a system deliberately rigged in favour of the powerful.

That’s why I keep returning to common sense.

Because common sense refuses to be intimidated by complexity. It recognises that hunger in a world of abundance is not a puzzle. That democracy distorted by wealth is not an accident. That a planet destabilised by the lifestyles of the few is not a mystery to decode.

Common sense tells the truth plainly: A world organised for the rich will never work for the rest of us.

And perhaps that is why it has been pushed out of the room for so long.

But the truth is this: people have never stopped holding onto it. And now, they are beginning to say it out loud again – clearly, calmly, without apology.

Common Sense Won’t Stay Silent!

That, more than any summit or speech, is what gives me hope.

Author: Deepak Xavier is the Head of Inequality, Economic & Climate Justice at Oxfam International and Global Convenor, Fight Inequality Alliance.

The world is not approaching a crucial tipping point: we are in it.

For many years, Amnesty International has warned of authoritarianism growing across and within countries. Evidence from the last year shows how this process is accelerating, and fast. One year on from the inauguration of President Trump, we have seen around the globe how leadership that prioritises military investment and foreign policy deal-making and rejects human rights protections and multilateral commitments is multiplying, and this has done dangerous damage to the hard-won equality, justice and dignity gains of these past 80 years the world over.

Equally for many years Oxfam has drawn our attention to the growing inequality emergency, with the relentless rise of the super-rich. As this report shows, this process too has accelerated; over the last year billionaire fortunes have risen three times faster than they have in the five years since 2020. The first trillionaire is on the horizon. Meanwhile one in four people are regularly worried about not having enough food to eat, having to skip meals to get by, and ordinary people’s lives are becoming impossible to afford.

Subscribe now

Authorities in a broad sweep of countries have employed authoritarian practices and introduced new measures to restrict freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly. They have used these, and existing laws and regulations, to clamp down on human rights defenders, critics and opponents, or as a way to evade accountability and defend the economically powerful.

In an all too familiar tale, the brunt of this repression is born by those with the least buffer, with union organisers, environmental defenders, women, racialised, indigenous and LGBTQI+ people around the world being forcibly disappeared, arbitrarily detained or killed for their activism.

As this report clearly shows, these two deeply concerning trends of growing authoritarianism and rising inequality are not separate problems. They are not distinct dilemmas. They instead deeply entwined, as governments across the world side with the powerful, not the people, and choose repression, not redistribution.

It is imperative that our hard won-civil and political rights – freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and freedom to organise – are protected. Protest is a cornerstone of fair and democratic societies, it is a critical bastion against authoritarianism. It is equally important that the social and economic rights of all are fulfilled; rights essential for living a life with dignity, covering basic needs like food, water, housing, healthcare, education.

It is view, confirmed by the facts, that central to the realisation of all these human rights must be a rapid reduction in inequality; the gap between the super-rich and the rest of society must be closed, and fast.

The good news is people around the world are not sitting idly by as billionaires and authoritarians corrode the foundations of our freedoms. Inequality and tax justice advocates are demanding action on inequality, and specifically on the taxation of the super-rich. A UN tax convention is on its way to becoming a reality, led by Africa. From Malaysia to Madagascar, Nepal to France and the US – people are leading the way with - less a wave - and more a tsunami of global protests confronting the rise of the far-right, calling for a change to corrupt governments, who prioritise profit over people and facilitate the dominantion of the super-wealthy over the lives and liberties of everyday people.

Resisting the Rule of the Rich from Oxfam is a fearless and timely reminder of what is at stake, what is already lost and what is left to protect from the insatiable grasping hands of the billionaire class. Oxfam reminds us all that a new and more equal world is possible. It is time to organise, mobilise – and take it.

END.

Author: Agnès Callamard is the Secretary General of Amnesty International.

The tool goes alongside Oxfam’s latests flagship inequality report ‘Rule of the Rich’, which coincides with World Economic Forum in Davos. Under the hood, there’s some very interesting research that drives the numbers.

Subscribe now

The purpose of the tool is to put the enormous wealth gain of billionaires into perspective – it’s hard to wrap your head around numbers as large as billions or trillions. Over the last year, billionaire wealth increased by $2.5 trillion, or $80k a second, which is what the ticker is based on, rather than pulling data from markets in real-time.

The ticker isn’t proposing a specific tax rate (that’s covered in depth in a different report) or claiming that this wealth gain is available cash (most billionaire wealth is invested in company shares); it is purely one way of communicating obscene levels of wealth inequality.

At every billion-dollar milestone, the website shows two tiles with what that money could have been spent on.

The red ones are luxury items. A billion dollars could buy Buckingham Palace. For $25 billion, which billionaire will have made by day 3 of Davos, they could fill 200 Olympic-sized swimming pools with champagne. For $35 billion, what billionaires make in a week, they could buy all the art in the Louvre.

It goes without saying that these are just indicative, an attempt to put the scale of wealth into perspective. Buckingham Palace and all the art in the Louvre aren’t for sale, and even billionaires are probably not crazy enough to fill swimming pools with champagne!

Some of these numbers are based on public estimates; for example, the valuation of NFL teams is tracked by Forbes, and the cost to build a luxury underwater city is based on a conceptual idea. Others are more back-of-the-envelope calculations. The cost to make the Statue of Liberty out of gold is based on replacing her copper with gold - no calculations of the structural integrity were made!

More interesting are the green tiles. These show what the governments of low and lower-middle-income countries could do if they had this extra revenue. The tiles alternate between various Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) related indicators, but it is part of a model that shows what would happen if countries had additional revenue in their entire budgets. The $1 billion tile will show that 140,140 people would have increased access to basic water, but it would also mean:

• 258,563 additional children in education

• 1,241,472 people with increased access to electricity

• 31,616 additional nurses

• and 11,855 additional teachers…amongst the many other things governments spend money on (like infrastructure or defence).

This is just one year of additional government revenue and covers low and lower-middle-income countries only.

The data is driven by The Government Revenue and Development Estimations (GRADE) tool, a research project from the University of St Andrews and the University of Leicester in the UK. The idea of this model is to translate what increasing or decreasing government revenue has on the Sustainable Development Goals.

The tool is a game-changer for those who want to communicate the impact of increasing or decreasing government revenue. It’s been used, for example, to model the impact of reducing the debt burden of the poorest countries, the harm caused by tax avoidance and the benefits from a fairer tax system. For any campaigner or policymaker involved in fiscal justice and access to public services, it’s an underutilised tool that’s easy to use, publicly available and covers nearly every country in the world.

There are some very interesting features about this model worth highlighting.

1. It’s a non-linear econometric model. This means it is more sophisticated than simply projecting that for every $1 spent, something will happen. Put simply, if revenue increases a small amount, then little happens, but it gets to a point where there’s very rapid returns, followed by a plateau phase, where it’s not possible to improve things further (you can’t get more than 100% of people with access to electricity, for example).

   

2. The model takes into account governance. As Government revenue increases, the quality of governance tends to increase, and so there is less revenue lost to corruption, etc. The model also includes governance indicators that show how increased resources improve governance itself, which in turn improves SDGs, creating a virtuous circle.

3. It shows the trade-offs – or lack of. For example, in 2019, Nigeria lost $689 million in corporate tax because of revenue because of profit shifting to the Netherlands. The Netherlands gains from this arrangement but if the Nigerian government had additional revenue equivalent to these losses, this would avert around 651 child deaths annually in Nigeria while causing zero additional deaths in the Netherlands. This is because the Netherlands already has extremely high health outcomes; reducing revenue slightly has no measurable effect on this indicator.

4. It’s realistic and non-prescriptive. Because it allocates extra revenue to an entire budget, rather than a specific purpose, as would be the case for any new revenue source for a government, it gives a more realistic view. Other expenditures go up beyond SDG-related ones, even military spending, as the model assumes that new resources are spent in the same proportions as historically.

Huge thanks to Dr Bernadette O’Hare, Dr Stuart Murray and Professor Stephen Hall and the GRADE team for their technical support with the model. Check out the GRADE tool here and post any questions you have in the comments below.

He rose to become the head of the National Union of Mineworkers and played a leading role in the fight against Apartheid. During the transition to democracy, he was the close confidant of Mandela and led the negotiations with the white government.

He also led the process to develop South Africa’s new constitution.

The heroic struggle against the white supremacy of the Apartheid government was a big thing as I was growing up. The pitched battles fought on the township streets between the armoured police and the young people regularly on the nightly news. Joining my parents on anti-Apartheid marches, drinking tea from a ‘Free Nelson Mandela’ mug and listening to the fantastic song of the same name. South Africa was also the first place I lived and worked in Africa, twice in the 1990’s. It is a truly incredible country, which has a huge place in my heart.

I think it is so critical we remember this incredible struggle against Apartheid, which was the last of many other successful struggles across the continent for national liberation. Struggles that so many people died for. We should ensure our children know these stories. Sadly, in today’s world I fear that many young men, if asked who was the most famous South African, would be more likely to name Elon Musk than Nelson Mandela.

SA and the USA

The US, under Ronald Reagan, was one of the last countries to end its support for the white minority government in South Africa. The UK, under Mrs Thatcher was one of the others. Theirs was a policy of ‘constructive engagement’. This policy was promoted as an alternative to the economic sanctions and divestment from South Africa that congress, the UN General Assembly and the global anti-apartheid movement were all calling for.

Recently the relationship between the USA and SA has been back in the news, with President Donald Trump repeatedly falsely accusing South Africa’s government of allowing for violence against white farmers and expropriating their land. He has offered asylum to white farmers seeking to flee the country. Trump has given enormous weight to these false allegations and theories, theories which Ramaphosa himself said this week, ‘conveniently align with wider notions of white supremacy.’

An unlikely radical

Despite his role in the struggle, Cyril Ramaphosa is nevertheless a bit of an unlikely radical. For a start he is one of Africa’s richest men, worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Mandela had wanted him to be his successor, but the ANC decided otherwise, and Thabo Mbeki became president. At that point Ramaphosa left politics and moved into the private sector and made a huge amount of money.

He has also not really done much as President to challenge the underlying neoliberal economic policies that have been in place in South Africa since the late 1990’s and have underpinned its extremely high inequality. The National Minimum Wage reform, that he personally pushed for, was mainly done when he was Deputy President, so his actual term as President of the ANC and of the country has been disappointing for those who thought he would use his office to advance a more radical, pro-poor agenda.

But nevertheless, looking back over the last five years, globally at least he is one of a handful of leaders who are bravely taking on the powerful and fighting for the side of good. It began with his very vocal advocacy around what he described as ‘vaccine apartheid’; when South Africa and India fought at the WTO for the right to manufacture generic Covid-19 vaccines. The restriction of vaccines to the rich world to protect pharmaceutical patents and exorbitant monopoly profits cost millions of lives and remains to my mind one of the greatest crimes committed so far in this century. Ramaphosa was firmly on the right side of that battle.

Then in 2023, South Africa led the world by bringing the case to the International Court of Justice accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza. I remember going a march in London around that time and seeing the sudden flood of South African flags flying next to the Palestinian ones and how amazing that was. Mandela famously said, ‘We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians’ and Ramaphosa’s government clearly took this to heart in taking this incredibly brave step in support of Palestine.

Finally, this year with the G20, Ramaphosa has shown both steel and dignity in standing up to geopolitical bullying. Though President Trump refused to attend the G20 – which was held last month in Johannesburg, chaired by South Africa, and the first G20 in Africa– the U.S. publicly warned South Africa not to agree a communique at the meeting. In the run up to the summit, many diplomats in the G7 were saying the likelihood of a communique was very low, that South Africa should make do with a ‘chair’s statement’ as has happened at the G7.

But the South Africans stood firm, and a communique was agreed. Whilst the communique was watered down in key respects as other nations like Argentina – an ally of the Trump administration – lobbied hard within the negotiations, it was nevertheless a major achievement that it was agreed at all. At the summit itself Ramaphosa showed his experience as a canny negotiator by declaring the declaration agreed and passed in the first session of the summit, before any others had time to block it. As we said in our reaction, ‘South Africa has set an example to the world in ensuring the G20 stood firm and collectively agreed on a leader’s declaration – defending multilateralism – despite U.S. strong-arming.’

Not only this, but Ramaphosa also personally chose to commission, as part of his G20 presidency, the first ever report to the G20 on the global inequality crisis, written by the Extraordinary Committee chaired by Joseph Stiglitz. They also came out fully in support of the main recommendation of the committee, the establishment of an International Panel on Inequality, a kind of ‘Inequality IPCC’, and rallied the leaders of Brazil and Spain to support them in this. If this panel is actually formed in 2026, and I really hope it is, it will be a tremendous legacy of the South African G20.

No invite to Miami

The G20 presidency rotates, and now has passed to the USA, who were quick to say that South Africa is not invited. Last week there was an extraordinary exchange on substack between the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and South African Foreign Minister Lamola, which will be something captured in the history books. Lamola’s final words are worth quoting in full:

‘Secretary Rubio, the world is watching. It is growing weary of double standards. It is tired of lectures on democracy from those who seem to have forgotten that democracy, at its best, must listen as much as it speaks.

We do not seek your approval for our path. Our path is our own, chosen by our people and guided by our sovereign laws. But we do seek, and we will always extend, a hand of respectful partnership.

We believe in a world where nations can disagree yet still find common ground for the sake of a child’s health, a community’s stability, and our planet’s future. That is the world Madiba fought for. That is the world we, in South Africa, are still building every single day.’

This is what standing up to geopolitical bullying looks like. It now remains to be seen whether the other nations of the G20, and especially the G7, will stand with South Africa, and demand their inclusion at the G20. I suspect many of them will not fail to disappoint, but I do hope that some at least take heart from the bravery of the government of Cyril Ramaphosa.

ENDS.

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.

I joined comrades from across the world in two connected spaces of resistance and hope, building a future for the 99%, even as G20 leaders met just 10 kms away in a high-security bubble, cut off from the realities we were confronting:

• Global Assembly of the Fight Inequality Alliance

• The People’s Summit

Both gatherings were rooted in one truth: the crises we face — inequality, debt, climate chaos, patriarchy — are systemic. And so must be our response: bold, collective, and rooted in justice.

The G20 vs. The People

The G20 leaders issued a declaration that promised incremental reforms within the same broken system. In contrast, the People’s Summit unfolded with a radically different vision. It brought together voices from the 99% to imagine a future built on justice and solidarity, not profit and exploitation.

Participants spoke passionately about the urgent need to put life before profit and dismantle structures that perpetuate inequality and ecological destruction. They called for bold transformations, including:

• Building a new global architecture beyond neoliberal and neocolonial control.

• Taxing the super-rich and multinationals and ending tax havens.

• Debt justice — exposing and cancelling illegitimate debts that rob nations of sovereignty.

• Climate justice — making rich polluters pay and rejecting false ‘green’ solutions.

• Valuing care work, defending cultural rights, and protecting civic space.

• Ending all forms of occupation and genocide, and upholding the right of peoples to land, life, and liberation.

This is not just a list of demands — it’s a vision for a world where economies serve people and planet, not markets rigged for the 1%.

Why This Matters

The G20 continues to turn to the same elites who created the inequality crisis for solutions. But the answers lie with the Global Majority — the 99% who have endured inequality and survived against all odds. From Chiapas to Karachi, Nairobi to Soweto, Manila to Belém, the 99% are rising to reclaim our economies, our lands, and our futures.

Final Thoughts

Joburg reminded me that another world is not only possible — it is already being born. The question is: will we join the fight to make it real? What about you?

Join the movement: https://www.fightinequality.org/jointhemovement

END.

Deepak is the Head of Inequality, Economic and Climate Justice at Oxfam International. He is also a also a co-founder and Global Convenor of the Fight Inequality Alliance.

Check out this powerful op-ed by Deepak and Jenny Ricks arguing that while the world’s most powerful meet behind closed doors, a “People’s Summit” in Johannesburg brings forward real solutions from the 99%.

This article was first published on LinkedIn.

Catch our latest Bulletin: a deep dive into the G20 outcomes and a spotlight on Oxfam report on Kenya’s inequality crisis. exposing Kenya’s growing inequality crisis.

Hundreds of the world’s leading economists and other experts on inequality from seventy countries are urging world leaders to establish an International Panel on Inequality (IPI) inspired by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPI is the central recommendation of the G20’s first ever report on global inequality, which will be presented to leaders at next week’s G20 Leaders Summit in Johannesburg.

Commissioned by President Ramaphosa as part of South Africa’s G20 Presidency – and chaired by Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Economics Laureate and former Chief Economist of the World Bank – the G20 Extraordinary Committee of Independent Experts on Inequality warns leaders of an “inequality emergency” and calls for a new international body to inform governments, Fpolicymakers, and the international community.

