Amnesty International Report 2017/18

Amnesty International Report 2017/18

15

SPOTLIGHT ON AUSTERITY

“I feel alone, like I’ve been left in the dark without anywhere 

to get help… I’m scared about what that will mean for my 

kids.”

– Sarah

When the UK government cut legal aid support in 2012, Sarah was left without the support 

she needed to fight a complex legal case regarding access to her children. She is one of 

countless millions affected worldwide by government austerity policies. Yet the sheer scale 

of austerity and the statistics surrounding it can blind us to the day-to-day toll it is having 

on the lives of individual people and families.

Since the financial crisis of 2008, austerity has become a familiar term and experience for 

millions of people. This phenomenon – in which a government seeks to reduce a deficit in 

public finances, typically to reduce public debt – usually involves cuts to government 

spending, sometimes coupled with tax rises which often hit the poorest hardest by raising 

prices of basic necessities such as food.

Austerity is a human rights issue. It affects people’s access to education, health, housing, 

social security and other economic and social rights. It also leads to abuses of civil and 

political rights, as governments respond to protests and other dissent in draconian ways or cut 

services that affect access to justice, such as legal aid. All too often, governments dismiss 

these rights and make decisions that put the greatest burden on those living in poverty while 

threatening the welfare of society as a whole. Austerity is a global issue. In 2017, widespread 

austerity measures were applied in countries from every region, particularly restricting people’s 

economic and social rights.

In Europe, people took to the streets to protest against the detrimental effects of austerity 

measures in Greece, Serbia, Spain and the UK. In the case of the latter, research in England 

linked roughly 120,000 deaths to cuts to health and social care.

Amnesty International is researching the impact of austerity policies on the protection and 

realization of socio-economic rights in selected countries. The next piece of research, to be 

published in the first half of 2018, focuses on the impact of austerity measures on the right to 

health in Spain. A nurse working in the Spanish public health system told Amnesty 

International: “We have all suffered because of the cuts: nurses, doctors, patients, families, 

everyone.”

In Sub-Saharan Africa, subsidies for the poor and social welfare have all been cut at a time 

when consumption taxes such as Value Added Tax (VAT) have been increased, often hitting 

hardest those living in poverty. Countries including Botswana, Burundi, Mauritius, 

Mozambique, Namibia and Togo continued to be “advised” by the International Monetary 

Fund (IMF) to keep on implementing austerity measures – despite the IMF’s own admission in 

2012 that such an approach is not always warranted and can undermine the economic growth 

needed to pay for services. In North Africa, Algeria’s response to the fall in oil prices saw its 

government implement deep spending cuts in its 2017 budget, combined with a rise in VAT 

from 2% to 19%. IMF lending policies also prompted the Egyptian government to raise the 

prices of essential goods and services.

---

16

Amnesty International Report 2017/18

In Brazil, the unprecedented decision to impose a 20-year fiscal spending cap at the end of 

2016 drew strong criticism from both inside and outside the country. In condemning the 

measure, the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights stated: “Logic 

dictates that it is virtually inevitable that the progressive realization of economic and social 

rights [will] become impossible.”

Economies in the Asia-Pacific and Middle East regions were similarly hamstrung by austerity 

measures. During 2017, Indonesia, Mongolia and Sri Lanka witnessed cuts to public 

spending. Even the budgets of resource-rich Qatar and Saudi Arabia shrank in moves to 

reduce state deficits, prioritizing economic efficiency over social protection.

In the absence of appropriate social safety nets, such measures risk violating governments’ 

human rights obligations as well as commitments under the global 2030 Agenda for 

Sustainable Development and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals.

Looking ahead, even in the short term some commentators are forecasting an “austerity 

apocalypse”. Regions such as Southeast Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa are predicted to be 

particularly badly affected. One report forecasts that during the next three years more than 

two-thirds of all countries will be impacted by austerity, affecting more than 6 billion people 

and wiping 7% off global Gross Domestic Product. The human cost is estimated to include 

millions being put out of work, including 2.4 million people in low-income countries, with few 

prospects of alternative employment.

How should governments respond and what do they have to do to fulfil their human rights 

obligations? These obligations do not prohibit austerity per se, but do require that other options 

also be considered by governments making economic and fiscal decisions. Above all, human 

rights underline the importance of governmental accountability when making such decisions. 

Rights holders should be asking key questions of their governments when confronted by 

austerity: What levels of scrutiny were employed? How participatory and transparent was the 

process? What potential impacts, particularly on the most socially and economically 

marginalized, were considered and what mitigation measures were put in place?

Human rights standards require that measures are put in place to ensure that nobody is 

allowed to fall below the minimum safety net needed to guarantee a dignified life. 

Unfortunately, this is routinely being ignored in even the largest economies as we see ever-

increasing numbers of homeless people and the growth of food banks; charities and 

communities are responding to welfare cuts by stepping in to prevent people going hungry.

There is no question that many national budgets are under strain. But are governments 

making the maximum use of all the potential resources at their disposal, as they are required 

to do under human rights law? The November 2017 release of the so-called “Paradise Papers” 

revealed the vast extent of tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance around the world, 

demonstrating the systematic failure of governments to close loopholes and monitor and 

address abuses. It has been estimated that Brazil alone is losing up to USD80 billion a year as 

a result of tax evasion (which calls into question the need for a 20-year spending cap), while 

African countries could collectively claw back at least the same amount annually. In addition to 

the well-known tax havens, a 2017 study showed that countries including Ireland, the 

Netherlands, Singapore, Switzerland and the UK are facilitating tax evasion by people in other 

countries. Globally it is estimated that the annual figure could be as high as USD10 trillion.

Extraordinary times require the consideration of radical alternatives. A number of ideas have 

been gaining traction during 2017. They include the introduction of a universal basic income – 

already being piloted in some countries – which would guarantee everyone enough money to 

live on, regardless of circumstances. Another proposal would involve the state paying for all 

key basic services rather than leaving it to the market. Of course such ideas have their critics: 

Where will the money come from? Will it simply encourage people to live off the state, even if 

they are in a position to work? Nevertheless, proponents point to the potential longer-term 

---