A/HRC/29/31 The implications of this phenomenon for a country with relatively low levels of intergenerational mobility, such as the United States, was explained in intuitive terms in 2012 by a leading economist: “The chance of a person who was born to a family in the bottom 10 percent of the income distribution rising to the top 10 percent as an adult is about the same as the chance that a dad who is 5’6” tall having a son who grows up to be over 6’1” tall. It happens, but not often.”18 16. The differences in intergenerational economic mobility between countries are not random. Studies have shown a clear negative relationship between economic inequalities in a country and intergenerational earnings mobility. 19 Alan Krueger has called this the “Great Gatsby curve”. Joseph Stiglitz has written that the ideal of equal opportunity is increasingly a myth in many countries and that the decline in opportunity has gone hand in hand with growing inequality.20 C. Inequality and political power 17. In all modern democracies, laws, regulations and institutions influence, and are influenced by, the distribution of economic and other forms of power. Economic inequalities are not only the result of market forces, but equally of political forces that affect laws, regulations and institutions. 21 A full understanding of economic inequalities therefore requires an examination of the exercise of political power. 18. Democracy and civil and political rights are closely linked to the equal division of economic and other factors that are crucial for well-being. Amartya Sen famously argued that democracy and the upholding of related civil and political rights, such as freedom of the press and the right to vote, are connected to the non-occurrence of famines. He suggested that “India’s success in eradicating famine is not matched by a similar success in … relieving inequalities in gender relations”. According to Mr. Sen, deprivations such as gender inequality “call for deeper analysis, and for a greater and more effective use of mass communication and political participation – in sum, for a fuller practice of democracy”.22 The existence of a democracy and the right to participate in the political process do not guarantee equal opportunity and more equal outcomes. As other authors have argued, the correlative human rights obligations necessary to “constitute democracy and ensure that it functions properly” include more than just the right to vote: the State “may need to take positive steps to protect individuals against other individuals’ interference with the right.” 23 19. A major problem in both developing and developed countries is the capture of the political process by powerful groups, and the exclusion of others, leading to laws, regulations and institutions that favour the powerful. Economic inequality is often accompanied by political inequality, meaning that not all citizens are able to equally exercise their democratic rights.24 According to Oxfam, many people around the world 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 See Alan B. Krueger, “The rise and consequences of inequality in the United States”, remarks as prepared for delivery, presented on 12 January 2012, p. 3. See Cingano, “Trends” (footnote 6 above), para. 15. See Joseph E. Stiglitz, The Price of Inequality: How Today’s Divided Society Endangers Our Future (New York, W.W. Norton and Company, 2012), p. 18. See Task Force on Inequality and American Democracy of the American Political Science Association, “American democracy in an age of rising inequality” (2004), p. 4. Amartya Sen, “Freedoms and needs”, The New Republic, 10/17 January 1994. See, for example, Sandra Fredman, Human Rights Transformed: Positive Rights and Positive Duties, (Oxford University Press, 2008), p. 38–-39. “Only some Americans fully exercise their rights as citizens, and they usually come from the more advantaged segments of society. Those who enjoy higher incomes, more occupational success, and 7