Now, in an open letter to world leaders, renowned scholars including 2024 Nobel Economics Laureate Daron Acemoglu, Thomas Piketty, Gabriel Zucman, Kate Pickett, Richard Wilkinson, Ha-Joon Chang, Isabella Weber, Jason Hickel, Nora Lustig, and Seye Abimbola are urging the creation of an IPI. They join senior global economic leaders, including former US Treasury Secretary and Chair of the Federal Reserve Janet Yellen, three former Chief Economists and two Deputy Chief Economists of the World Bank, several of the Bank’s other former senior leaders, and former senior leadership from the IMF, Asian Development Bank, Inter-American Development Bank.

Three UN Special Rapporteurs on extreme poverty and human rights have backed the IPI – including current mandate holder Olivier De Schutter – alongside a former UN Under Secretary General for Economic & Social Affairs; and former senior leadership from the IMF, OECD, ILO, UNICEF, UNDP, UNU-WIDER, and the US Joint Economic Committee. Several former government ministers – Martin Guzmán, former Economy Minister of Argentina; José Antonio Ocampo, former Finance Minister of Colombia; and Clare Short, former UK Secretary of State for International Development – have also joined.

In their letter, the experts say they are ”profoundly concerned” that “extreme concentrations of wealth translate into undemocratic concentrations of power, unravelling trust in our societies and polarising our politics.” They warn that “economic inequality is an engine that drives rapid climate change and ensures its negative impacts are disproportionately felt by the poorest and most vulnerable people.”

“Inequality is not inevitable; it is a policy choice,” they say. “Clear and proven steps can be taken to reduce it and build more equal societies and economies, which are the fundamental foundation stone of a successful future for us all.” They remind leaders that a better understanding of inequality and its drivers is “in the interests of policy makers from across the political spectrum.”

The experts represent a broad range of disciplines, including economists, political scientists, climate scientists, sociologists, epidemiologists, anthropologists, historians, geographers, philosophers, which they say highlights that “high levels of economic inequality have a negative impact on every aspect of human life and progress, including our economies, our democracies and the very survival of the planet.”

Thomas Piketty, Professor at EHESS and at the Paris School of Economics; Co-director, World Inequality Lab & World Inequality Database, and author of Capital in the Twenty-First Century, said:

“We are at a dangerous moment in human history. Rampant inequality is dividing nations and communities, threatening our social fabric, human rights, and the very essence of democracy. A global effort to tackle inequality is needed – and rigorous analysis of its causes, drivers, and solutions is the first step. Governments need to live up to the G20 Summit’s promise of ‘solidarity, equality, sustainability’ and urgently establish an International Panel on Inequality.”

Kate Pickett, Professor of Epidemiology at the University of York, co-founder of The Equality Trust, and co-author of The Spirit Level, said:

‘We know inequality undermines every measure of a good society. Decades of research have shown inequality is linked to a host of social ills including lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality, worse educational attainment, increased mental illness and stress, higher crime rates and imprisonment, and lower social trust. If we want safe, cohesive, societies where everyone stands a fair chance, governments need take tackling inequality seriously – and an IPCC-style body for inequality is the essential first step.”

Ha-Joon Chang, Research Professor at the Department of Economics of SOAS University of London Co-Director of the Centre for Sustainable Structural Transformation, and author of Kicking Away the Ladder, said:

‘High inequality is the result of decades of a failed economics that has primarily benefited the richest in our societies. Not only is there a lot of evidence showing that higher inequality produces more negative economic and social outcomes, there are quite a few examples of more egalitarian societies growing much faster than comparable but more unequal societies.’

The report of the G20 Extraordinary Committee of Independent Experts on Inequality revealed that the richest 1% captured 41% of new wealth since the year 2000, while the bottom 50% of humanity have increased their wealth by just 1%. This means that the richest 1% have seen their average wealth rise by US$1.3m, while the bottom 50% have seen their wealth rise by just US$585 over the same period, in constant 2024 dollars.

83% of all countries, accounting for 90% of the world’s population, meet the World Bank’s definition of high inequality. Countries with high inequality are seven times more likely to experience democratic decline than more equal countries.

/END

Notes for editors

The letter is available here.

The G20 Extraordinary Committee of Independent Experts on Inequality presented their report to President Ramaphosa in Cape Town last week. They will present their findings at the G20 Leaders Summit on 22/23 November.

Extraordinary Committee report: https://g20.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/2-G20-Global-Inequality-Report-Full-and-Summary.pdf

Extraordinary Committee press release: https://g20.org/g20-media/landmark-g20-report-led-by-nobel-laureate-joseph-stiglitz-sounds-alarm-on-inequality-emergency-and-calls-for-international-panel-on-inequality/

We write to you as more than 600 economists and inequality experts from over 70 countries, to call on you to support the establishment of a permanent International Panel on Inequality to address the global inequality emergency, as recommended by the Extraordinary Committee on Inequality report to the G20, led by Professor Joseph Stiglitz.

We are experts from a broad range of disciplines, including economists, political scientists, climate scientists, sociologists, epidemiologists, anthropologists, historians, geographers, philosophers. Our diversity reflects a key fact: high levels of economic inequality have a negative impact on every aspect of human life and progress, including our economies, our democracies and the very survival of the planet.

We support the view of the Stiglitz G20 Committee that the world faces an inequality emergency. We are profoundly concerned, as they are, that extreme concentrations of wealth translate into undemocratic concentrations of power, unravelling trust in our societies and polarising our politics.

We agree that economic inequality is an engine that drives rapid climate change and ensures its negative impacts are disproportionately felt by the poorest and most vulnerable people.

Just as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has played a vital role in providing neutral, science-based and objective assessments of climate change, a new International Panel on Inequality would do the same for the inequality emergency. This non-partisan and independent panel of experts on inequality would bring together the most up-to-date work of economists, scientists and other inequality experts from around the world, just as the IPCC does. It would provide policymakers the best, most objective assessments on the scale of inequality, its causes and consequences, and consider potential solutions. It would provide such assessments in international and national contexts, including to inform deliberations at the G20 and the United Nations.

We believe this is in the interests of policy makers from across the political spectrum, who see the importance of this issue and the need to base responses to it on data and evidence and sound analysis. The Panel’s analysis would also benefit the private sector, journalists, academia and civil society. We know that scholars and experts across the world would readily contribute their time voluntarily – as thousands do for the IPCC – in support of such a necessary and vital international initiative. We are ready to assist in this process.

Inequality is not inevitable; it is a policy choice. Clear and proven steps can be taken to reduce it and build more equal societies and economies, which are the fundamental foundation stone of a successful future for us all. We urge you to support the establishment of the International Panel on Inequality as a vital first step in building this more equal and inclusive world.

Signed

• Khaoua Nadji, Pr., PHD (Doctorat d’Etat, 2007)., Independent researcher (retired from University UBMAnnaba), Algeria

• Alejandro Pelfini, PhD in Sociology - Political Sociology, Globalization and Elites, Universidad del Salvador, Faculty of Social Sciences, Education and Communication, Director for Posgraduate Studies (1st affiliation); FLACSO-Argentina, Associated Researcher, Global Studies Programme (nd affiliation)d, Argentina

• Mariana Heredia, Sociologist, Senior researcher at Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET) and professor at the University of San Martin (UNSAM), Argentina

• Mercedes D’Alessandro, Ph.D. in Economics (University of Buenos Aires, Argentina).

• Expert in inequality and development, and feminist economics., Advisor, Ministry of Environment of the Province of Buenos Aires; Consultant for international organizations, Argentina

• Leonardo Ernesto Stanley, Economist, Center for the Study of the State and Society (CEDES), Argentina

• Daniel Kostzer, Labour Economist, Chief Economist at ITUC-CSI, Argentina

• Corina Rodriguez Enriquez, Economist. Phd on Social Sciences., Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN), Argentina

• Gwilym David Blunt, PhD in political science, University of Sydney, Australia

• Jonathan Green, PhD (Education). Expertise in higher education (policy, widening participation), Associate Professor (Pathways) at University of Southern Queensland, Australia

• Katherine Trebeck, PhD, Writer at Large at the University of Edinburgh and Distinguished Visitor at ANU, Australia

• Chris Roche, Professor International Development, MPhil, Emeritus Professor La Trobe University, Australia

• Emily Porter, Master of Economics

• PhD in Social Policy, Senior Research Officer, Brotherhood of St. Laurence, Australia

• Anat Cassuto, International Relations and International Security, International Women’s Development Agency, Australia

• Ben Spies-Butcher, PhD, Economics, Macquarie University, Australia

• Greg Ogle, PhD in Political Economy, University of Adelaide. Expertise in economic statistics and measurement, Senior Policy Analyst, South Australian Council of Social Service (NFP peak body), Australia

• Janet Hunt, PhD Social Science and International Relations, Honorary Associate Professor at the Australian National University, Australia

• Aidan Craney, PhD (Anthropology), La Trobe University, Australia

• Vanessa Little, Master of International and Community Development, N/A, Australia

• Professor Carl Rhodes, Doctor of Education and Doctor of Letters

• Business ethics, business and society, University of Technology Sydney, Australia

• Catherine Caton, Bachelor of International Development - La Trobe University, Australia

• Master of International Development - La Trobe University, Australia

• Master of Global Media Communications - University of Melbourne, Australia

• Field(s) of expertise: international aid and development, gender equality and social inclusion, Partnerships and Program Manager at an international child rights organisation, Australia

• Zachary William Fletcher, Master of Public Policy with a focus on international studies, foreign policy and international development., Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology. Current role: Philanthropy Advisor at Plan International Australia., Australia

• Ashleigh Dodd, Master of International Relations, Digital and Social Communications Officer at Plan International Australia, Australia

• Roger Wilkins, PhD, applied economics, The University of Melbourne, Australia

• Associate Professor Dr Kathryn James, PhD (taxation law) - expert on tax justice and inequality, University of Melbourne Law School, Australia

• Christopher Hoy, PhD in Economics, University of Melbourne / World Bank, Australia

• Adeeba Hanif, Master of Development Studies, Oxfam Australia, Partnership and Grants Lead, Australia

• Professor Beth Goldblatt, PhD in Law, University of Technology Sydney, Professor of Law, Australia

• Natalie Oostergo, Masters of Education, University of Southern Queensland, Associate Director Student Success, Australia

• Seye Abimbola, PhD - health systems and global health, Associate Professor, University of Sydney, Australia

• Elizabeth Cox, Master of Development Studies, Australia/Papua New Guinea

• Anca Gheaus, PhD in philosophy, Central European University, Austria

• Andres Moles, PhD, Political Philosophy, Central European University, Associate Professor, Austria

• Franziska Disslbacher, Graduate Qualification: PhD in Economics and Social Sciences

• Fields: Wealth Inequality, Wealth and Inheritance Taxation, Intergenerational Mobility, Assistant Professor, Research Institute Economics of Inequality, Vienna University of Economics and Business; Visiting Research Fellow, International Inequalities Institute (London School of Economics); Research Fellow, World Inequality Lab; Associated Researcher, Stone Center on Socio-Economic Inequality at CUNY (GC Wealth Project), Austria

• Karin Heitzmann, Associate Prof.; socioeconimcss, social policy & inequality, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business / Research Institute Economics of Inequality, Austria

• Harunmaleeha, Yes, Innoel Renewable Energy, Bangladesh

• S M Humayun Kabir, Canadian Commonwealth Scholar, MPA (Carleton University), Inequality and Human Rights, Public Policy, Issues of Development and Underdevelopment, Local Government, PPP, South Asia, EU, South America, Associate Professor, Department of Development Studies, Dhaka University, Bangladesh but like to visit EU countries/ South American countries

• Olivier De Schutter, Professor, Human Rights Law, Catholic University of Louvain and Sciences Po / United Nations Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Belgium

• Francine Mestrum, Dr in social sciences - research on development, poverty, social policies, Belgium

• Erik Van Mele, Agricultural Engineer - International cooperation, Thematic Advisor Oxfam Belgium, Belgium

• Martin Francois, Inequality, post-growth, income and wealth caps, University of Liège, Belgium

• Arilson Favareto, Sociologist, PhD Environmental Science, Researcher working on inequalities and climate change., University of São Paulo and Brazilian Centre for Analysis and Planning, Brasil

• Vera Rita Ferreira, Ph.D. in social psychology, with expertise in economic psychology, financial education, choice architecture, my own consultancy and lecture business - Vértice Psi; former president of IAREP-the International Association for Research in Economic Psychology, Brasil

• Ana Paula Hey, postdoctoral fellow in sociology; sociology of elites, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil

• José Roberto Savoia, PhD in Business - ESG, Finance, University of São Paulo - Faculty of Economics, Business, and Accountancy, Brazil

• Lauro Mattei, PHD in Economics, Full Professor, Brazil

• Eleuterio F S Prado, Economist, University of São Paulo, Brazil

• Maria Lygia Quartim, Professor, social sciences, Unicamp, Brazil

• Felix Garcia Lopez Jr., Doctorate (sociology of inequality), Institute for Applied Economic Research (Senior Reseearch), Brazil

• Maria Helena Henriques Mueller, Sc.D in Population Sciences, Vice-Presidentn of the Brazilian Association of Former UN staff, Brazil

• Bruno De Conti, PhD in Economics, Associate Professor, University of Campinas, Brazil

• Adriana Abdenur, Phd, Socioloy of Development, Global Fund for a New Economy, Co-President, Brazil

• Pedro Rossi, PhD in economics, Global Fund for a New Economy, Brazil

• Marco Antonio Martins da Rocha, Economics, University of Campinas/Brazil, Professor, and Transforma, Executive Director, Brazil

• Marcelo Milan, Economics, Associate Professor of Economics. UFABC/UFRGS, Brazil

• Camila Rocha, PhD Political Science, Center for Critical Imagination/Cebrap - Scientific Director, Brazil

• Alvaro A Comin, PhD in Sociology, University of Sao Paulo-Brazil, Brazil

• Marcia, psicologia, nao, Brazil

• Flavia Ferreira da Silva, Economist and PhD Candidate in Economic Development, State University of Campinas/ UNICAMP - Institute of Economics, Brazil

• Moses Kwadwo Kambou, PhD in Education

• MA in Development Studies, Centre Universitaire Polyvalent du Burkina, Burkina Faso

• Chrispo Babila Dingha, PhD

• Geography and Planning, Natural resource management, Nature-based Solutions and just sustainability transitions, University of Bamenda and Stellenbosch University, Researcher., Cameroon

• Marjorie Griffin Cohen, Economics & Public Policy. BA, MA, PH.D., Simon Fraser University, Professor Emeritus, Canada

• Prabha Khosla, Master’s Urban Planning, ReFocus Consulting, Canada

• Abdulghany Mohamed, Phd (Public Policy), MA (International Development), MBA, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada (Sessional Lecturer), Canada

• Sanjay Ruparelia, PhD, University of Cambridge

• Politics, comparative government and political economy of development, Professor of Politics and Jarislowsky Democracy Chair, Toronto Metropolitan University, Canada

• Luciana de Ávila, Psychoanalises, Private consulting, Canada

• James B. Davies, MSc and PhD from the London School of Economics; field - - Public Economics, Professor Emeritus, Department of Economics, University of Western Ontario, Canada

• Gustavo Indart, PhD in Economics, Professor Emeritus, Department of Economics, University of Toronto, Canada

• Paul Shaffer, DPhil, International Development Studies (Poverty), Professor, Canada

• Monique Deveaux, PhD, University of Cambridge. Areas of expertise: Political Philosophy/Political Theory; Normative ethics; Poverty & Inequality, University of Guelph (Full Professor), Canada

• Sue-Ann MacDonald, PhD. Social inequalities, Full Professor at the Université de Montréal (Canada), School of Social work; International Federation of Social Workers representation to the UN., Canada

• Bertie Mendis, Post grad engineer and a Takemi Fellow in International Health., UNICEF (retired), Canada

• Giacomo Rella, PhD - Economics, Postdoctoral researcher, Université du Québec à Montréal, Canada

• Lanyan Chen, PhD in Sociology and specializing on social realities of inequalities, feminist research on welfare state and care, decolonization, pubic policy response to violence against women, A Full Professor of Social Welfare and Social Development at Nipissing University, Canada

• Jonathan Ostry, PhD, economics, University of Toronto, Professor of Economics, Global Affairs and Public Policy, Canada

• Nirvana Mujtaba, Postgraduate in Economics, Women’s Rights Policy & Advocacy Specialist, Oxfam Canada, Canada

