Which way for international development post-2015? Young Lives, Save the Children UK and UNICEF UK hosted a roundtable on Wednesday 18 July to discuss the policy implications.

The meeting brought together experts from civil society organisations, donor governments and academics to consider the implications of the evidence on inequality and children’s development for whether and how inequality is addressed in any post-2015 framework. The discussion focused on inequality and on metrics, with policy attention around food security (with the particular implications of price volatility and for nutrition of the young); employment, with a particular focus on young people; access to public services; and the need to protect fiscal space for social spending (especially in a context of cutbacks in many countries).

Jo Boyden, Professor of Development Studies, University of Oxford and Director, Young Lives began Session 1 on Inequality research findings with Child Development and Economic Development: Lessons and Future Challenges. This was followed by a presentation on Growing Up with the Promise of the MDGs: Children’s hopes for the future of development by Kirrily Pells, Policy Officer, Young Lives and Renu Singh, Country Director Young Lives India.

The second session, Proposals for policy and post-2015 responses, featured Martin Evans and Matthew Cummins, Economic and Social Policy Specialists, UNICEF, on Vertical Inequality. This was followed by a presentation on Horizontal Inequalities by Naila Kabeer, Professor of Development Studies, SOAS, University of London.

A follow-up meeting will be held in October 2012 to draw out specific recommendations to be input to the thematic consultation on inequality that is part of the UN’s post-2015 process. This is one of nine thematic consultations which aim to bring together a broad range of stakeholders to review progress on the MDGs and to discuss the options for a new framework. The consultation on inequalities aims to stimulate wide-ranging global discussion on the various forms of inequalities and present main findings to key decision-makers and leaders.

The debate is continuing online. Read the blog by Alex Cobham, Head of Research, Save the Children UK here. Paul Dornan, Senior Policy Officer, Young Lives, argues that when it comes to responding to inequity, we need to not make the perfect the enemy of the good while IDS Research Fellow Keetie Roolen asks how far can social protection policies stretch when it comes to addressing inequalities for children and Ricardo Fuentes, Oxfam's new Head of Research reflects on the roundtable by asking What kind of inequality matters most? The case for unfairness

Highlighted below are a number of core priority issues raised in the July discussion on the relation between inequality and children’s development.

Economic growth and children’s development

• There is plenty of evidence that recent economic change and policy investments associated with the MDGs have had positive effects in improved opportunities for children on ‘average’ (though clear concerns that high inequalities have left the poorest behind). Investments in access to education are also shifting perspectives of both parents and children and raising aspirations and expectations for the future.

• Despite improving material conditions, economic growth has not tackled inequalities between groups within societies, and in places these have grown and been entrenched. This is a serious problem in developing equitable and effective policies for children. There is a fairly consistent story of the poorest households gaining least from social and economic change, and so there has been a concentration of deprivation among the poorest people.

• Investment early in the life course, reaching the poorest children, is a key and efficient strategy to help mitigate inequalities. Early life conditions matter for later children’s development (human capital development in the language of James Heckman and others), with effects stretching from healthy physical development to cognitive and non-cognitive functioning. Since early life conditions vary between groups of children, and since the adverse circumstances faced by some children accumulate over the life course, these also shape later trajectories and reinforce the accumulation of inequalities.

• The human capital argument is powerful and instrumental to policy but it is not the only, or most important, reason for investing in children. While investment in some children (such as those who die or are severely disabled) will not necessarily pay off in economic terms, societies retain a responsibility to all children. The case for reducing inequality is about human development and flourishing, not only supporting economic growth.

• Evidence on the important relationship between economic policies and human development is not new, but it is increasingly pressing. UNICEF’s ‘Structural Adjustment with a Human Face’ made the case in 1987. Increasing recognition that growth has not tackled inequalities or provided the desired human development improvement provides an opportunity for greater national buy-in over greater concern for inequality in international frameworks (for instance, India’s Prime Minister has described ongoing malnutrition in the face of fast economic growth as ‘India’s national shame’).

