Part 4

Advancing Full Citizenship

Full citizenship means creating equality or supporting human rights for those who don't seem to have a full share of life as many of us know it—due to class, ethnicity, gender, religion, poverty, or physical and mental abilities. This section has much to do with giving people an entry into the economic mainstream—equalizing their chances to advance themselves, their families, and their societies. These chapters deal with struggles to obtain full equity by differently abled people, those who are socially excluded, and those who, by virtue of where they are born and in what society they grow up, may live in misery for most if not all of their lives. Sometimes referred to as the disadvantaged or downtrodden, these are the people who are so limited in their opportunities that they don't even have the freedom to explore a different way of living.

The social entrepreneurs profiled in this section are examples of the many Ashoka Fellows who work to advance full citizenship among all segments of the world's population. Their goals are to co-create a systemic change that nurtures and empowers a part of society previously excluded from being considered capable of changemaking, and who will in turn provide the strength and role modeling needed to ensure the creation of a new reality for those to come.

Reflections by Geeta Rao Gupta

Economic and social inequities are fault lines that threaten to undermine the very foundation of our political, economic, and cultural institutions. When any one member of society is excluded from civic life on the grounds of income, sex, race, caste, or gender, we all bear the consequences. Individuals who are denied the freedom of civic participation cannot contribute to the productivity, innovation, and intellect needed to sustain our households and animate our societies.

Income inequality, experienced most acutely by those who live in poverty, is a barrier to civic participation. Yet advancing citizenship requires more than wealth creation alone. Poverty is multidimensional. The poor are constrained not only by limited economic resources but by the social distance that separates them from the better-off segments of society who control and exercise power. Although important, wealth alone does not guarantee one's acceptance into political, economic, or civic life. Admission into these institutions is mediated by the politics of identity. Whether a society chooses to exclude or include individuals on the grounds of income, sex, race, or religious affiliation directly impacts the household incomes, educational attainment, and health outcomes of the groups affected.

My own work focuses on the inequities experienced by women and children. Economic and social inequities deny women the right to realize their self-potential, to stimulate growth, and to reap the emotional and financial benefits of individual productivity. The consequences reverberate throughout society and across generations. When women are not productive, their children suffer. And when society utilizes only half of its capacity, the fruits of its labor are fewer and less rich. Simply put, economic and social exclusion is a grave injustice with enormous economic costs to women, children, and society as a whole.

Too often, we hear discrimination rationalized as a function of personal attitudes and behavior, largely confined to the private realm and beyond the reach of public authorities. Our efforts to combat violence against women and children have exposed the flaw in this line of argument. Domestic violence is a clear violation of international human rights standards and imposes stiff costs on society. Addressing domestic violence requires policy interventions—concerted action to protect and support victims of violence and punish perpetrators. Policy actions can also play a powerful role in rectifying other injustices suffered by women and other disadvantaged members of society.

There is a strong economic rationale for addressing inequities. In 2010, UNICEF responded to evidence of widening disparities between rich and poor children by questioning the conventional wisdom that it is too costly to address the hardest-to-reach children and communities. A modelling exercise involving some 180,000 data points from fifteen countries showed that a deliberate focus on the poorest and most marginalized is not just right in principle—it is right in practice.

Each $1 million invested in equity-based approaches would avert up to 60 percent more child deaths than existing approaches to child health and survival. Sharpening our programmatic focus on equity is the quickest and most cost-effective strategy for accelerating progress toward the Millennium Development Goals, especially in low-income, high-mortality countries.

By promoting inclusive public policies and extending health, education, and protection programs to those who need them most, it is possible to bridge inequities and stimulate social inclusion. Doing so is the surest way to create the conditions that will empower the most disadvantaged members of society to exercise full citizenship.

Geeta Rao Gupta is former president of the International Center for Research on Women. She is presently a senior fellow at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the deputy director of UNICEF.