• Saidatou Dicko, Ph.D in business administration, research focuses on the political and economic elites’ networking and how corporate political connections and activities impact firms’ financial performance and governance., Full professor at the Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), Canada

• A. Haroon Akram-Lodhi, PhD, Economics, Trent University, Canada

• Felipe Correa, PhD., development studies., University of Chile, Chile

• Maria Luisa Méndez, PhD in Sociology, expert on sociology of class and inequality, Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile

• Jorge Atria, PhD; Inequality and Economic Concentration; Taxation and Redistribution; Economic and Fiscal Sociology; Elites and Social Stratification, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Associate Professor, Chile

• Juan Fernandez Labbe, Doctor en Sociología. Investigador en territorio, acción colectiva y pobreza, Universidad Católica Silva Henriquez, Chile

• Juzhong Zhuang, PhD in Economics, Former Deputy Chief Economist, Asian Development Bank (retired), China

• Tao Louie Xu, Development Economics, Research Assistant at Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, China

• Justin Yifu Lin, PhD, economics, Dean and Professor, Institute of New Structrual Economics, Peking University, China

• Sarah Cook, PhD Public Policy/Development Economics, University of Nottingham Ningbo China Professor and Head of School of Economics, China

• Paula Jaramillo, PhD in Economics, Department of Economics, Universidad de Los Andes, Associate Professor, Colombia

• Jimena Hurtado, Docteur ès Sciences Économiques

• History of Economic Thought. Economic theories of justice., Universidad de los Andes, Colombia

• Leopoldo Fergusson, PhD Economics, Universidad de los Andes, TREES (Teaching and Researching Equitable Economics from the South), Colombia

• Marco Alberto Velásquez Ruiz, PhD in Law (human rights), Colombia

• Maria Cristina Quevedo Gómez, PhD in public and global health equity, working on planetary health and climate justice. Social inequality and health. Latin American approach to health equity (power -balance strategies), Associate Professor at the Open University of Catalonia, Colombia

• Anton Grau Larsen, Sociology, Roskilde University, Denmark

• Lars Koch, Master in Political Science, specialised in finance for development, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

• Peter Koerver Schmidt, Master of Science in Business Administration and Commercial Law. PhD in Tax law., Copenhagen Business School, Denmark

• Rune Møller Stahl, PhD, Political Economy, Copenhagen Business School, lecturer, Denmark

• Francisco Miguel Soler Martínez, Doctor. Social Psychology of Inequality, Aarhus University, Denmark

• Christian T. Elbæk, PhD in Management. Decision Making and Behavioural Economics in relation to economic inequality and relative poverty, Aarhus University; Assistant Professor, Denmark

• Marco Romero Cevallos, PHD in International Relations, Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar, Ecuador Director, Social and Global Studies Area, Ecuador

• Amr Adly, PhD in Political Economy, Associate Professor - American University in Cairo, Egypt

• Tommaso Faccio, Economics - international taxation, ICRICT - head of secretariat, England

• Pierre KLEIN, Bachelor in Sociology

• Grassroot activist with the International Movement All Together in Dignity - ATD Fourth World

• , International Movement All Together in Dignity - ATD Fourth World - Coordinator for Europe, Europe

• Claire Slatter, PhD Social policy and social work - Thesis on the Politics of Economic Restructuring in Pacific Islands States, Politics, governance, human rights and development at the University of the South Pacific (Retired), Fiji

• Kunal Sen, PhD, development economics, UNU-WIDER, Director, Finland

• Bonn Juego, PhD in Development & International Relations, University of Jyväskylä - Senior Lecturer in International Development Studies, Finland

• Merete Kemppainen, Architecture/urban planning - doctoral researcher, Aalto University - doctoral researcher/researcher, Finland

• Timo Voipio, DSSc (Dr. of Social Sciences). Poverty, inequality, taxation, social protection, Africa., Ministry for Foreign Affairs (MFA) of Finland. Senior Adviser., Finland

• Martin Brun, PhD in Economics, Postdoc at Tampere University, Finland

• Thomas Piketty, PhD Economics, Professor at Paris School of Economics and Codirector of World Inequality Lab, France

• Francois Bourguignon, Ph D Economics, Paris School of Economics, Emeritus Professor, France

• Sandra Polaski, Master’s degree in nternational economics, expertise in trade, labor and income distribution, Boston University Global Development Policy Center, senior fellow, France

• François Denord, Ph’D (Sociology), CNRS, France

• Gabriel Zucman, Professor of economics, Paris School of Economics, France

• Bruno Cousin, Associate professor of sociology, Sciences Po, France

• Lucas Chancel, PhD economics, inequality and climate studies, Associate Professor, Sciences Po, France

• Ignacio Flores, PhD Economics, Paris School of Economics, France

• Quentin Chancé, Researcher in STS and market studies, in the field of food system transition and environmental governance, University of Montpellier, France

• Nadege Ade, Msc Global health and public policy

• expertise: health systems strengthening and governance, The university of Bath, France

• Gabriela Ramos, Master in Public Administration, former OECD Chief of Staff and Sherpa, UNESCO Assistant Director General for Social and Human Sciences, Co-Chair of the Task Force on Inequalities and Social related financial disclosure., France

• Ingo Ritz, Economist, Global Call to Action Against Poverty (GCAP), Director, France

• Gordon Johnston, Bachelor of laws, UK solicitor advocate, n/a, France

• Bina Desai, PhD, Social Anthropology/ MPhil, Sociology and Economics, Special Advisor, CGIAR, France and Switzerland

• Holger Apel, MA in Development Studies, Specialisation Economics of Development., Advisor, Germany

• Markus Kaltenborn, Professor of Public Law / fields of expertise: human rights, social protection, Ruhr-University Bochum / Director of the Institute of Development Research and Development Policy (IEE), Germany

• Ute Koczy, M.A. Empirical Science of Culture;

• former Member of Parliament and Spokeswoman on Economic Cooperation and Development, Urgewald, Senior Advisor - Campaign Director MFIs /World Bank, Germany

• Rocio Moreno Lopez, BA in Economics

• MSc in Development Administration and Planning

• Expert in Public Budgets and Extractive Industry Revenue., Oxfam Interntional, Head of Governance, Germany

• Gabriele Koehler, Master of economics; development economist; human rights advocate, Senior research associate az UNRISD, Germany

• Izaskun Zuazu, Ph.D. in Economics, political economy, economic inequality, labor economics, feminist economics, Postdoctoral researcher, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany

• Mariana Calcagni, PhD (C) in Global Sociology, M.Sc. Environmental Governance, Free University Berlin, Germany, Germany

• Daniel Avilés Stempel, Doctorate in Economics, Macroeconomic effects of inequality, Postdoctoral Researcher at Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Germany, Germany

• Sarah Ganter, Master degree in Political Science; Sustainable Development; International Tax Justice, Global Policy Forum Europe, Germany

• Tom Krebs, Ph.D. In Economics; Macroeconomics, University of Mannheim, Germany

• Sebastian Dullien, Macroeconomics, Institut für Makroökonomie und Konjunkturforschung (Macroeconomic Policy Institute), Germany

• Claudia Kemfert, Professor of Energy Economics and Sustainability with a PhD in Economics. Expertise covers energy and climate policy, environmental and resource economics, distributional impacts, and sustainable development., Professor of Energy Economics and Sustainability at Leuphana University Lüneburg and Head of the Department of Energy, Transportation and Environment at the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin)., Germany

• Fabian T. Pfeffer, Ph.D. in Sociology

• Expertise: Social Inequality, LMU Munich (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München) & Munich International Stone Center for Inequality Research, Germany

• Achim Truger, Professor of Socioeconomics. Public Finance, Macroeconomics and Economic Policy, University of Duisburg-Essen and German Council of Economic Experts, Germany

• Bodo Ellmers, Political Science (Diploma), Global Policy Forum Europe (Managing Director), Germany

• Ellen Ehmke, Dr. phil. (PhD in political science), social protection and inequality, I dont have an institution I can list here, Germany

• Godfred A Bokpin, PhD (Economics), University of Ghana, Professor and Former Dean of Student Affairs, Ghana

• Farouk Braimah Rabiu, Master in Social Policy studies, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, Peoples Dialogue on Human Settlements, Ghana., Ghana

• Bernard Anaba, MSc. Natural Resources Management

• (Economic Justice), ISODEC (Head of Policy and Programmes), Ghana

• Festus Nenyi Abbiw Owooson, Master of Arts, Economic Policy Management and PhD Candidate, Migration Studies, Center for Migration Studies, University of Ghana, Ghana

• Dr. Stephany A. Adongo, PhD, Management and Financial Economist. (FDI), University for Development Studies, Tamale, Ghana. An Administrator, Head of Sanitation. , Ghana.

• Hugo Geovanny Aguilar Montoya, Master´s Degree on Quantitative Economics and Finance.

• Project Management., Guatemala

• Andrea Krizsan, Professor, Equality policies, Central European University, Hungary/Austria

• Gita Sen, PhD Economics, Honorary Distinguished Professor, Public Health Foundation of India, India

• Darryl Reed, PhD Ethics, PhD Political Economy - Development, Co-operatives, Fair Trade, Trade Justice, Distringuished Professor, Dept of Economic, Shiv Nadar University, Delhi NCR, India

• Chirashree Das Gupta, PhD; Political Economy of Institutions, Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University, India

• Sangh Mitra Singh Gautam, Masters (Passed) PhD (pursuing), University of Delhi, India

• Himanshu, PhD (Economics), Field of Expertise: Poverty, Inequality, Development, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi, India, India

• Amar Yumnam, Ph. D. (Economics), Visiting Professor, Centre for Economic and Social Studies, Hyderabad, India., India

• Sachin Jamdade, PhD Research Scholar, working on informal sector and labour, Project Associate, Global Partnership Network, Jawaharlal Nehru University, India

• H.S.Shylendra, Ph.D; Development Theories, Rural Development, Gender, Collectives , Professor in Social Science, Institute of Rural Management Anand (IRMA), Tribhuvan Sahkari University, Anand, India , India

• C. P. Chandrasekhar, Ph. D. Economics, Senior Research Fellow, Political Economy Research Institute, UMass Amherst, India

• Venkatesh Athreya, Ph D in Economics (UW-Madison). Field of Expertise: Political Economy of Development, Adjunct Faculty, Asian College of Journalism, Chennai, India

• Kalyani Menon-Sen, MSc PhD Feminist policy analysis, impact of economic policies on women’s lives., Senior Associate, Gender At Work, India

• Kathyayini Chamaraj, Bachelor of Science (Communication), CIVIC -Bangalore, Executive Trustee, India

• Kakali Barua, P.hd. Labour, Informal Sector, Gender, Caste, Development Economics., Lady Shri Ram College fir Women, India

• Yadu C R, PhD in Economics, Post-Doctoral Fellow at Water, Environment, Land and Livelihood (WELL) Labs., India

• Dev Nathan, Ph. D. Economics, including analysis of inequality, Institute for Human Development, Professor, India

• Varna Sri Raman, PhD Development Studies, Founder, PPVentures, India

• Amrita Laha, M.Phil Sociology, Equitable conservationist, India

• Dr. Muniraju, Ph.D, Community Development, National Institution for Transforming India (NITI Aayog) Ministry of Planning, Government of India, India

• Sankar Varma, PhD (Economics) . Field of Expertise- Urban Studies, History of Economic Thought, Political Economy, Cultural Criticism, Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, Christ (Deemed to be University), India

• Akhum David Longkumer, MPhil Economics, Delhi University, guest lecturer, India

• Prof Ritu Dewan, PhD Economics, IHD, ISLEc (64th President), India

• Sunkari Satyam, Ph.D., Council for Social Development, Assistant Professor, India

• Rityuja Mani Tewary, Development Studies, Researcher, India

• Anjana Thampi, PhD in Economics, Assistant Professor, O P Jindal Global University, India

• Aswathy Rachel Varughese, PhD Public Economics and Development Economics, Assistant Professor Gulati Institute of Finance and Taxation, India

• Jesim Pais, Ph.D in Economics, Society for Social and Economic Research/IDEAs, India

• D.Narasimha Reddy, PhD. Political Economy of Development, Professor of Economics,(Rtd.) University of Hyderabad, India

• Arvinn Gadgil, MSc Development Studies - development economics/governance, N/A for this purpose, India

• SYED SADDAM ALI, M.Phil. in Economics. Expertise includes Development Economics, Geo-climatic Studies, and Economic Inequality, Ph.D. Research Scholar in the Department of Economics, Vidyasagar University, Paschim Medinipur, West Bengal, India., INDIA

• Sona Mitra, PhD in Economics, Independent Researcher, India

• Narender Thakur, PhD and Political Economy, Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar College, University of Delhi, India

• Harpreet Singh, Economics, Panjab University, India

• Goddanti Omkarnath, Retd. Professor of Economics, Honorary Professor, University of Hyderabad, India

• Dr. Arnab Chatterjee, Ph.D, Social and legal -political thought., Post Doc Fellow, RMIC, Golpark, Kolkata, India

• Sumangala Damodaran, PhD, Labour Studies, Industry studies, Gender and Economics, International Development economics associates IDEAs, India

• Raj Shekhar, Masters in Development Studies, Programme Associate at Centre for Financial Accountability, India

• Arjun Jayadev, PhD Economics, Azim Premji University, India

• Jacobus (Valdy) Rijoly, PhD, Public finace and Development Economy, Assistant Professor, Pattimura University, Indonesia

• Zahra Karimi, Economics, University of Mazandaran (Iran), Iran

• Nata Duvvury, Doctorate

• field of expertise -economic inequality, gender equality, intersection inequality, University of Galway, Established Professor of Gender and Women’s Studies, Ireland

• Dr Fiona Dukelow, PhD in Social Policy. Social Policy, Eco-Social Policy/Sustainable Welfare, University College, Cork, Ireland

• Marie Moran, PhD in Equality Studies (interdisciplinary, social sciences), Associate Professor of Equality Studies, UCD, Ireland, Ireland

• Dr Rosie R Meade, Doctorate in Social Sciences. Fields, include community activism and development, social movements and protest politics, cultural democracy, and social policy., Senior Lecturer, School of Applied Social Studies, University College Cork., Ireland

• Catriona Nicholls, Master of Science - Major in Equality Studies, University College Dublin, Ireland

• Liz Mann, Social Policy, Lecturer of Social Policy, University College Cork & Visiting Fellow, LSE, Ireland & UK

• Pasquale De Muro, M.Phil., Ph.D.

