Juan Pablo Bohoslavsky

When the life and health of populations are at stake, business as usual must not go on; there is a need to ensure that normal operations do not erode health policies to control the spread of the disease and the associated risk of a collapse of public health systems. Whether lives are protected or greater economic wealth is produced in a given year is a choice that has to incorporate a human rights perspective. The economy as such cannot operate as a trump, especially since it did allow for the majority of people to have their economic and social rights realized.

Some governments seem to promote an approach consisting of “saving the economy” at any costs, including by putting the health and lives of the majority of their populations at stake. By the same token, this economy centric approach is often accompanied by a similar lack of enthusiasm to reduce inequalities, ensure the realization of economic and social rights of all or to reduce deaths or health problems from pollution and climate change.  Therefore, “saving the economy” also means prioritising the interests of a certain elite. 

In this sense, it is necessary to distinguish big corporations’ claims to maintain their profits, from the needs of impoverished workers who try to earn their daily livelihood. While it is important to minimize social and economic impact of the economic recession, by supporting  employment through ensuring the survival of the business sector as a whole, alternatives do exist. Such alternatives could include, targeted, temporary and compulsory payment holidays from taxes, rent, and mortgages, other debts owed or other types of relief.  The existence of a large portion of the working force employed in multiple informal conditions or short-term contracts increases the difficulty to protect jobs through only bailing out small and informal businesses. With a high number of people deprived of their livelihood, it is of utmost importance that such initiative focus on people, from a human rights perspective.

The “economy first” approach cannot mean leaving people on their own to cope with the pandemic. Besides, thousands of people dying does not sound like a great contribution to the economy from a purely consequentialist viewpoint. In turn, implementing robust public health policies that saves lives and prevent health systems from collapsing should be complemented by policies to make possible that the economic system produces and delivers goods and services to fulfil basic human rights while minimizing the long term negative economic effects of the pandemic. A failure to put human rights at the centre of the governmental action plans in response to Covid-19 does not save the economy, it only leads to the worst of both worlds.

From a human rights perspective, potential impacts of the upcoming recession include challenges in the way of the full enjoyment of a wide range of human rights including food, housing, health, education, water and sanitation, social protection non-discrimination and just and favourable conditions of work. As clearly established under human rights law, individuals should not choose between achieving one of their basic human rights over another. For instance, this could take the form of people reducing food intakes to be able to afford housing or medical care.

We cannot afford getting back to business as usual. We know the Covid-19 pandemic is a shock calling for rethinking the economic, financial and social system we are living in to reduce inequalities among and within countries, as well as between men and women. 

Both the Covid-19 crisis, and the already unfolding effects of climate change, demonstrate the fragility of our current economic and social arrangements. Our systems cannot cope under the strain of these events, from climate to pandemics, and experts predict that these events will become more frequent and severe. And when these events unfold, our economic and social systems appear to protect the adequate living conditions mainly of elites, while the majority of people are pushed into more precarious living conditions, from increased poverty, poorer health, precarious livelihoods, and actual destitution; all of which makes people much more vulnerable to mortality when disaster strikes.  These are violations of a wide range of human rights, including the rights to life, health and to an adequate standard of living, and the continuous improvement of living conditions for all. 

Yet the concerted action taken in the face of the Covid-19 crisis demonstrates that coordinated action and a rapid change in policy and practice is possible to face global challenges. Sudden drops in production and consumption associated with the current pandemic crisis, which have been accompanied by pollution and greenhouse gas emissions falling across continents, call into question our reliance on economic growth as a measure of progress and the health of our societies.  At the same time, it highlights the important role of governments in protecting the livelihoods, and rights to an adequate standard of living – including rights to adequate housing, social protection, and health care – of people.  Economies remain important, especially in providing the material underpinnings for a good life for all, through essential services, decent work, and adequate material goods.  But they should serve the public good, and be guided by human rights principles, rather than relying on speculation, high private debt, unregulated consumption and degradation of natural resources in ways that increase our vulnerabilities and which our planet cannot sustain. For the same reasons, States should not provide subsidies (bail-outs) and other emergency benefits to sectors whose existence is in direct contradiction the Paris Agreement, including its 1.5-degree limit target, and have no chance of transition.

States have to save lives and economies so there are jobs for people at the end and basic goods and services can be delivered during the crisis– but this must be done wisely and responsibly with public health and other human rights impacts as the primary consideration.  In a letter I submitted today to all governments and international financial institutions, I proposed a number of specific measures covering a wide range of economic, financial, monetary, fiscal, tax, trade, and social policies that were presented to contribute achieving these goals.

Juan Pablo Bohoslavsky, United Nations Independent Expert on debt and human rights. He has published books and articles on sovereign financing, foreign investment, transitional justice, and human rights. Twitter: @IEfinanceHRs