The nature and causes of inequality

• To inform policy development, greater clarity is needed in debates on inequality as to what sort of inequality is being described (e.g. between countries/groups/ individuals; individuals and groups within countries; dimensions of inequality from income and consumption to health outcomes and education access; and so on). If inequality is to be better reflected in development frameworks, consensus is needed as to how. One suggestion was have a specific focus on the poorest 20%. Though superficially appealing in simplicity, it was noted that 20% was an arbitrary cut-off and there is often little difference between the poorest 20% and the next 20% within many countries.

• The international discourse around inequalities often focuses on gender, but it is important to consider other critical disparities e.g. location, ethnicity, and socio-economic. Though gender is important in understanding the experiences of inequality, it is not necessarily the largest or most predictive domain of inequality in every context, and we also need to think about other lines including location, ethnicity/language groups, socio-economic and disability. These inequalities may be clearer predictors of how children’s outcomes vary, and also intersect with gender.

• As well as the consequences of inequality, effective development policy needs a better understanding of how inequality increases. This includes better recognition of both the initial conditions which determine how inclusive growth is and how inequalities are perpetuated through gender-based, cultural or economic mechanisms.

Why inequality matters

• As with poverty, inequality has dangerous impacts: including the impacts of stigma, social exclusion and isolation on people’s prospects for a good life; from education enrolment/ completion to healthy life expectancy. High inequality has been associated with considerable negative effects on important aspects of human development (highlighted recently in Wilkinson and Pickett’s ‘The Spirit Level’ and also UNICEF’s ‘Global Inequality: Beyond the Bottom Billion’).  At an instrumental level, long-term inequality of opportunity wastes the talent within societies and thereby undermines future economic development.

• As well as direct human development impacts, inequality affects how power is distributed within societies and so how much ‘voice’ marginalised groups have in decision-making processes.

Inequality, data and metrics

• There are challenges and gaps in the data available to understand inequalities in lower and middle income countries. National averages mask inequalities; it is not always possible to identify children (or other groups) within household-level data to understand the (different) impacts of inequalities on these groups; and there are gaps in understanding what happens within households (with particular importance for differences between men and women).

• Despite data gaps, there is more, and better, data available now than ever before and it is important to utilise these data sources. We should use the data that exists better (including disaggregation), even if it is imperfect.  At the same time, we must be wary of allowing current data availability to limit the choice of indicators for post-2015.

Implications for development policy and post-2015 framework

• The way development is ‘done’ needs to learn from children’s experiences. This is challenging within a metric-driven framework but there may be new ways, including local monitoring methods which empower children, families and communities to do their own monitoring, as well as national or international goals.

• The Millennium Development Goals have monitored national averages and global aggregates. Despite the progress, averages mask the extent of inequality within countries and they have not strongly incentivised policies to reduce these inequalities – even exacerbating them in some cases. A post-2015 framework needs to direct much more attention to inequalities.

• Movement towards Sustainable Development Goals helpfully recognises the importance of the environment but could downplay human development in the face of economic growth and environmental concerns. Human development is central to both the drivers and consequences of growth and to the consequences of climate change and must be central to any post-2015 framework.

References

Jo Boyden and Stefan Dercon (2011) Child Development and Economic Development: Lessons and Future Challenges. Oxford: Young Lives

Presentations

Session I: Inequality research findings

Introduction
Chair: Martin Woodhead, Professor of Childhood Studies, Open University and Associate Research Director Young Lives  

Child Development and Economic Development: Lessons and Future Challenges
Jo Boyden, Professor of Development Studies, University of Oxford and Director, Young Lives  

Discussant: Alex Cobham, Head of Research, Save the Children UK

Growing-Up with the Promise of the MDGs: Children’s hopes for the future of development
Kirrily Pells, Policy Officer, Young Lives and Renu Singh, Country Director, Young Lives India

Discussant: Richard Morgan, Director of Policy and Practice, UNICEF

Session II: Proposals for policy and post-2015 responses

Introduction
Chair: Angela Little, Professor Emerita, Institute of Education, University of London  

Vertical Inequality
Martin Evans and Matthew Cummins, Economic and Social Policy Specialists, UNICEF

Horizontal Inequalities
Naila Kabeer, Professor of Development Studies, SOAS, University of London (no powerpoint)