Editor's note: Christopher Sabatini is the editor-in-chief of Americas Quarterly and senior director of policy at Americas Society/Council of the Americas. The views in this article are solely those of Christopher Sabatini.
By Christopher Sabatini - Special to CNN
Social inclusion. Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen has theorized about it. Peruvian President Ollanta Humala campaigned on it. Multilateral banks now regularly profess their commitment to it. And U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has stated that U.S. foreign policy should promote it.
But what is it? The concept of social inclusion revolves around the idea that a citizen has the right and ability to participate in the basic economic, political and social functioning of his or her society. It’s more than economic enrichment, centered on access to basic public and private goods such as health care, formal employment, education, adequate housing, political and civil rights, and economic opportunity without discrimination.
It involves more than just reducing poverty and economic inequality. And if the U.S. is going to promote it, then there must be meaningful — even measurable — differences between countries that would provide foreign policymakers with priorities or targets of opportunity.
Unfortunately, in an index of social inclusion in Latin America recently developed by the journal I publish, Americas Quarterly, the countries south of the U.S. border face a number of differences and challenges. They indicate that despite all the feel-good rhetoric about social inclusion, this is going to be difficult to tackle meaningfully as a U.S. foreign policy issue.
In the 11-country index, ranking countries’ performance across 15 indicators of social inclusion, Chile comes out on top.
On a scale of 0-100, Chile scores a 71.9, outperforming its neighbors in political and civil rights, secondary school enrollment, percent of the population living on more than $4 per day, access to adequate housing, and percent of the population with formal jobs - the latter three taking into account race/ethnicity and gender.
In other words, Chile has some of the most equal levels of access to education, economic opportunity and housing across race and gender. But truth be told, that isn’t saying much; Chile’s distribution of economic resources remain some of the most unequal among fellow members of the international club of developed nations, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Uruguay ranks a close second with a score of 71.2. Brazil places third, but a distant third at 51.4.
The actual facts of Brazil’s inequality belie the hoopla surrounding its alleged global economic arrival. To be sure, its impressive economic growth places it among the leaders in the Americas in terms of GDP growth, and it spends more on social programs as a percent of its GDP than any other country in the study (and more than the United States). But severe differences in access to education and formal jobs (those with access to some form of state or private pension) remain.
For example, girls are about 7% less likely to be enrolled in secondary school (equivalent to grades 9-12 in the U.S.) than boys. And the differences in secondary school by race – which, in Brazil, means both those of African descent and indigenous peoples - are close to 5%.
Poverty, too, remains highly skewed by race. While 72% of Brazilians of predominantly European descent live on more than $4 per day, only 68% of Afro or indigenous Brazilians do. Access to formal jobs is no better, with 76% percent of white Brazilians enjoying jobs with pensions and only 72% of Afro or indigenous Brazilians enjoying the same.
The starkest and most alarming discoveries, though, occur at the bottom of the index. In comparison to Chile and Uruguay, which scored over 70, Guatemala and Nicaragua scored an abysmal 7.5 and 10.3, respectively. For as difficult as the race divide is in Brazil, it’s abysmal in these two countries.
In Guatemala, secondary school enrollment rates lag by 23% for children of African and indigenous descent. Poverty is also similarly skewed by race: 63% of the European descendants live on more than $4 per day, compared with only 28% for Afro or indigenous descendants.
Unfortunately, the potential for policy changes appear limited in these two countries. Both land at the bottom of regional rankings in terms of political and civil rights, and they score poorly on percentage of GDP spent on social programs. Without the potential of citizens to participate in the policy and economic opportunities that affect their lives, the unjust distortions of these societies and economies are unlikely to be addressed.
Now, more than ever, it is becoming impossible to think about and discuss the region as a whole. Some countries remain poised — albeit with challenges — to enter the ranks of the developed world, and others appear on a far more uncertain, if not dangerous, trajectory. This makes the issue of social inclusion all the more difficult as yet another agenda item on a growing list of U.S. foreign policy priorities.
Many of the social inclusion factors are embedded in centuries of institutional distortion and patterns of discrimination and politics. The U.S. should use its diplomatic muscle and resources to raise these issues and help governments address the social, racial and legal barriers to social inclusion.
But let’s not fool ourselves: this isn’t going to be easy.
The views in this article are solely those of Christopher Sabatini.
Social inclusion? Are you referring to the political class diluting the middle class at the expense of that middle class? Like bailouts where the elite bail out the parasitic elite at the expense of the productive middle class? Who do they, or you, think you are kidding? I can understand why so many of the liberal privileged support an inferior public education system and their unions so they can remain privileged.
Romney vs. Frankenstein (Obama)
Put simply, better the devil you don't know. Vote Romney.
But we already know the "Borrow and Spend" GOP devil. Hahahahahahahaha
The picture looks like a trailer park filled with southern republicans. Hahahahahahaha
Guatemala is mountainous, heavily forested and dotted with Mayan ruins, lakes, volcanoes, orchids etc. Its indigenous population, the Maya, make up about half of the population. In 1996 it re-emerged from a 36-year-long civil war, during which some 200,000 people – most of them civilians – were killed or disappeared. Social inequality is a major feature. Poverty is particularly widespread in the countryside and among indigenous communities. Illiteracy, infant mortality and malnutrition are among the highest in the region. The question is, should Guatemala give up its pristine beauty for economic development? Can growth and better living standards be achieved without destroying nature?
Nicaragua has wildlife-rich rainforests, volcanos, beaches etc. and is the second poorest nation in the Americas, after Haiti. It's struggling to overcome the after effects of dictatorship, civil war and natural calamities, as well as building a new nation after the era of the Somoza family, which ruled the country with US backing between 1937 and the Sandinista revolution in 1979. The Sandinistas's social and just polices helped them win a decisive victory in 1984 elections, but their leftist orientation also attracted US hostility and drove them to turn to the USSR and Cuba. This set the scene for a US-sponsored counter-revolution, which led to the disiclosure of the Iran-Contra Scandal under Reagan.
After the defeat of the Sandinistas in 1990, peace returned. But Nicaragua – as an agricultural nation – has a long way to catch up with the others in therr region.
Nicaragua has made some significant strides in poverty reduction and economic growth (almost 5% last year) in recent years despite pressure from the US to toe the neo liberal line.
HOT VIDEOS :
Social inclusion is non existent. Social exclusion is epitomized by the cast system existent in hindu culture in India.
Was this written in 1980? Is this a joke? As if the US is in the position to look at the rest of the world and point out their flaws. We have all of the same problems in our own country.
The Global Public Square is where you can make sense of the world every day with insights and explanations from CNN's Fareed Zakaria, leading journalists at CNN, and other international thinkers. Join GPS editor Jason Miks and get informed about global issues, exposed to unique stories, and engaged with diverse and original perspectives.
Every week we bring you in-depth interviews with world leaders, newsmakers and analysts who break down the world's toughest problems.
CNN U.S.: Sundays 10 a.m. & 1 p.m ET | CNN International: Find local times
Buy the GPS mug | Books| Transcripts | Audio
Connect on Facebook | Twitter | GPS@cnn.com
Buy past episodes on iTunes! | Download the audio podcast
Check out all of Fareed's Washington Post columns here:
Obama as a foreign policy president?
Why Snowden should stand trial in U.S.
Hillary Clinton's truly hard choice
China's trapped transition
Obama should rethink Syria strategy
Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
RSS - Posts
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.
Join 4,862 other followers