• Development Economics, Human Development, Food Security, Sustainable Development, Roma Tre University, Italy, Professor, Italy

• Marcella Corsi, PhD (Econ), Sapienza University of Rome, Italy

• Marco Sachy, PhD in Critical Management and Organization Studies, Italy

• Salvatore Morelli, PhD in Economics, Associate Professor of Public Economics at Roma Tre University, Italy

• Giacomo Gabbuti, DPhil (PhD) in Economic and Social History, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa (Italy); Assistant Professor (Ricercatore Tenure Track), Italy

• Barbara Annicchiarico, Professor of Public Economics; fields of expertise: macroeconomics and environmental economics., Department of Law, Roma Tre University, Italy

• Demetrio Guzzardi, PhD. Income and wealth inequality, fiscal policy, impact of climate change on inequality, Post doctoral Research at Economics department of University of Calabria. Affiliate researcher at Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, Italy

• Michele Raitano, PhD in Economics, Sapienza University of Rome, Full Professor of Economic Policy and lecturer of Economics of Inequality, Italy

• Elisa Palagi, Ph.D. in Economics; income and wealth inequality, inequality and climate change, inequality and macroeconomic dynamics, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa (Italy); Postdoctoral researcher, Italy

• Maurizio Franzini, Professor, economic inequality and social mobility, Emeritus professor Sapienza University of Rome, Italy, ITALY

• Francesco Lamperti, PhD; Macroeconomics, Climate Change., Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa (IT); Full professor of economics, Italy

• Luca Piccoli, PhD in Economics, Associate Professor, Departmento of Sociology and Social Research, University of Trento, Italy

• Enrica Chiappero, PhD in Economics, Full professor of Economic Policy. Currently President of the Human Development and Capability Association. Research interests in poverty, inequality, capability approach and human development, University of Pavia, Italy, Italy

• Lucia Mangiavacchi, Ph.D in Economics, University of Perugia, Italy

• Francesca Subioli, PhD in Economics, working on welfare economics, labour economics and applied microeconomics, Post-doctoral Researcher in Roma Tre University, Department of Law, Italy

• Isao Takagi, Master’s degree of Economics and the expert on Poverty and Well-Being, Professor of Economics Dept. of Soka University, Japan, Japan

• Kefa Simiyu, Master of Arts (Economics), Economics Scholar Panel/ Chuo Kikuu cha Nairobi, Kenya

• Claire Nyapucha, Post Graduate; Field of expertise is finance and Economics, Prosperbridge Initiative for Empowerment- Financial Inclusion & Economic Empowerment Lead, Kenya

• Ndirangu Ngunjiri, Finance, University of Nairobi, Kenya

• Kevin Mbugua, Bachelor of Science in Information Technology, Masters in Business Administration, Certified Cyber Security Expert., Oxfam International, Kenya

• Hezekiah Agwara, PhD with specialization in development, innovation and entrepreneurship economics and policy., OGIVES Limited, Founder/Director, Kenya

• Njeri Njoroge, Masters - Sociology, Bachelor of Arts Sociology, Kenya

• Dita Dobranja, Women’s economic empowerment, KOSOVO

• Abulgasem Al Mashai, Interdisciplinary Research, Libyan Authority for Scientific Research, Libya

• Philippe Van Kerm, PhD in Economics, Professor of Inequality and Social Policy at University of Luxembourg and Research director at Luxembourg Income Study, Luxembourg

• Robert White, Master of Arts (Economics), Tilitonse Foundation, CEO, Malawi

• Muhammed abdul khalid, PhD, inequality and poverty, National University of Malaysia, Research Fellow, Malaysia

• Sunita Rajakumar, law (LLB) and qualified chartered accountant (ICAEW), Adj Prof UNITAR, Malaysia

• TOURE ep. BARRY Aminata, Contrôleur des Finances, spécialité Budget et comptabilité publique ,Maitrise en développement sociale, plusieurs années d’‘expérience en analyse des politiques publiques et budget, collectes d’informations sur l’accès aux service sociaux de base, paix et sécurité, le genre sensible...., Vice Présidente du Conseil Nationale de la Société Civile du Mali, Présidente de l’Association Malienne pour la Sauvegarde du Bien etre Familial, Vice Présidente du Conseil Mondial de l’Action Mondial Contre la Pauvreté, Mali

• Blair Glencorse, MA, International Economics and International Relations, Accountability Lab, Co-CEO, Mauritius

• Anda David, PhD in economics, fields of expertise: labour markets, inequalities and migration, Senior researcher and lead economist on inequalities at the Agence Française de Développement (French Development Agency), Mexico

• Alice Krozer, PhD (University of Cambridge); inequality and elites, Professor, el Colegio de México, Mexico

• Diego Merla López, MSc. Political Economy of Developent, expertise in fiscal justice, inequalities and sustainable development, Oxfam Mexico, Fiscal Justice Strategic Coordinator, Mexico

• David Barkin, Doctorate in Philosophy with specialization in Economics, Distinguished Professor, Universidad Autónoma Mteropolitana, Mexico City, Mexico

• Ricardo Bravo, PhD Candidate / Political theory, Central European University, Mexico

• Saul Escobar, Bachelor’s degree. Economic history and labor history, Professor Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico

• Lydia Alpizar, Human Rights, DAWN Board of Directors, Mexico

• Alicia Puyana, Doctor, Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales FLACSO, Mexico

• Héctor Castañón Reyes, PhD Social Anthropology, Fight Inequality Alliance, Mexico

• Martha Merlo Huerta, Ph.D, on social and political sciences, specialized in child rights, social protection and governance for development, UNICEF, social policy officer, Mexico

• Patricia Rodríguez López, Maestra en ciencias económicas, por la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM).

• Economía feminista, mecado laboral femenino, Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas -UNAM Académica Titular, México

• Lucía Pérez Fragoso, P.H.D. in Economics, México

• Roberto Ledesma Avila, Expert in Conservation, Restoration and Interpretation of Cultural Heritage, Bachelor of Plastic Arts, Master in History and Social, México

• alma.luisa@indesig.org, Inequalities, Tec de Monterrey/ INDESIG, México

• Edgar Pérez-Medina, Masters degree in Economics and Adjunct Professor at UNAM, México, UNAM, México

• Diego Castañeda Garza, PhD in Economic History., Uppsala University., Mexico / Sweden

• Younes Sdor, Baccalaureate + a range of diplomas and professional certificates, and national and international human rights activist, Advisor and Head of Public Relations at the Arab Peace University, Morocco

• Mariam Umarji, Finance, MBA, Ongoing PhD, IHMT - UNL, Mozambique

• Steven Ouma, Bachelor of Arts in sociology and psychology, Youth Global Network(Ambassador), Nairobi Kenya

• Petrus Junior Nathinge, Development Economics and Finance, University of Cape Town, Masters student, Namibia/South Africa

• Froukje Johanna Basoski, Master International Health, KIT Amsterdam, Nederland

• Kul Chandra Gautam, Master of Public Affairs, major in development economics, Nepal

• John Belt, MSc Agricultural Economics, SNV, Senior Economics, Netherlands

• Milio van de Kamp, master’s degree, currently working on a phd, University of Amsterdam, senior lecturer, Netherlands

• Erik Boonstoppel, MA - Sustainable International Development, Netherlands

• Maria van der Harst, PhD in ‘Leaving no one behind’. Trained in anthropology, but currently combining Global Health, and research into children’s well-being and quality of life., Postdoc researcher at the University Medical Center Utrecht, Netherlands

• Koen Frenken, Economics, Professor of Innovation Studies, Utrecht University, Netherlands

• Dylan Hauser, Economy, Erasmus, Netherlands

• Annelli Janssen, PhD, just transitions, Drift (Erasmus University Rotterdam), Senior researcher, Netherlands

• Salvador Santino Regilme, PhD in Political Science and International Relations; expertise: international human rights, global socioeconomic inequalities, global war on drugs, the politics of the superrich, Leiden University, the Netherlands - Associate Professor and Program Chair of International Relations, Netherlands

• Thera Van Osch, Macro Economist MSc, OQ Consulting BV, Netherlands/CEO, Netherlands

• Boudewijn Koole, Dr. Phil. and historian of ideas, Alumnus Univ. Of Amsterdam, and of Univ. Of Utrecht, Netherlands

• Igna Bonfrer, PhD related to health inequalities, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Associate Professor, Netherlands

• Sara Golden, Masters, International Relations & Economics, Johns Hopkins University, Netherlands & USA

• Mieke Verloo, Professor of Comparative Politics and Inequality Issues, Radboud University and also IWM Institute for Human Sciences, Netherlands, Austria

• anuradha Chenoy, PhD, retired Professor, New Delhi

• Bill Rosenberg, B.Com, B.Sc.Hons, PhD in Mathematics, Psychology and Economics, Victoria University of Wellington Te Herenga Waka, Visiting Scholar, New Zealand

• Susan St John, PhD economics, Honorary Associate Professor, Economic Policy Centre, University of Auckland , New Zealand

• Geoff Bertram, DPhil (Oxford) in Economics, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand

• Rob Campbell, M.Phil. Economics, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand

• Nicholas Henry, PhD in International Relations, Climate Justice Lead, Oxfam Aotearoa, New Zealand

• Suzanne Snively, MA Distinction, VUW Wellington, NZ, New Zealand

• Edward Miller, LLM, corporate profits and tax, Centre for international Corporate Tax Accountability and Researcg, New Zealand

• Andrea Black, MTaxS Tax, Association of Salaried Medical Specialists - Economist, New Zealand

• Abdoul Moumouni Issoufou Moussa, Licence degree in Public Policy and Sustainable Development. Expertise in social innovation, youth empowerment, and inclusive governance., United Nations volunteer, Niger

• Plangshak Musa Suchi, PhD Criminology, University of Jos. Jos Nigeria, Professor, Nigeria

• Daskyes Gulleng, PhD, University of Jos, Nigeria. Reader, Nigeria

• Aliyu Bashir Haruna, B.A Library and Information Science/ Political Science, Teachers Service Board, Education officer, Nigeria

• Zainab Shehu, MES Environmental sustainability, Nigeria civil service, Nigeria

• Jude Onemolease, Economics & Statistics, DuraLab Nigeria (Durandel Ltd), Nigeria

• Jorgen Randers, Ph D Management, Climate strategy, Professor emeritus, BI Norwegian Business School, Norway

• Noé Manuel Mendoza Fuente, PhD candidate in International Environment and Development Studies, Dissemination advisor at Skatteforsk - Centre for Tax Research at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway

• Roberto Iacono, PhD in Economics. Field of expertise: Public Economics and Inequality Measurement., Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Professor., Norway

• Muhammad Siddique, Mhill, Punjab Healthcare Commission, Pakistan

• Eduardo Lopez Rosse, Ph.D, Gobierno Autonomo Municipal de Cochabamba, Plurinational State of Bolivia

• Nuno Nunes, PhD in Sociology; Fields of Expertise: Inequality, Development, Democracy, and the Digital Society, ISCTE-University Institute of Lisboa, Portugal

• Joana S. Marques, PhD, Sociology, CIES-Iscte, Centre for Research and Studies in Sociology, Portugal

• Artur Cristóvão, PhD Rural Development, Professor (retired) University of Trás-os-Montes & Alto Douro, Portugal, Portugal

• Cláudia Araújo, PhD in Political Sociology, Senior Research Fellow, Power for Democracies, Portugal

• Ringo Nyangi Kibukusa , Je suis actuellement en cours d’obtention d’un Master en Informatique de Gestion., l’Institut Supérieur de Commerce de Bukavu., RDC

• Seohyun (Sam) Nam, Master of Science in Sustainability Management, Sustainability & ESG Professional, Lunit, Sustainability & ESG Manager, Republic of Korea

• Hesam Aref Kashfi, MSc. in Electrical Engineering and Sociology as well, Member of the International Academy for Quality, Co-Chair of Communications Committee and Chief Management Officer of the Newsletter, Resident in Iran

• Lourdes Beneria, Dr., Economics, Retired from Cornell U., Retired and living in Spain

• Alexandru Volacu, Political Science, University of Bucharest / Associate Professor, Romania

• Cristina-Gabriela Raileanu, PHD, PHD, Paris Est university, Gustave Eiffel., Romania

• Amadu Khan, PhD - Social Policy; Equalty, Diversity and Inclusion; International Development; Media Communication, The Royal Conservatoire of Scotland, Scotland - UK

• Predrag Cveticanin, PhD in Sociology, Faculty of Arts, University of Nis, Serbia, Serbia

• Claudia Sámano-Robles, Phd in Economics specialiced on the measurment of poverty and inequality, Profesor at Center for teaching and research in Economics (CIDE) in Mexico City. Mexico, She holds a Ph.D. in Economics, specializing in the measurement of poverty and inequality, with a focus on welfare analysis and public policy evaluation. Her research combines quantitative and qualitative approaches to study social and gender inequalities, education, and care systems in Latin America.

• Riaz Tayob, BA Llb Llm, Southern and Eastern African Trade and Negotiations Institute - South Africa, South Africa

• Dr Gilad Isaacs, PhD in Economics, Executive Director, Institute for Economic Justice, South Africa

• Kelle Howson, PhD Development Studies, social protection, labour, digital economy, Institute for Economic Justice, South Africa

• jonrohde, MD, Harvard SPH, South Africa

• Johnny Miller, Anthropology, University of Cape Town - Photographer and Founder of Unequal Scenes, London School of Economics, Atlantic Fellow for Social and Economic Equity, South Africa

• Mzwanele Ntshwanti, Ph.D. (Economics), IEJ (G20 Senior Researcher), South Africa

• Rasigan Maharajh, PhD - Political Economy of Science, Technology, and Innovation, Tshwane University of Technology - Chief Director, South Africa

• Sandra Liebenberg, BA LLB LLM (cum laude) LLD

• Socio-economic rights; equality; international human rights law and comparative constitutional law, H.F. Oppenheimer Chair in Human Rights Law, Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa

• Jimi Adesina, Graduate Qualification: PhD

• Fields of Expertise: Social Policy, Sociology, University of South Africa, South Africa

• Michael Clements, Human Rights Lawyer, Head of Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, South Africa

• KUKHANYILE MALI, Masters in Economics, University of the Western Cape, Student & Human Science Research Council, PhD Trainee, South Africa

• Angela Opondoh, M.A. in Gender and Development Studies, PhD Candidate in Geography and Environmental Studies at University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa

• Ruth Castel-Branco, PhD

• Work, labour and redistribution, Senior Lecturer, Southern Centre for Inequality Studies, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa

• Zanele, Education, Nil, South Africa

• Michael Samson, PhD Economics (Stanford University), expertise in Poverty, Inequality and Social Development, Economic Policy Research Institute (EPRI), South Africa

• Inhoe Ku, Ph.D. in social work and social policy, Seoul National University, Professor, South Korea

• Carlos villan duran, Prof. Dr. DIDH, Presidente of spanish society for IHRL, Spain

• Juan C. Palomino, Research Officer on Economics; expertise is inequality and opportunity., Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain

• Dr Andrew L. Fanning, Doctorate in Ecological Economics, Research & Data Analysis Lead, Doughnut Economics Action Lab, Spain

• Anna Ortega Blanco, MA in International Relationships, Security and Development, -, Spain

• Francisco García-Rodríguez, PhD Student in Economics, Universidad de Alcalá, PhD Student, Spain

• Xavier Ramos, PhD in Economics; expertise is economic inequalities and poverty., Professor at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain

• Elena Bárcena-Martín, PhD in Economics. Expertise in economic inequality and poverty, Profesor at Universidad de Malaga, Spain, Spain

• Pedro Salas-Rojo, PhD - Intergenerational Mobility and Inequality of Opportunity + Wealth and Housing inequalities, Cunef University, Spain

• Olga Alonso-Villar, Ph D in Economics, University of Vigo, Spain

• Elizabeth Villagomez, PhD in Economics, labour economics and gender equality, Spain

• Elizabeth Villagomez, PhD in Economics, labour economics and gender equality, Independent researcher and consultant, Spain

• Maria Marino, PhD, inequality and preferences for redistribution, Universitat de Barcelona, Spain

• Alex Cobham, MSc Intl Economics; tax and inequality , Tax Justice Network (chief executive), Spain

• Salvador Pérez-Moreno, Professor of Applied Economics, Professor of Applied Economics, University of Malaga, Spain

• Manuel Flores, PhD in Economics, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Associate Professor of Applied Economics, Spain

• Jason Hickel, PhD degree

• Expertise in political economy, Professor, ICTA-UAB and LSE, Spain/UK

• Kumudini Samuel, Women’s Rights and Human Rights, Women and Media Collective, Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka

• Jorge Buzaglo, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Stockholm

• Gunnar Myrdal Prize 1995, Swedish Economics Association, Independent researcher, Sweden

• Kanchana N Ruwanpura, PhD - Development Studies, University of Gothenburg, Sweden/ Professor - Development Geography, Sweden

• Lars Lindblom, Philosophy, theories of justice and democratic stability, Linköping University, Senior Associate Professor, Sweden

• Katharina Berndt, PhD, practical philosophy, Department of Philosophy, Stockholm University, Senior Lecturer, Sweden

• Emil Andersson, PhD, Philosophy, Uppsala University, Lecturer, Sweden

• Sune Sunesson, PhD Sociology, Professor, Social Policy, Social work, Lund University, Emeritus Professor, Sweden

• Fredrik Bruhn, MSc in Development Studies and Political Science; specialized in effective, inclusive & accountable governance , International development professional, Sweden

• Emil D. Böhme, Socioeconomics, Institute of Demography and Socioeconomics, Switzerland

• Shahra Razavi, PhD Development Economics, International Labour Organization, Switzerland

• Arthur Lyon Dahl, Ph.D. in Biological Sciences, specialist in environment, sustainability and global governance, International Environment Forum, President, Switzerland

• Walter Leimgruber, Dr. in Geography, Emeritus Professor in Geography, University of Fribourg/CH, Switzerland

• Ruzanna Tarverdyan, PhD in Economics, 2023 PROSE Award Winning Author of Measuring Sustainable Development Goals Performance with Sten Thore, University of Cambridge, Course Ambassador for the Democratising Education for Global Sustainability and Justice (DemEd Global) programme for 2025–26, Switzerland

• Magdalena Sepulveda, PhD, human rights, United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, Director, Switzerland

• Heike Wach, MA Gender and Development, WIDE Switzerland (Civil Society), activist, Switzerland

• Dr. Yannick Oswald, PhD in energy and carbon inequality, PostDoctoral Experience in Global Inequality and Redistribution, University of Lausanne, PostDoc, Switzerland

• Nandi Joubert, MSc, epidemiology and global public health, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Switzerland

• Elke Pirgmaier, PhD in ecological economics and political economy, University of Lausanne, Switzerland

