Un exemple de réponse

SUJET D'ENTRAÎNEMENT POUR L'EPREUVE SPECIFIQUE DE LA SECTION EUROPENNE

DNL SCIENCES ECONOMIQUES ET SOCIALES

Session 2021

DOCUMENT 1

COVID-19 has dramatically widened the gaps between men and women in terms of wealth, income, access to services, the burden of unpaid care, status and power. Pre-pandemic, 132 million girls were out of school – and 20 million more secondary school-aged girls could be out of school post-pandemic. Many will not go back, putting them at greater risk of violence, HIV, teenage pregnancy, child marriage, poor health and poverty. Because of COVID-19, 2.5 million more girls are at risk of child marriage in the next five years, and rates of violence against women and girls have increased precipitously. During the pandemic, women have borne the brunt of job losses and comprise the majority of frontline health workers, many of whom are under-protected and under-paid. Gender inequality is not only wrong, it is dangerous and weakens us all. It drives the spread of COVID-19 while threatening progress against AIDS and other pandemics. It depresses economic potential too: economies and nations only flourish when women can. Recovery strategies to pandemics cannot be gender blind or gender neutral; they must overturn the inequalities that hold women back. Prior to COVID-19, many economies and societies were weakened by insufficient investments in health, education and social protection. The COVID-19 crisis revealed the pre-existing lack of resilience in many parts of our economies and societies. Finding the financing to fight inequality in the recovery from COVID-19 is essential.

Source : Winnie Byanyima, « Overcoming COVID-19 will require tackling inequality », World Economic Forum, Apr 07, 2021

DOCUMENT 2

Explain why inequalities must be challenged

Un exemple de réponse : 

Introduction.

As we kwow, equality is not only a fundamental value fot the French Republic but also for any democratic regime. Equality is at the fundation of democracy, that is the power of the people, by the people, for the people (according to the former American president, A. Lincoln, and it's not surprising if he contributed to abolish slavery in America).

Is there any ruler who'd claim an increase in inequalities ? At least, it would be a joint effect of particular policy but not the main goal of such a policy. But what about the economic system ? Isn't it based on inequalities of wages, fortunes, merits, and so on ? Worse, inequalities are justified because they promote efforts, innovations and so economic growth for the benefit of the poorer themselves ! Nevertheless, despite inherent limits, inequalities must be challenged. As we have to see, inequalities have several dimensions, economic, of course but also social and political one's. Keep in mind that inequalities are differences giving social advantages or disadvantages. For instance and for the defensors of the movement Black lives matter, the skin color play a role on the future of people, positive if you're White but negative if you're Black.

Let's see in a first part the issue of economic inequalities and in a second part the issue of socio-political inequalities.

First part. Challenging economic inequalities.

- But as noticed by Joseph Stiglitz, one of the famous contemporary Americain economist and Nobel Laureate, inequalities have a price, the social disintegration. Actually inequalities contain a cost, for any reason : economic, political, social … Huge inequalities may create frustration, envy and will be destructive of the social order. Think about the sub-title : “How today's divided society endangers our future”. And such a situation will influence economic performances. That's why inequalities must be challenged.

- Undoubtely we have to find a intermediate situation and excessive inequalities must be redressed. Are we really equal citizens in a capitalist world of extreme inequalities ? Won't the State itself controlled by fat cats which will lead to the end of democracy ?

- DOC 2 : As we can see, redistribution can be ineffective. Despite redistribution, rich get richer and poor get poorer => the income after redistribution of the richest 0,01 % increased by almost 650% in America between 1970 and 2018 while it increased only by almost 120% for the poorest half.

- We know that for the developing countries, public services are more efficient to reduce inequalities than redistribution (inequalities after taxes and benefits). If we take the example of Bolivia though redistribution the Gini index is only reduced by 2 thousandth but thanks to public services, it decreases by seventy-for hundredth. How can we explain this result ? Is it paradoxal ? Isn't taxation progressive ? Actually public services give people and especially poor people invisible income, as says C. Largarde, a « virtual income ». Imagine if poor people have to pay for school, their children couldn't be educated. Thanks to taxes, government can finance free and compulsory education, for children, whatever their social origin. And because taxes are progressive, rich contribute more than poor to education funding. That's the same reasoning for hospitals and acces to healthcare, for police ans justice services. A State has to protect first poor people from arbitrary of rich ! Ans as we know, arbitrary is a form or unfairness.

Second part. Challenging socio-political inequalities.

- Inequalities between men and women : DOC1, in terms of income, access to political power, …

- There is a dramatic correlation between income inequality and social mobility. The higher the former, the lower the later. Children's income depends on their parent's income. Consequently, opportunity to experience success isn't identical for all. It's beter to have well-paid parents. Not only they can pay high fees for weel-known universities like Harvard but they can also help them for homework and they can count on a social capital (« Investment in social relations with expected returns in the marketplace »).

- Inequalities in terms of social status. As we know family is at the heart of the reproduction of inequalities because of the transmission of a cultural capital (capacity to understand words and sentences, the relation to others, to arts, …). Inequalities are cumulative.

- Race discrimination => Systemic racism ? + All victims of discrimination like disabled people => Affirmative action => Justice as fairness (cf. corrections), with expression like : « Immigrants and LGBTQ+ people are targeted simply because of who they are ». Debatable I think …

To conclude : If inequalities must be reduced, equality of income is not a viable option. Think about the famous marxian quotation : "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" extracted from the Manifesto written in 1848 by K. Marx and F. Engels to explain the evolution of society from a materialistic point of view based on class struggle and the coming of the communism. The risk of such a justice criteria is to incitate to do nothing and to let the other working for us except if everybody has a moral or a fraternity sense. Actually Marx is not stupid. He considers that such a society will be possible only if productivity reaches a highest level. Thanks to this condition, it will be easier to redistribute wealth and why not to impose the same income for everybody.