• Samia Hurst-Majno, Ethics, Full professor, University of Geneva, Faculty of Medicine, Switzerland

• Thierry Rossier, Dr in political science. Field of expertise: elites and inequality studies, University of Lausanne, senior researcher; London School of Economics, visiting fellow, Switzerland and the UK

• Joab Juma, Criminal Justice—Gender Justice, Daystar University Kenya, Syria

• Rajarshi Sen, DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS, INDEPENDENT, Tanzania

• Martina M. kabisama, MEd (Master Degree in International management and Policy in Education), National Coordinator of SAHRiNGON Tanzania Chapter (SAHRiNGON == Southern Africa Human Rights NGO Network), Tanzania

• Julaikha Bente Hossain, PhD; Gender and Development Studies., Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), Thailand; Affiliated Faculty and Senior Research Specialist, Thailand

• Associate Professor Dr. Apirada Chinprateep, PhD in Applied Economics, National Institute of Development Administration (Views expressed are personal), Thailand

• Francis Cripps, MA Economics, Alphametrics Co., Ltd., President, Thailand

• Roman Balaz, PhD in Social Policy and Social Work, Masaryk University, Assistant Professor, The Czech Republic

• Ingrid Robeyns, PhD Economics, MA Philosophy, scholar on the ethics of institutions, including questions of inequality., Utrecht University, The Netherlands

• Huub Brouwer, Doctorate in political philosophy, Assistant Professor of Ethics and Political Philosophy, The Netherlands

• Bart Engelen, PhD in Philosophy, Tilburg University, associate professor, The Netherlands

• Kati Cseres, PhD, economic law and regulation, competition law and consumer protection, University of Amsterdam, Associate Professor of Law, The Netherlands

• Irene van Staveren, Professor of economics, PhD, Professor of pluralist development economics at the Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands

• Yogi Hendlin, MA in Political Science (UCLA)

• PhD Philosophy (University of Kiel, Germany), Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands

• Flor Avelino, Master of arts in Political Science, PhD on the role of Power in Sustainability Transitions. Specialise in the role of power in Social Innovation and in Just Sustainability Transitions, Full professor at Utrecht University, The Netherlands

• Rogier van der Wal, PhD in Philosophy; Masters in Classical Studies, Ancient Cultures, General Arts and Public Administration, Professor in Ethics at Fontys UAS, Eindhoven/Tilburg, The Netherlands

• Lieta Maria Papetti, Bachelor in Economics, Forced Displacement and Human Rights diploma at UPEACE, Oxfam Netherlands as finance specialist, The Netherlands

• Leon P. Hilbert, PhD in Economic Psychology, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

• Daniele Marchesi, MSc in Development Economics and currently PhD Candidate working on causes and consequences of inequality perceptions, preferences for redistribution, and life satisfaction., University of Groningen, PhD Candidate, The Netherlands

• Myrto Pantazi, Phd in Psychological and Educational Sciences, Social and Political Psychology, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

• Leticia Micheli, Economic Psychology

• Social Psychology

• Neuroeconomics, Assistant Professor, Leiden University, the Netherlands, The Netherlands

• Amber Davis, PhD Political Science - the rise of right-wing populism, European University Institute Florence, None currently, The Netherlands

• Frederik Zuiderveen Borgesius, Prof dr., research focuses on human rights in the context of new technologies, IHub, Radboud University. Professor of ICT and law., The Netherlands

• Annelien de Dijn, PhD, history, Utrecht University, The Netherlands

• Morten Fibieger Byskov, Lecturer in Climate Ethics, Tilburg University, The Netherlands

• Carolina Sanchez De Jaegher, PhD in Philosophy, Utrecht University, the Netherlands

• Elise van der Mark, PhD in Gender and Development . Field of expertise Participatory Action Research to combat gender inequality, KNAW - the Netherlands (post-doc), The Netherlands

• Pınar Kahya, PhD, Inonu University, Turkey

• Tore Fougner, PhD International Relations (Global Political Economy), Bilkent University, Turkey

• İlhan Doğan, Graduate qualification: Ph.D.

• Fields of Expertise: Social Policies, Social Exclusion and Inclusion, Social Policies of the European Union, İstanbul University, Faculty of Economics Asst. Prof., Türkiye

• Brenda Wyss, Economics PhD, Professor of Economics, Wheaton College MA, U.S.

• David B. Grusky, PhD in Sociology, Stanford University, Professor, U.S.

• Janet Yellen, Economics, Ph.D., Brookings Institution, Distinguished Fellow, U.S.

• Basil Oberholzer, PhD in economics

• Macroeconomics, monetary economics, development economics, ecological economics, Associate Senior Research Scientist, Centre for Development and Environment, University of Bern, Switzerland, Uganda

• Wilson Okaka, Communications (PhD), Kyambogo University, Uganda

• Wilson, Masters, Makerere University, Uganda

• Anna Marriott, Masters, Health and Inequality, Independent, UK

• Ozlem Onaran, PhD, Economics, University of Greenwich, Professor of Economics Co-Director of Centre of Political Economy, Governance, Finance and Accountability Associate Head of the School of Accounting, Finance & Economics - Research and Knowledge Exchange, UK

• Jo Michell, PhD economics, Professor of economics, UWE Bristol, UK

• Wendy Carlin, PhD in Economics

• Macroeconomics, inequality, University College London; Professor of Economics, UK

• Lucia Fry, Economic justice

• Gender and education, Done, UK

• Armine Ishkanian, Professor, London School of Economics, International Inequalities Institute and Department of Social Policy, Professor, London School of Economics, International Inequalities Institute and Department of Social Policy, UK

• Rachel Brooks, PhD in Sociology - expertise in the sociology of education, University of Oxford, UK, UK

• Professor Briony Jones, Professor of Peace and Justice, University of Warwick, UK and France

• Grieve Chelwa, PhD in Economics, Associate Professor of Political Economy and Chair of Social Sciences, the Africa Institute, Global Studies University, United Arab Emirates

• Martin Lorccan Duignan, MSc Equality Studies, University College Dublin, United Arab Emirates

• Mike Savage, PhD in Sociology, Professorial Research Fellow, London School of Economics, United Kingdom

• Peter Gatrell, BA, MA, PhD (Cambridge) Expertise in refugees and mgration, University of Manchester, Emeritus, United Kingdom

• Kate Pickett, PhD, Inequality, Professor of Epidemiology, University of York, United Kingdom

• Carrie Friese, PhD in Sociology with a focus on sociology of health and illness, London School of Economics and Political Science, United Kingdom

• Richard Wilkinson, MSc, MA, Hon Dotorate, Emeritus Professor, United Kingdom

• Clare Short, Former Secretary of State for a International Development UK, United Kingdom

• Alex Bush, MSc Poverty and Development; expertise in feminist, climate, and economic justice, Oxfam GB, United Kingdom

• Tariq Modood, Phd - Inequalities relating to Political Multiculturalism, Political Secularism and Cultural Racism, University of Bristol, United Kingdom

• Professor Sam Friedman, PhD in Sociology and expert in class inequality, London School of Economics, United Kingdom

• Dr Tania Burchardt, PhD in Social Policy; expertise in poverty and inequality, Associate Professor, London School of Economics and Political Science, United Kingdom

• Dame Barbara Stocking, Master of science

• Expertise as CE of Oxfam 2001 to 2013, President Emerita Murray Edwards College University of Cambridge, United Kingdom

• Diane Elson, PhD Development Economics, Emeritus Professor, Department of Sociology, University of Essex, UK, United Kingdom

• Pat Thane, PhD History, Visiting Professor in History, Birkbeck College, London University. Professor Emerita in Contemporary History, London University, United Kingdom

• Aaron Reeves, PhD, Sociology, LSE, United Kingdom

• Suzanne Hall, PhD Sociology; MSc City Design, LSE, United Kingdom

• Naila Kabeer, PhD in International Development, London School of Economics, Emeritus Professor, United Kingdom

• Ian Gough, MA. Climate change, inequality and social policy, LSE, United Kingdom

• Ana Caistor Arendar, Masters of Science (MSc) in comparative politics at the London School of Economics, United Kingdom

• Liz Pepler, PG Cert Charity Governance and MSC Charity Financial Management and Accounting (Dist)

• Expertise Nonprofit Financial Resilience Building, United Kingdom

• Faiza Shaheen, PhD, inequality, Executive Director, Tax Justice UK, United Kingdom

• Eyob Balcha Gebremariam, PhD, expertise in political economy of development, African political economy, decolonial approaches to academic knowledge production, Research Associate, Perivoli Africa Research Centre, University of Bristol, United Kingdom

• Gary Dymski, Phd in Economics - Development and macro, inequality and stratification, Professor of Applied Economics, Leeds University Business School, University of Leeds, United Kingdom

• Dr Leona Vaughn, PhD Sociology, social policy and criminology, Masters Social Research, PG Certificate inequality issues, Expert in inequality within social policy for risk/harm prevention, specifically safeguarding, hate crimes and counterterrorism, University of Liverpool, United Kingdom

• Danny Sriskandarajah, D.Phil, CEO, New Economics Foundation, United Kingdom

• James Hampshire, PhD Politics (Oxford)

• Migration and political economy, University of Sussex, Professor of Politics, United Kingdom

• Richard Bärnthaler, PhD; Ecological Economics, Political Economy, Lecturer at University of Leeds, United Kingdom

• Sebastian Gazmuri Barker, PhD in Law

• Tax policy and its impact on inequality, London School of Economics and Political Science, United Kingdom

• Douglas Bamford, BA, MA, PhD in Political Philosophy, Lecturer, University of Oxford, United Kingdom

• Gah-Kai Leung, PhD Politics (Warwick), MA Transnational Studies (UCL)

• Expertise: political theory, disaster ethics, PPE, distributive equality, relational equality, University of Warwick, United Kingdom

• Sylvia Walby, Degrees of BA, MA, and PhD in Sociology

• Expertise in sociology, violence, gender relations., Professor of Criminology, Royal Holloway, University of London, United Kingdom

• Jonathan R Goodman, PhD; human evolutionary studies, University of Cambridge; Wellcome Sanger Institute – Social scientist, United Kingdom

• Benjamin Selwyn, PhD - Expert in international development, global value chains, global food systems, labour and development, University of Sussex, United Kingdom

• Nuno Ferreira, PhD in Law, University of Law, United Kingdom

• Andreas Antoniades, PhD, field: Global Political Economy, University of Sussex, UK. Professor of Global Political Economy and Sustainability, United Kingdom

• Marco Ranaldi, Assistant Professor in Economics

• Expertise: Economic inequality with a focus on inequality in capital and labor, from both methodological and empirical perspectives, global and nationals., University College London, United Kingdom

• Gurminder K Bhambra, DPhil Sociology

• Historical Sociology; specifically an engagement with the ways in which global inequalities in the present are configured by colonial histories, University of Sussex, Professor of Historical Sociology, Associate Dean for Research and Innovation in the Faculty of Social Sciences, United Kingdom

• Caroline Bennett, PhD in anthropology; genocide, mass death, conflict, violence, peace-building, University of Sussex, United Kingdom

• Diego Sánchez-Ancochea, PhD in Economics, New School for Social Research

• Specialist on inequality and social policy, Head of the Oxford School of Global and Area Studies, University of Oxford, United Kingdom

• Sir Richard Jolly, Professor of Economics, Institute of Development Studies, Retiree, United Kingdom

• Fiona Williams, PhD - Emeritus Professor of Social Policy - inequalities of race, gender, migration, and class, Emeritus Professor of Social Policy, University of Leeds, UK, United Kingdom

• Sabrina Bowen, MSc International Development & Social Anthropology, Birkbeck University, United Kingdom

• Bradley Hillier-Smith, PhD in Moral and Political Philosophy, specialising in global justice, human rights, and migration ethics. , Associate Lecturer in Political, Moral, and Legal Philosophy at the University of St Andrews, United Kingdom

• Alessandra Mezzadri, Inequality, Global Production, Informal Labour, Gender, SOAS, Professor of Global Development and Political Economy, United Kingdom

• kevin watkins, D Phil history, London School of Economics Visiting Professor of Practice, United Kingdom

• Shivani Singhal, PhD, Environmental Politics, Research Fellow, University of Leeds, United Kingdom

• Duncan Green, PhD, political science, London School of Economics and Political Science, Professor in Practice, United Kingdom

• Melanie Channon, PhD, Demography, University of Bath, Professor of Demography and Global Health Policy, United Kingdom

• Julie MacLeavy, PhD Economic Geography, Professor, University of Bristol, United Kingdom

• Jeff Powell, PhD, Economics, University of Greenwich, Associate Professor, United Kingdom

• Danny Dorling, PhD (Geography), Expertise: inequality, University of Oxford, United Kingdom

• Agnes Callmard, PHD Political Science, Secretary General Amnesty International, United Kingdom

• Kate Raworth, Masters in Economics for Development, Senior Teaching Associate, Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, United Kingdom

• Michael Marmot, MBBS, PhD - Epidemiology and Public Health, Director, UCL Institute of Health Equity, Professor of Epidemiology and Public Health, UCL, United Kingdom

• Stewart Lansley, M.SC Inequality and poverty, Visiting Fellow, University of Bristol, UK, United Kingdom

• Henrice Altink, PHD, social historians with expertise in the colonial and postcolonial Caribbean, work on development, University of York, United Kingdom

• Matti Kohonen, PhD, Sociology, Executive Director, Financial Transparency Coalition, United Kingdom

• Ashfaq Khalfan, Phd - International human rights law, London School of Economics, United Kingdom

• Michael Vaughan, PhD in Government and International Relations, International Inequalities Institute, London School of Economics, Research Fellow, United Kingdom

• Prof Sue Konzelmann, Economics, Birkbeck, University of London, United Kingdom

• Paul Gilbert, PhD

• Social Anthropology/Development Economics, University of Sussex, United Kingdom

• Frances Stewart, D. Phil human development, horizontal inequality, conflict, University of Oxford, United Kingdom

• Dr Haley Beer, PhD in Management, expert in impact measurement and social change, University of Warwick, United Kingdom

• Henry Leveson-Gower, Ecological Economics, CEO, Promoting Economic Pluralism, United Kingdom

• Barry Smart, BSc Sociology, PhD Social Sciences, University of Portsmouth, Professor of Sociology, United Kingdom

• Ha-Joon Chang, Ph.D. Economics, SAOS University of London, United Kingdom

• Eric Kemp-Benedict, PhD Physics. Fields of expertise: ecological economics, macroeconomics, economic development, economic inequality, University of Leeds, United Kingdom

• Amir Lebdioui, PhD in Development economics, expertise in industrial policy and socially inclusive structural transformation models, University of Oxford, United Kingdom

• Nimi Hoffmann, PhD in Social Policy, Assistant Professor, Centre for International Education, University of Sussex, United Kingdom

• Jouni Paavola, PhD, Environment and Development, Climate Change Adaptation, Professor, University of Leeds, United Kingdom

• Francisco H. G. Ferreira, PhD Economics, Professor, London School of Economics, United Kingdom

• David Owen, PhD. Politics., University of Southampton., United Kingdom

• Robert Yates, MBA, Universal Health Coverage, Health Systems Strengthening, Political Economy of Health and Health Reforms, Visiting Professor in Practice, London School of Economics and Political Science, United Kingdom

• Adam Kluge, PhD (DPhil), University of Oxford

• Fields: Criminology and Sociology, University of Oxford, Doctoral Candidate in Criminology, United Kingdom

• Alice Damiano, PhD in Renewable Resources/Ecological Economics, Master’s Degree in International Development, Cooperation, and Environmental Studies, University of Leeds, Lecturer, United Kingdom

• Mario Novelli, Professor in the Political Economy of Education, University of Sussex, United Kingdom

• Stephen P. Jenkins, DPhil, Economics, London School of Economics and Political Science, United Kingdom

• Ellen Helsper, Fields of expertise: the links between digital inequalities, data inequalities, and structural inequalities, as well as interpersonal relationships and communication; civic participation; and child rights in a digital age.

• Qualification: PhD in Media and Communications, London School of Economics and Political Science - Professor, United Kingdom

• Susan Harkness, PhD Economics

• Professor of Social Policy, University of Bristol, United Kingdom

• John Holmwood, PhD Sociology, Emeritus Professor of Sociology, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom

• Dr Nicolás Brando, PhD - Political and Legal Theory, University of Liverpool ‘ Derby Fellow, United Kingdom

• Yann Lebeau, Doctor in sociology. Research expertise in equity of access to higher education, Professor, University of East Anglia (UK), United Kingdom

• Louis Pilard, MSc in Environmental Policy, N/A, United Kingdom

• Giorgos Gouzoulis, Labor Economics; Industrial and Labor Relations; Functional and Personal Income Inequalities, Associate Professor at the School of Business & Management at Queen Mary, University of London, United Kingdom

• Sandra Martinsone, MA International Political Economy, Bond, Policy and Advocacy Manager, United Kingdom

• Molly Pugh-Jones, MSc Global Health and Development, N/A, United Kingdom

• Mina Chiang, Qualification: MA Development Studies

• Expertise: Counter human trafficking, Founder and Director, Humanity Research Consultancy, United Kingdom

• Rochelle Burgess, PhD Social and Behavioural Sciences (Health community and development), Professor Global Mental Health and Social Justice, University College London (UCL), United Kingdom

• Michael Jacobs, PGDipEcon

• Macroeconomics and environmental / climate economics, University of Sheffield; Professor of Political Economy, United Kingdom

• Alexander Guschanski, PhD, Economics, Associate Professor in Economics, University of Greenwich, United Kingdom

• Mehmet Ugur, PhD Economics, Professor of Economics and Institutions, University of Greenwich, United Kingdom

• Robert Calvert Jump, PhD Economics, Associate Professor, University of Greenwich, United Kingdom

• Joseph Usher, PhD candidate, Urban Planning, London School of Economics, Research Assistant, United Kingdom

• Dr Carolina Cristina Alves, PhDs, Macro and Development., UCL - IIPP, London., United Kingdom

• Susan Himmelweit, PhD in Economics, Open University Emeritus Professor, United Kingdom

• Simon Mohun, PhD; Economics, Emeritus Professor of Political Economy, Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom

• Ann Pettifor, International political economy, Policy Research in Macroeconomics (PRIME), United Kingdom

• Kristin Surak, PhD in Sociology, London School of Economics, Associate Professor of Political Sociology, United Kingdom

• Pubudini Wickramaratne, Master of Laws LLM - human rights, law, Land Rights Policy Lead - Oxfam International, United Kingdom

• Luke Cooper, Political Science and International Relations (Global Political Economy)

• , Associate Professorial Research Fellow in International Relations, London School of Economics and Political Science, United Kingdom

• Daniel Hultgren, MA (Oxon) Philosophy, Politics & Economics, Save the Children International, United Kingdom

• Abhijit Dhillon, MSc Health and International Development. Community Health, Community Health Impact Coalition. Advocacy Coordinator, United Kingdom

• Alejandro Farieta Barrera, PhD in International Education and Development, University of Sussex, United Kingdom

• Akudo Amadiegwu, MA Social Work, Canterbury Christ Church University Senior Lecturer and MA Course Director, United Kingdom

• Alya Khan, PhD, Philosophy

• Expertise in social and political philosophy, health ethics, bioethics., Senior Lecturer in Health Ethics, London Metropolitan University, United Kingdom

• Chris Armstrong, PhD in Politics, Professor of Political Theory, University of Southampton, United Kingdom

• Amina Babirye, MSc Global Public Health and Social Justice, Brunel University, United Kingdom

• Shamus Khan, PhD, Sociology, Willard Thorp Professor, Princeton University, United States

• Sarah Anderson, Master’s degree and 30 years of research experience on a wide range of inequality-related issues, including wealth concentration, CEO-worker pay gaps, and labor., Institute for Policy Studies, Inequality.org co-editor, United States

• Michael McQuarrie, Sociology, Arizona State University, United States

• Nathan Coplin, M.A. International Diplomacy & Economics; field = Development Economics & Fiscal Policy, United States

• Sewon Kim, PhD in Public Affairs (public finance, policy analysis), Indiana University, United States

• Caren Grown, PhD, Economics, Brookings Institution, Senior Fellow, United States

• Mona Ali, PhD Economics, Associate Professor of Economics, United States

• Olivia Bullio Mattos, PhD, Monetary Economics, St. Francis College, Associate Professor, United States

• Fadhel Kaboub, PhD in economics, Denison University, United States

• Mónica Unda Gutiérrez, PhD in Development Studies, University of Southern California, Associate Professor, United States

• Jody Agius Vallejo, Phd and Sociology: inequality, elites, migration, University of Southern California, Professor of Sociology, United States

• José Antonio Ocampo, PhD, Economics, Professor School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University, United States

• Kathleen McAfee, Professor of International Relations with expertise in environmental and development policy, San Francisco State University, United States

• Peter Bearman, PhD Sociology, Columbia University, United States

• Salah Hamdoun, PhD in Innovation in Global Development. Expertisein the political economy of development, modernization, and risk, with a focus on how market expansion and digital technologies reshape social relations, inequality, and local responses to change., Visiting Affiliate Center for African Studies, United States

• Juan Antonio Montecino, PhD in Economics, American University and the Institute for Macroeconomic and Policy Analysis, United States

• Ignacio Gonzalez, PhD in Economics, Assistant Professor of Economics, American University, United States

• Ritika Goel, Political Science PHD UC Berkeley. Status Inequality and aspirations, Harvard Kennedy School, United States

• Henrique de Abreu Grazziotin, Phd Candidate in Economics, MA in Economics, University of Massachusetts Amherst, United States

• Lenore Palladino, Phd, Economics, Associate Professor, University of Massachusetts Amherst, United States

• Julie McCarthy, Masters in International Relations from Yale University, CEO of NatureFinance, United States

• Radhika Balakrishnan, PhD in Economics, Professor Emeritus, Rutgers University, United States

• Timothy Smeeding, Phd Economics

• Founder and creator, Luxembourg Income Study ; Luxembourg Wealth Study, Distinguished Professor of Public Policy and Economics, U Wisconsin, United States

• Severin Rapp, Economics, Economics of Inequality, Public Economics, Finance, CUNY Graduate Center, Research Associate, United States

• Nora Lustig, PhD, Development Economics, Inequality and Poverty, Social Policy, Professor Emerita, Tulane University and Visiting Professor, El Colegio de Mexico, United States and Mexico

• Walter Little, PhD, Anthropology with fields of expertise in economic anthropology, informal economy, and street vending., University at Albany, SUNY, United States of America

• Arthur MacEwan

• , Economics Ph.D.

• Inequality, American Economic History, Economic Development, International Commerce, University of Massachusetts Boston, Professor Emeritus of Economics, United States of America

• Irshad Ahmed, PhD (c) Health Policy & Management, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Doctoral Candidate, United States of America

• Luis Monroy Gómez Franco, Ph.D. in Economics. Fields of expertise: Intergenerational mobility, stratification economics, and inequality of opportunity., Assistant Professor at the Department of Economics of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst., United States of America

• Luis Bértola, Ph.D. in Economic History, specializing in long-run development, inequality, institutions, and technical change, with a focus on Latin America., Universidad de la República, and National Science Academy of Uruguay, Uruguay

• Craig Calhoun, D.Phil.. Sociology and history., Arizona State University (University Professor of the Social Sciences); Princeton University (Recurrent Visiting Professor of Sociology), US

• Thomas Pogge, PhD Philosophy, Yale, US

• Carmen Barroso, PhD gender and health, Women Deliver board member, US

• Bhumika Muchhala, PhD, International Political Economy, The New School; Position: Adjunct Professor in Global Governance, US

• Kimberly Kay Hoang, Sociology- Global Movement of Wealth, University of Chicago, US

• Christopher Winsihp, Sociology, Harvard Diker-Tishman Research Professor of Sociology, US

• Esfandiar Maasoumi, Ph.d, Economics, Emory University, USA

• Philip Alston, JSD (Docorate in law). Expertise in international law, human rights, and the political economy of rights., New York University, John Norton Pomeroy Professor of Law, USA

• Sourushe Zandvakili, Phd, Inequality and Welfare Economics, and Labor Economics, Professor Emeritus, Department of Economics, University of Cincinnati, USA

• Stephanie Seguino, PhD Economics, specialist in inequality, University of Vermont, USA

• Yavuz Yasar, Ph.D. in Economics, University of Denver, Professor, USA

• Sarah Cliffe, International Economic Policy; Politics of inequality and practical solutions, Distinguished Fellow, Center on International Cooperation, New York University, USA

• Mary C King, PhD Economics, Professor of Economics Emerita, Portland State University, USA

• Meredeth Turshen, D Phil Political Economy dissertation on the Political Economy of Health with a case study of Tanzania; expertise in global health, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, retired Professor, USA

• Günseli Berik, PhD, Economics, University of Utah, Professor Emerita, USA

• James K. Galbraith, PhD, Economics, Yale University, 1981. Measurement of inequality., The University of Texas at Austin. Lloyd M Bentsen, jr. Chair in Government/Business Relations, LBJ School, and Professor of Government, USA

• Michael Ash, Economics (labor and environment with a focus on inequality; quantitative methods), University of Massachusetts Amherst (USA); professor of economics and public policy, USA

• Patricia Welch Saleeby, Phd and MSSA, Social Work, Bradley University, IFSW Regional Representative, WHO FDRG Co-Chair, USA

• Geoffrey Wodtke, PhD in Sociology, University of Chicago, Professor of Sociology, USA

• Kaushik Basu, PhD (London School of Economics)

• Field of expertise: Development Economics, Game theory, Law and economics, Cornell University. Carl Marks Professor of International Studies, USA

• Alison M Jaggar, Ph.D. philosophy., expert in gender and global justice, Emerita professor of distinction at the University of Colorado Boulder, USA

• Isabella Weber, PhD Economics, PhD Development Studies, University of Massachusetts, USA

• Mary Eschelbach Hansen, PhD Economics, American University, USA

• Debra Satz, PhD in philosophy, Stanford University, USA

• Renata Serra, PhD Economics, with a focus on Development Economics and African Studies, University of Florida, Instructional Professor in the Center for African Studies, USA

• Daren Acemoglu, PHD Economics, Professor, MIT, USA

• Samuel Bowles, PhD in economics, Professor, Santa Fe Institute, USA

• Thomas Masterson, PhD in Economics

• Poverty and Inequality Analysis and Measurement, Race and Gender, Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, New York, USA, USA

• Hassan Mujtaba, Phd student in Economics (with a focus on Political Economy and Development), University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA

• Mwangi wa Githinji, Ph.D. Economics, Associate Dean - University of Massachusetts-Amherst, USA

• Gerald Epstein, PhD Economics, University of Massachusetts Amherst, USA

• Ha Nguyen, Economics PhD, UMass Amherst Economics Department, USA

• Peter Skott, Economics, University of Massachusetts Amherst, USA

• LEONCE NDIKUMANA, PhD, Economics, Distinguished Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts Amherst, USA

• Lawrence King, PhD Sociology, Political Economy, Economics, Professor of Economics University of Massachusetts Amherst, USA

• James Heintz, PhD Economics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA

• Martin Guzman, PhD in Economics, Professor, Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs, USA and Argentina

• Nguyen Thi Ngoc Mai, Pursuing Master’s in International Law at the University of Bristol (UK), researcg focuses on rights-based approaches to legal and institutional reform,., University of Bristol, United Kingdom, pursuing a Master’s in International Law; Community Impact Team Member at University of Bristol Law, Vietnam/UK

• Clement Kasonde, Bachelor of Laws, Labour Institute of Zambia, Research Officer, Zambia

• Nicola Harford, MA Rural Social Development; media and communications for development, Managing Director, iMedia Associates, Zimbabwe

• Olga Cantó Sánchez, Doctorado en Economía, Universidad de Alcalá, Catedrática de Economía, Spain

• Miguel Artola Blanco, Doctor en Historia - Historia Económica, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Spain

• Juan Antonio Gimeno, Doctor en Derecho y Economía, UNED - Economistas sin Fronteras..., Spain

• Atilio Alberto Boron, Ph. D., en ciencia política, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, profesor consulto, Argentina

• Verónica Grondona, Lic. en Economía, doctoranda en Desarrollo Económico. Especialista en Fiscalidad Internacional, ICRICT - Senior Advisor on International Tax; CCC - investigadora; ETFE - miembro - Iniciativa por los Derechos Humanos en la Política Fiscal, Argentina

• Lamia Oualalou, Economia, EU Tax Observatory / General Manager, Francia

• Daniela Vilar, Magister en Políticas Públicas - Ministra de Ambiente de la Provincia de Buenos Aires, Ministra de Ambiente de la Provincia de Buenos Aires, Argentina

• Mariana Matamoros Cárdenas, Economista, especialista en econometría y con maestría en economía, Centro de Estudios de derecho, justicia y sociedad - Dejusticia / Investigadora principal de justicia fiscal, Colombia

• Adriana Puiggrós, Doctora en educación, Universidad Pedagógica Nacional; Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina

• Luiza Nassif Pires, Feminist economics, Director research center on macroeconomic of inequalities, Brasil

• Oliver Pardo, Doctor en Economía, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Colombia

• Alejandro Gaggero, Doctor en Ciencias Sociales (Universidad de Buenos Aires), Coordinador del área de Justicia Fiscal de la Asociación Civil por la Igualdad y la Justicia (ACIJ), Argentina

• Mercedes Marco del Pont, Desarrollo económico, Fundación de Investigaciones para el Desarrollo (FIDE), Argentina

• Andrés Celis, Economista, especializado en política fiscal, y agua y saneamiento., Sin afiliación, Colombia

• Paul Segal, Professor of Economics, specializing in the economics of inequality and economic development, IAE Business School, Austral University, Argentina

• Laura de Pablos Escobar, Doctora en Economía, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, España

• Rafael Carranza, PhD in Social Policy; Inequality measurement, social mobility, labour markets., Escuela de Gobierno, Universidad Católica de Chile. Profesor Asistente, Chile

• Liliana Heredia Rodríguez, Contadora Pública. Trabajo en temas trubutarios., Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Colombia

• Cecilia Todesca Bocco, Economista y Magister en Políticas Públicas, Ninguna, Argentina

• Tomás Leighton, Sociologo, Director Ejecutivo de Rumbo Colectivo, Chile

• Ricardo Martín, Licenciado en Economía por la Universidad de Buenos Aires. Macroeconomía, Grupo Paternal. Buenos Aires, Argentina., Argentina

• Juan Felipe Caicedo, Politólogo - Especialista en Política Urbana, C40 Cities - Gerente de Proyectos de Planeación y Diseño Urbano., Bogotá, Colombia

• Candelaria Botto, Economista, especializada en genero, Directora de ecofeminita, Argentina

• Mariano Montes, Lic. en Ciencia Política, Director de Interra (UNLZ). Docente en UBA, UNAB y FLACSO., Argentina

• Rafael Grasa Hernández, Dr Relaciones Internacionales Desarrollo y seguridad, Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Spain

• Luis Buendía García, Doctor en Economía Internacional y Desarrollo, Profesor Titular. Universidad de León, Spain

• Clara Martinez-Toledano, Doctorado en Economía, Economía de la Desigualdad, Finanzas Públicas y de los Hogares, Assistant Professor en Imperial College London Business School y Wealth Distribution Coordinator at World Inequality Lab, United Kingdom

• Ignasi Martí, PhD in Management Studies, area de especialización: precariedad, exclusión, innovación social, ESADE Business School - Universitat Ramon Llull, Spain

• Luis Molina Temboury, Economista. Estadístico analista, miembro de Economistas Frente a la Crisis, Spain

• Mohamed Lamine YOULA, Relations Internationales, Chargé d’Etudes des Relations Multilatérales au Ministère des Affaires Étrangères, de l’intégration Africaine et des Guinéens Etablis à l’Etranger, Guinée

Eight months ago, a friend of mine suffered a sudden cerebral hemorrhage in the middle of the night and was rushed to the hospital. After the emergency staff stabilized him, they asked me to pay 15,000 EGP ($300 at the time), roughly equivalent to an average salary in Egypt for two months, to admit and test him. Before I started running around to find the money, I asked if that was all they needed. The receptionist said, “For today... if we don’t need any more tests.” While my friend recovered, we reviewed the bills with friends in the medical field, as families in Egypt can be bankrupted by a short hospital stay. The rates were exorbitant: it turned out that the $300 only covered the room rent. All medical procedures and medication were extra and charged at exorbitant rates: bedspreads, for instance, were charged at 50 times what they cost the hospital. Suddenly, it became clear why my parents’ generation — which enjoyed access to public services before austerity gutted them —is significantly healthier than my own.

Access to free, quality public services is a precondition and catalyst for development and growth, and a critical part of economic and political life. Yet Egyptians now often look to the costly private sector services that should be free. In 2018, spending on the private sector accounted for approximately 71% of total health expenditure in Egypt, with out-of-pocket payments comprising 62% of the total. The consequences of this became even more apparent during the COVID 19 crisis, as the private healthcare sector failed millions of Egyptians.

Savings, Sickness, and State Failure

Egyptians are haunted by memories of hospitals discharging the sick while still infectious; fears of losing to precious oxygen once money ran out; insurance claims getting rejected; and arbitrary hikes in hospital charges at a time when people needed healthcare the most. There are countless stories about families losing their lifetime savings —and sometimes even their homes —to ensure a loved one could spend a couple more weeks in the hospital. This suffering was wholly preventable if the public healthcare system was adequately resourced, but its funding has never exceeded 1.5% of GNI in the past decade, despite the 2014 constitutional mandate setting a minimum of 3% of GNI for healthcare expenditure.

Egypt was not alone in this. Nor was this merely a legacy of the pandemic, which is now behind us. In 2017, before the pandemic, almost a third of households were already facing catastrophic health expenditures; and 7% have been pushed into poverty due to high out-of-pocket payments. Without guaranteed public services, even if you work hard and save all you can, your savings could be wiped out by an illness in the blink of an eye. And even if you yourself don’t fall ill, someone in your circle might, a friend, relative, or a colleague, and mutual aid could be called upon to bridge the gaps left by State failure. Savings become critical for your sense of safety when you cannot rely on free public services. This harms well-being, and eventually also depresses equitable and inclusive growth.

I have experienced how municipalities in Egypt that received access to public services early after independence still have better living standards, more businesses, and higher levels of education today. This public investment in necessary services for the community allowed people to save and invest in small projects, enabled their children to have better opportunities to learn and thrive, or and helped residents simply enjoy themselves on holidays. That is all in addition to providing an extra layer of protection —a crucial addition in this time of poly-crisis, where the pandemic, environmental collapse, and an increasingly unstable international economy have quickly eroded the living standards of millions around the planet.

The Mystery of the Missing Trillions for Development

Why did governments that once prided themselves on addressing the well-being of their citizens seemingly withdraw, leaving them at the mercy of the market? Scholar David Harvey argued that as neoliberalism took hold and wealth increasingly shifted upward, big business faced a problem: it became harder to make profits because most people had less money to spend. To keep making money, capital started moving into essential services like healthcare, education, water, roads, and sewage—areas where demand stays high no matter what. This means ordinary people get hit twice: first, they’re left poorer by the wealth shift, and then they have to pay more for basic services that used to be publicly provided and often were free.

Harvey is not alone in this analysis. Even figures associated with neoliberalism, like Larry Summers, seem to understand this dynamic of reduced demand and stagnating living standards. This is why Egypt is far from alone in facing this challenge. The alternative is the tried-and-true method of fueling development through a public-first approach to service provision. Its value is particularly clear when we take stock of how massively off track the Sustainable Development Goals have become, and how many countries are still doing a terrible job ensuring access to essential services. Only 16% of SDG targets are on track to be met by 2030. Despite endless conversations about empowering communities, enabling small enterprises, and reducing poverty, we’ve seen little improvement – notwithstanding the massive gains for the 1%, whose wealth is up by at least $33.9 trillion since the SDGs were agreed.

Much of the development community has looked to the private sector to fund the SDGs in a misguided quest to turn ‘billions into trillions.’ Instead, in 2022, the private sector provided only $62.4 billion of the $450 billion spent on the SDGs. In 2023, only $87.9 billion of private finance were mobilized to low-and middle-income countries—a meagre sum considering the financing gap estimate of $4 trillion every year. The failure to achieve the dignified life that the SDGs promised, and the insistence of multilateral development institutions on a counterproductive paradigm, has rendered many international development initiatives essentially exercises in futility. This is why Oxfam has condemned the private finance takeover of the development agenda, and a failed ‘billions to trillions’ approach that seeks to enshrine corporate capture as the status quo.

The Case for Public Power

Public services are a human necessity and a human right that should be available for everyone. It is a core obligation of governments to protect their citizens. The private, for-profit sector has a very poor track record on equity while trying to deliver services to the poor. Oxfam’s research on the role of the private sector in healthcare provides clear evidence that this is the case.

Some claim that the public sector is often inefficient. One can argue that delivering equitable, quality services to all citizens is a moral responsibility that goes beyond the need for efficiency. However, there is abundant evidence pointing to private provision of public services being less efficient than public options and often excluding the poor and vulnerable. It can seem like the main factor driving narratives about private sector superiority is profit-seeking.

If the evidence says public services are often better for development, and theory tells us something similar, why do universal public services receive so little attention? The answer, quite simply, is private profit. Our recent briefing paper, From Private Profit to Public Power: Financing Development, Not Oligarchy, highlights how investors push for private financing of development, not in pursuit of expanding access to public services, but rather for guaranteed profits and public subsidy of said profits, often at higher costs to the public.

The good news is that we already have the tools, knowledge, and proven models we need. This isn’t about chasing some untested utopian ideal- it’s about putting into action a practical, proven approach to building an economy that puts people’s needs before profit, an approach that springs from the understanding that solidarity embodied in the public provision of services is the surest way to protect people in times of crisis. The only thing standing in the way of a future where public services are guaranteed is the need to organize and build the political will to reclaim our rights.

ENDS.

Author: Omar Ghannam is Senior Policy Advisor at Oxfam International.

Listen to our latest podcast episode featuring climate activist Sarah Finch on how her Supreme Court victory now forces every new fossil fuel project in the UK to face its real climate cost and could reshape environmental law worldwide.

Read our latest bulletin on the ‘forgotten’ social summit.

Always remember to share and follow us on X and on LinkedIn.

The satisfaction of a clean toilet.

Cleaning a toilet is strangely satisfying. A dirty job of course. A bit smelly too. But a discrete task, with a beginning, a middle and an end. One that does not involve Teams or Zoom calls, or egos and negotiation. To be done practising mindfulness, or whilst listening to your favourite podcast. It doesn’t take long at all, and when it is done, you can step back, satisfied, and admire the sparkling, sweet smelling fruits of your labour. Well at least until your teenage son barges in the door.

I wonder how many reading this have recently cleaned their toilet? Sadly, even in today’s more gender equal world, I suspect a significantly more female readers than male will answer yes. So much more of the burden of everyday, unpaid work like the cleaning of our houses, or the cooking, or the caring for children, still falls on the shoulders of women and not men.

I think probably quite a few readers, male and female, would answer no because they pay someone else to do it, employing a cleaner, or house help of some sort. Often, in my experience, it seems that at times that the unequal burden of unpaid care between couples is solved not by the man doing more, but by outsourcing the work to someone else. This person is in turn highly likely to be a woman, and probably a woman of colour, or an immigrant, or both.

Principles can fade in the face of multiple toilets to clean

When I lived in Malawi, a very self-righteous 28-year-old, I steadfastly refused to pay anyone to do my domestic work. We washed all our clothes by hand in the bath and cleaned our one toilet. The electrics were broken in our teacher’s accommodation, so that unless you wore shoes the hot tap gave you a nasty electric shock, so cleaning was high risk too.

Years later, when I lived with my family in Kenya, it was a different story. We did not have live in servants, as many did, but we had a cleaner, Phylis, who came twice a week. She sadly passed away this summer. I have to say my wife and I both didn’t like it, it felt very uncomfortable, but then we lived in an enormous house with six toilets so the thought of cleaning all those made us even more uncomfortable. There was also a lot of pressure to hire people, and in fact no one could understand why we didn’t have live in staff there all the time as all our Kenyan neighbours did.

Back in the UK, and my eco-anarchist cousin asked a local Facebook chat how much he should pay his cleaner. There followed a long thread with lots of lefty worthy comments about paying the London Living Wage etc, allowing benefits, holidays etc. Knowing my cousin, who is not slow to judge himself (I fear it is a family trait), I jumped in and posted, ‘well alternatively you could just clean your own toilet!’.

I was enjoying the guilty replies and excuses and feeling very self-satisfied when my sister chimed in on the chat, and told me to get off my high horse, as she is a cleaner and without these people, she would not have a job. That put me in my place.

Still though, I thought then and I still feel that there is something deeply wrong about paying someone to clean your toilet.

A logical division of labour, providing jobs?

How many husbands in the past and today have justified their wives’ cleaning of the house based on the fact that they are the main earner, busy at work, and that this is simply an efficient division of labour? In a purely economic sense, they were right, but equally this is only right because of the deep gender inequality and sexism in our societies that made it so.

Equally today, many busy people with demanding jobs and lives, who can afford it, pay someone to clean their toilet for them. This is economically efficient, a clear division of labour. It provides a job too.

Lots of inequality equals lots of servants

But I think it is no coincidence that it tends to be in the most unequal countries that you see this more, where the employment of one or more domestic servants, often living in your house, is still relatively common. Our house in Kenya, built relatively recently, included a small one room, toilet and bathroom for a live in servant, which is very common.

And all over the world these live in domestic workers, especially those who are immigrants, are routinely abused and denied their rights. Some have their passports taken away. Sexual harassment and abuse are a common experience.

In the UK the number of domestic servants peaked in the late 19th century, with approximately 1.6 million women employed as domestic servants in 1881, representing 35% of the female workforce. By the mid-twentieth century this number had dropped dramatically, and live-in servants were largely a thing of the past. This was partly due to changes in gender equality, but also economic inequality, with much better paid jobs and opportunities available to young women than a life of servitude.

In more recent decades, as the UK has become more unequal, the number of domestic workers is again on the rise. It is not all about economic inequality, populations are aging, more caring is required, and cuts to public services are having an impact. As we learned in the pandemic, cleaners are among the most important workers in the economy.

But rising inequality is also part of the issue. There are no easy answers to this. Busy stressed couples with busy lives, hiring a cleaner to come once a week to help them hold things together are hardly the leisure classes of Downton Abbey. Millions living like my sister having to take on a cleaning job on top of your other job to pay the bills are glad of the work. Especially if means you can work for yourself, and often choose your hours too, and can pay better than other jobs.

But despite this, it does worry me deeply that we can live in societies where it makes sense for a small group of people to pay other people to do their domestic work. It is not a good thing; it is a sign of a society that is fundamentally far too unequal. I want to live in a more equal world, where everyone cleans their own toilet.

ENDS.

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.

Listen to our latest episode featuring a multi-millionaire Joao Paulo on why we don’t need billionaires as a society and the need for a wealth cap.

Read our latest bulletin, shedding light on the carbon inequality.

Subscribe and watch out for a new EQUALS episode coming out next week Tuesday.

Always remember to share and follow us on X and on LinkedIn.

Subscribe now

Some wonderful progress in saving children’s lives

I lived in Malawi from 1999 to 2002. At that moment, the turn of the millennium, in the poorest Malawian families 191 children out of every thousand born would die before the age of five. This means in poor families (those in the bottom 20%) approximately one in five newborn babies was not reaching their fifth birthday.

As of 2022 that figure is now 47, so instead of one in five, the figure is now one in 20 babies born into a poor family in Malawi is likely to die by the age of five. That is still an appallingly high number. In the UK it is 4.7 in the poorest areas of the UK. That is one chance in 212. But it is also an enormous improvement in a little over twenty years. An improvement that is all the more impressive because there were 11 million Malawians in 2000 and today there are 22 million. That is a lot of births.

Subscribe now

More healthy, and more equal too

But there is another aspect to this graph which is heartening and repeated in many countries; not only are the average number of children dying, the gap between the rich and the poor is too. When I lived there, the life chances of a child from a rich family were much higher than those from a poor family. Today the gap has closed dramatically, and with this the health inequality.

This process, of greater progress overall, but also a greater increase in health equality, is far from guaranteed.

Progress that is not guaranteed

Take Nigeria for example. Again since 2000 a big improvement- average under five mortality has reduced by a little over a third since 2000, from an average of 180 per thousand live births, to 110 in 2022. Yet you can see that there has been minimal decrease in health inequalities; a child in a poor family is twice as likely to die before they are five years old than a child in a richer family.

In the year 2000 Malawi’s per capita income was $121 dollars a year. In 2022 this had risen to $563 a year; Malawi remains one of the very poorest countries in the world. The per capita income of Nigerians is more than three times higher than Malawians ($1663) but a Nigerian poor child’s chance of dying before they are five years old is three times higher than a Malawian child.

Simple ways to save a life

What does this show? For one thing progress in health outcomes can be achieved rapidly even in some of the poorest countries in earth, but that also average improvements can mask huge differentials in the level of health equality. Simple policy steps can make a huge difference- in Malawi mosquito nets cost money when I lived there and were not common. Yet since the mid 2012 they have been available free and widely distributed- that alone makes a huge difference.

Health equality, economic inequality

During this period economic inequality in Malawi grew really quite sharply too, Malawi reached a high of a Gini of 0.45 in 2010 (the World Bank threshold for high inequality is 0.4). It has since fallen back down a bit, but nevertheless, you saw a big increase in health equality whilst they had a big increase in economic inequality.

To my mind there is no doubt that high economic inequality is a bad thing for lots of reasons, and governments should do far more to reduce it. GINI should matter at least as much as GDP. But if other inequalities, like those in health and education, can be significantly lower, this does make a big difference to people’s lives even if economic inequality remains high.

A lot of this in turn is about policies; if education and healthcare are free and universally available, then disparities of income matter less. When they are instead commodified, and privatised for profit, then how educated your children are, or whether they live to the age of five or are killed by malaria before then, depends on how much money you have. In such cases disparities of income matter a lot more.

As a concerning footnote- so much of the data disaggregated by wealth quintile for health and education comes from Demographic and Health Surveys that have been running since 1984. They were funded by USAID and that funding was ended earlier this year, and now their future is uncertain. Given all the other immediate needs cut short by the cuts to USAID this cut to research can feel perhaps not as important, but I think that is a huge mistake- this data is invaluable. Some donors have come up with emergency funding which is great and I hope it gets fully funded again soon.

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.

Listen to the latest EQUALS episode featuring Ingrid Robeyns on having a wealth cap.

Always remember to share and follow us on X and on LinkedIn.

An incredibly influential graph from some years ago (recreated below using the most recent data) now was the Elephant Graph put together by and Christoph Lakner. It was called the Elephant Graph because it looks a bit like an Elephant with a big round back and a trunk.

The graph is of global inequality, a concept that takes a bit of understanding, as it combines both the inequality within countries and between them in one big measure- basically treating the whole of humanity as if it were one country. Whilst inequality within countries has grown in many countries, this negative trend was counteracted by inequality between countries shrinking, due in large part to the huge economic growth in China, meaning that the overall trend has been that Global Inequality is falling.

Like all things like this, the graph felt like it captured the political moment, because it demonstrated that there were basically two winners and one loser over the last forty years. The big winners were the bottom half of humanity and those at the very top, and the losers were the ones in the middle- which, especially deciles 60 to 90- basically equated to the bottom half of income earners in rich countries.

For those who were big supporters of globalisation, it showed that there was a clear and definitive global benefit, with hundreds of millions being lifted out of poverty as a result. For detractors of globalisation, it showed how this had happened in many ways at the expense of the working class in rich countries, which in turn had led to the rising tide of right-wing populism and anger, a tide that scarily seems far from ebbing a decade later. For those concerned about inequality, it showed how the very richest had also pulled away at the same time.

What the elephant graph misses

In important ways though, this graph doesn’t really show the full picture. Most notably, this measure, like most inequality measurement, is relative and not absolute. It measures the percentage change in income, which means that even a meagre increase (in actual dollars) for someone with little income can be massive in percentage terms. To illustrate this in a simple way, take person A with an annual income of $1000. A 10% increase to their income adds them an extra $100. In contrast, for a person B earning $1 million, a 10% increase hands them an extra $100,000. The gap in their actual income widens. For the relative increase (in percentage) to translate to equal increase in absolute incomes, a 1% increase in income for person B must be accompanied by a 1000% increase in income for person A.

This can also be applied to the income gap between countries. Take China and India on one hand, and the US on the other.

If China and India grow their per capita GDP at 2.5 times and 2.7 times faster than US (going by the average annual growth rate over the past ten years). China will catch-up with US's per capita GDP (PPP) in 34 years while India in 54 years. For China, the absolute gap will continue to grow and only start closing in seven years, while it will take India 28 years for the gap to stop growing and start shrinking.

At the global inequality level, this means that although, when you look at the elephant graph, the bottom half have been growing, this is from a very low base. Looking at the absolute and not relative incomes, the winners of the last forty years are clearly the richest income earners. Someone in the bottom 50% who in total captured only 9.2% of global income growth, has seen their average annual income rise by only USD 744 (at market exchange rates, 2024 prices), in 40 years,^[i] whilst someone in the top 1%, who in total captured 21.6% of global income growth has seen their average income rise by USD 164,435, or 218 times as much.

If you plot this absolute income growth, you get a graph that looks perhaps a bit more like a giraffe than an elephant.

Absolutes matter too

The global Gini of relative incomes is the most widely used measure of global inequality. It has been falling for nearly two decades (although this fall has slowed sharply in recent years and the outlook is not good). However, because it is a relative measure as discussed above, it misses a crucial aspect of inequality- that intuitively makes more sense to most- we are more equal when we have similar levels of actual money, not similar levels of percentage increase. Looking at the data from the World Income Inequality Database, the absolute Gini for global inequality is growing, not shrinking even while the relative Gini Index has been falling.

So, whilst there is no doubt the growth in the countries of the Global South and especially in China has reduced the gap, the size of that gap, in absolute terms remains enormous, and continues to rise, not fall.

END.

Thanks to my brilliant colleague Anthony for his considerable help on this one; both in writing and doing the numbers.

[i] Authors’ calculations based on the data from the World Inequality Database. (n.d). https://wid.world/data/. Data for 1980 and 2023. The pretax income has been converted from US dollar purchasing power parity to market exchange rates, 2024 dollar.

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.

Listen to the latest EQUALS episode featuring Luc Triangle, on how the fight against inequality is inseparable from the fight for democracy. New episode drops Tuesday, stay tuned.

Always remember to share and follow us on X and on LinkedIn.

The year before I had helped a bit with the team working on a report we were writing about the global crisis in the coffee market, where prices had fallen to a thirty-year low. The report had a great title, ‘Mugged: Poverty in your coffee cup’. Here I learned that part of the reason that the coffee market was in trouble was because of the fact that Vietnam, in the space of a few years, had gone from not producing coffee at any significant scale, to being the second largest producer in the world, flooding the world market. This, combined with the wholesale liberalisation of the global coffee market and the capture of almost all the value by coffee roasters based in the Global North was having a terrible impact on coffee farmers.

The East German Coffee Crisis

At the time I remember someone saying that Vietnam’s decision to enter into coffee production was linked to the Eastern Bloc, but I only learned the full story recently. In East Germany in the late seventies the country was experiencing a huge economic crisis, a knock-on effect of the energy price shocks. Their problems were made harder because they had to find hard currency for imports from outside the Eastern Bloc countries, and one of the most important of these was coffee. East Germans were huge coffee drinkers, and access to coffee was a huge part of national culture, and a symbol of the success of the communist system. East Germans spent more on coffee than they did on furniture. This meant coffee had to be rationed, and mixed with chicory and other things, which was hugely unpopular. It was a national crisis.

They needed to find a solution to this crisis within the socialist world, and so the East Germans worked out a deal to address this with their socialist comrades in Vietnam. At that time Vietnam had just emerged from the Vietnam war, and although victorious, their economy was in a parlous state, and over 3 million people had died. They needed help.

Coffee comrades

In 1977, Erich Honecker, the leader of East Germany visited Hanoi, and a development treaty was signed in 1980. A key part of this was to help Vietnam become a significant coffee producer. A huge area, 10,000 hectares was cleared in Dak Lak province. Workers moved there, and machinery, roads, and infrastructure were put in place and a new hydroelectric power plant built. East Germany sent lorries, farm machinery and equipment and helped build irrigation systems. Over 6000 coffee trees, including new breeds cultivated in Leipzig, were planted. The agreement was that in return for this big infusion of aid and expertise, Vietnam would export half of their coffee to East Germany for the next 20 years, sating the East German’s desire for coffee without the need for hard currency and helping to rebuild Vietnam.

Coffee bushes take between 4-7 years to fully mature, and this meant that by the time Vietnam was ready to export coffee to East Germany in early 1991, the Berlin Wall had fallen, and the Eastern Bloc was crumbling. So this large-scale socialist coffee swap never took place but was instead overtaken by history.

A development success story

Nevertheless, it was big development success for Vietnam. They produce 17% of the world’s coffee, or 30 million bags. The coffee industry exports about $4 billion worth of coffee and supports the livelihoods of 1.4 million smallholder farmers. A reunified Germany is the biggest export market.

Coffee farmers still struggle with poverty, with 25% of workers earning less than the minimum wage. Vietnam, like other coffee producing countries struggles to break into the lucrative roasting and packaging element of the coffee value chain which is still dominated by the Global North. But nevertheless, coffee production in Vietnam remains a really successful example of development, driven by the shared interests of two socialist nations.

Bittersweet influences

Coffee is not just for export, it is now huge in Vietnam too, with a very strong interest from the younger generation, born long after the days of East Germany. There are loads of super stylish new coffee shops, catering to Gen Z being opened by young entrepreneurs. Coffee has become associated with creativity, social expression and the ambitions of this new generation.

Interestingly, when you visit one of the many coffee houses in Hanoi, you will discover something else unique about Vietnamese coffee, which is their habit of drinking it with condensed milk, the super sweet milk that you get in tins. Their iced coffee version of this is absolutely delicious.

Condensed milk was originally introduced by French colonists and was also a part of the K rations given to US soldiers during the Vietnam war.

So, a Vietnamese cup of coffee is truly a product of communism, colonialism and capitalism, with the East Germans having a far more constructive record in the history of that wonderful country than either the French or the USA.

(Thanks to Hoa and Duong for help with this blog. You can listen to a good interview with the East German who led the coffee project, now 1995, here on BBC Witness History. The idea for this blog came from the brilliant book, Beyond the Wall by Katya Hoyer- you can watch a great podcast interview with her here.)

ENDS.

It is hard to think of a more popular initiative with donor governments than Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. Backed strongly by the Gates Foundation, Gavi has invariably had vocal and significant support from the leaders of the world’s richest countries. Since it was founded in 2000, Gavi has always raised the funding it has asked for. In fact, at its last replenishment, Gavi got a billion dollars more than it requested. This was in April 2020 as the Covid crisis was unfolding, which helped demonstrate to the world the incredible power of vaccines in stopping diseases from spreading, mutating and growing.

Gavi is far from perfect. It is a public private ‘partnership’ that has pharmaceutical corporations on its governing board which creates a huge conflict of interest. Gavi is arguably far too close to private philanthropy and Big Pharma and doesn’t do enough to drive down vaccine prices overall, despite its huge market power. Gavi’s ‘innovative’ model to front load funds to buy vaccines via private bonds has also run into criticism for its net loss of aid in order to pay for high interest rates and shareholder returns. But even its fiercest critics would agree that Gavi has given a huge boost to vaccination rates across the Global South and saved millions upon millions of lives as a result.

So when Gavi fell short last week of its request of $11.9 billion by a massive $2.9 billion, despite all the power and influence of the Gates Foundation and the glitz and glamour of Global Citizen behind it, we should all be very worried indeed.

Oxfam released figures ahead of the G7 last month showing that G7 aid is set to be cut more than ever before – the biggest being the US which also withdrew from Gavi this week. But this is not just a US story. All the major economies are set to scale back on their aid commitments. The UK, once a global leader in giving life-saving aid, is due to cut its aid down 1999 levels.

The UK remained the biggest donor to Gavi, but despite the Foreign Secretary David Lammy saying ‘as others step back, we are stepping forward’ at the Gavi replenishment they actually cut their contribution by 25%. This is all the more concerning given health is supposed to be one of only three development priorities going forward for the UK government. Perhaps this is more accurately described as a case of ‘whilst others leap back, we are only stepping back’.

While these statistics are shocking in themselves, they become much more real when we consider the human impact- for example that of unvaccinated kids dying of easily preventable diseases. A study published last week in the Lancet models 14 million more deaths from 2025-2030 as a result of the USAID cuts alone.

The leaders of the richest nations are making terrible, brutal decisions here.

Always money for war

The Gavi replenishment was held in Brussels during the evening. This was deliberate because the NATO summit was being held up the road in The Hague that same day. The idea was to make it easy for NATO Leaders and Foreign Ministers to jump in the car and go from one to the other.

In the end most leaders skipped the Gavi replenishment even though they usually attend it. But many of their foreign ministers did do both events.

At NATO, European leaders were falling over themselves to commit to dramatic and rapid increases in military spending. All but one of them committed to increase their military spending to 5% of GDP.

They originally set themselves a 2% of GDP target in 2014, giving themselves ten years to get there. By 2025, 23 out of 32 had met this target. Now they are aiming at 5%. That would bring their total spending on the military to $2.7 trillion dollars at today’s GDP levels.

The contrast with development aid could not be starker. Donor countries agreed to a target of just 0.7% of GDP in 1970. Fifty-five years later, only four are now meeting this target. Their total spending on aid is just $179 billion, or 0.33% of the GDP of NATO members.

In 2014, military spending was 7.9 times more than the aid spending of NATO members. By 2024 it had risen to 8.3 times. If they meet their target of 5% of GDP by 2035, and if we factor in aid cuts announced, then military spending will be 23.9 times more than aid spending by 2035.

The only speaker at the Gavi replenishment to speak of the sharp juxtaposition between the two meetings was the Greek Prime Minister, who committed $5 million to Gavi:

‘I was thinking that some of us came back from the NATO Summit in order to make sure that we are with you here today to reconfirm our support to Gavi. I was thinking that if we can afford, and rightly so, I may add, to spend 5% of our GDP on defence over the next years, we certainly can afford to contribute 5 million to Gavi.’

(Great that they increased their contribution from $2 million to $5 million, but to put that in context, 5% of Greek GDP is $12 billion. A single F-35 fighter bomber costs up to $110 million).

A kind of madness

This cartoon is from eighty years ago, showing that this problem – where there is never any issue in finding money for war but every penny for the poor has to be fought for – is a very old one.

Broadly speaking, around half the population in European NATO countries support more military spending, but there is significant variation. But I think it is unlikely that NATO publics support spending a whopping 5% of GDP, especially when they are being told that, as a result, there is no money available for schools or hospitals.

Even those who do not necessarily question the need for increased military spending in principle point out that military spending is about as inefficient and ineffective as it is possible to be, and that more money will simply mean more waste and bigger profits for arms manufacturers.

Arguments that military spending will boost growth and jobs barely stand up to scrutiny either, especially contrasted with other sources of public investment. A new hospital is broadly the cost of ten fighter jets. Think of the jobs, investment and wider ongoing benefit to society of a new hospital in contrast to those ten aeroplanes.

Of course, it is also a false choice, in that if we taxed the richest people fairly, arguably NATO countries would be able to increase spending on public services and lifesaving aid as well as spending more on the military.

But for me though, even if new revenue was found by taxing the super-rich, I don’t think spending 5% of GDP on the military is either justified or necessary. In fact, it seems likely to me that a new arms race would not only waste huge amounts of money but perhaps actually increase the threat of conflict and violence, rather than reduce it, with the main beneficiaries being arms manufacturers and their rich shareholders.

Given the huge needs of humanity, not least the most existential threat of climate breakdown, to be squandering our vital resources on bullets and bombs rather than classrooms and clinics feels to me a kind of madness.

(Thanks to Didier, Salva and Anthony for help with this blog.)

ENDS.

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.

Listen to our latest episode featuring Nick Shaxson on how monopoly power is shaping inequality.

Always remember to share and follow us on X and on LinkedIn.

To quote their blog: ‘The update includes three main changes to the PIP data (See the What’s New document for more details): First, the update brings new survey data for several country-years, including important updates to data from India; second, it includes the adoption of the 2021 Purchasing Power Parities (PPPs); and third, based on the new PPPs and new survey data, including new national poverty lines, the update revises the global poverty lines.’

We already knew that poverty had shot up during Covid-19, and then begun to come down again, but very slowly. These new estimates show that the decline is even slower than originally projected, with extreme poverty in 2022 basically at the same level as it was in 2019. This then impacts on the World Bank forecasts for where poverty levels are in 2025- revised upwards from 8.5% of humanity to 9.9% of humanity- or one in ten people.

These are of course figures for extreme poverty. Oxfam along with many others have been very critical that this threshold that is too low. We pointed to the fact that the UN estimates that more people are living in hunger than the World Bank estimates are in extreme poverty. Now at least with these revised estimates this is no longer the case, with around 750 million living in hunger and 838 million in extreme poverty.

Nevertheless, the extreme poverty line remains far too low, and not a realistic assessment of what it is to be poor. In response to these criticisms the World Bank introduced and started using higher poverty lines, with the highest being $6.85 (now revised to $8.30- see para below) a day; at this rate the percentage of humanity living in poverty in 2022 given these revised estimates is now 48% and in 2025 projected to be 45.5%. This move by the World Bank was very welcome and gives a more realistic picture of poverty, both in overall numbers and in where it is located. With extreme poverty, the story was becoming more and more only about Africa, and this meant the global discussion of poverty and its impacts had begun to disappear from the rest of the world, which was not helpful. With this higher rate, the discussion is not just more realistic in terms of what it means to be poor, but also more realistic in showing that there continue to be large numbers of people living in poverty all over the world.

(As part of this revision the World Bank have also carried out one of their periodic revisions of the dollar equivalence for specific poverty lines in response to revisions in estimates of Purchasing Power Parity- what you are able to buy in your country for a set amount of dollars- so extreme poverty has gone from being $2.15 a day to $3 a day, and the higher poverty line from $6.85 to $8.30)

Prospects for further reductions in poverty very bleak indeed

What will happen over the next few years to poverty levels? This depends basically on two variables, economic growth and the level of inequality. Basically, if you grow your national economic pie, even if you do nothing to reduce inequality, poverty will still reduce; this is the classic trickle-down approach. Equally if you redistribute some of the economic pie and make your country more equal, then you will have a greater reduction in poverty.

The outlook for economic growth in the coming years is not rosy. Trade wars, actual wars, climate breakdown; all of these, even for the most upbeat forecaster, would suggest that banking on trickle down to end poverty is not a wise strategy. Add to this the total collapse in aid levels from the Global North to the Global South- with new numbers released by Oxfam this week as the G7 meeting Canada showing the biggest cut to G7 aid in the history of the G7, and the outlook is grim to say the least.

In their Poverty, Prosperity and Planet report, published before the swinging cuts to aid, The World Bank were already very pessimistic, and they are usually relentlessly upbeat. They estimated that with 2% growth shared equally within each country, it would take 60 years to bring extreme poverty down to the Sustainable Development Goal target of 3% globally, and that at the higher poverty rate of $8.30, it would take well over a century before poverty is eliminated.

Reducing inequality would triple the speed of poverty reduction

In the same report they also modelled what the impact would be if countries also managed to reduce inequality; in their model they look at a 2% reduction in inequality every year in addition to 2% growth. The team at the Bank have now kindly shared these updated figures to reflect the new poverty estimates. In this scenario, extreme poverty could be brought down close to the target in 20 years and not 60, or almost three times faster. At the higher poverty line, a reduction in inequality of 2% annually combined with 2% growth means there would be 646 million less people living in poverty in 2050 than if inequality remains unchanged- similar to the entire population of Latin America and Caribbean (658 million).

This also has the added and important benefit of being able to reduce poverty dramatically at much lower rates of growth than would otherwise be needed, which is good for the planet as more growth means more carbon.

A glimmer of hope to warm your hearts- a new Global Alliance Against Inequality is formed

It is hard to think of a better argument for nations focusing more on reducing inequality. Given this, it was very positive and exciting last week to see the launch by the German and Sierra Leonean governments of the new ‘Global Alliance against Inequality’ at the Hamburg Sustainability Conference. The joint statement, also signed by Norway and the Czechia, is powerful:

‘Extreme inequalities and power imbalances with a concentration of wealth and influence in the hands of a few at the expense of the majority hinder essential policy reforms. We will collectively seek to ensure that the reduction of inequality is strengthened as a global priority on the international agenda and that an overarching framework for action requiring sustained political will is further developed.’

We really hope this Alliance grows rapidly over the coming months, to pull together a strong group of countries from north and south that are serious about reducing inequality, with all its manifold benefits for both people and planet. To present a progressive economic coalition of the willing, standing in contrast to the Trumpian dystopia that can seem overwhelming. We will be doing all we can as Oxfam to support them in this.

ENDS.

For those with more interest in the World Bank revisions of the poverty numbers, The What’s new and associated blog; Paper (and replication package) and associated blog on the 2021 PPPs – this only came out earlier this week; A blog on why they are not simply moving goalposts; A blog on the link between national poverty lines and aggregates; Technical on adjusting for comparability breaks, and associated blog- a huge amount of work!

Author: Max Lawson, Head of Inequality Policy at Oxfam International and EQUALS podcast co-host. He is also the co-chair of the Global People’s Medicines Alliance.

Listen to our latest episode featuring Nick Shaxson on how monopoly power is shaping inequality.

Always remember to share and follow us on X and on LinkedIn.