A/HRC/35/26 basic redistribution of wealth in an era characterized by exponential growth in the wealth of technology entrepreneurs; (d) The right to work, either in the sense of promoting full employment for the community or of the individual being able to choose satisfying work; (e) Freedom, in the sense of the ability to make career and related choices, or the ability to exercise political rights because of a degree of economic security; (f) Fairness and social justice. 67. All of these motivations are persuasive on their own terms, but unless they are integrally linked to the last category the likelihood is that what will emerge will be another strategy designed to promote productivity and efficiency, but without concern for the far more fundamental goals. 68. How then should human rights actors and institutions respond to the crisis of economic insecurity and the phenomena associated with it? And where might a campaign to achieve a basic income fit into the overall equation? 69. The starting point is to acknowledge that economic insecurity represents a fundamental threat to human rights. It is not only a threat to the enjoyment of economic and social rights, even though they are a principal concern. Extreme inequality, rapidly increasing insecurity, and the domination of politics by economic elites in many countries, all threaten to undermine support for, and ultimately the viability of, the democratic systems of governance upon which the human rights framework depends.102 70. Second, the right to work, the right to social security, and above all the right to an adequate standard of living need to be given a prominent place on the human rights community’s agenda. If these rights are marginalized, the overall agenda will become increasingly less relevant to the most pressing and urgent questions of the day. 71. Third, contrary to the orthodoxy promoted by economic institutions and corporate actors in recent years, there needs to be a resurgence of support for the central role of the State, and recognition of the importance of fair and progressive fiscal policies, and of the indispensability of policies to ensure redistributive justice. 72. Fourth, the implications for gender equality from growing economic insecurity are almost unremittingly negative. It remains true that “the average woman’s career remains shorter, more disrupted and less remunerative than the average man’s”,103 and the consequences flow through into social security and related arrangements. Proponents of women’s human rights need to become more involved in debates over social protection and basic income. 73. Fifth, proponents of a basic income need to ensure that particular schemes to implement the concept are not narrowly linked to citizenship at the expense of all others who are part of the community. 74. Sixth, and most important, the debates over social protection floors and basic income need to be brought together. They have thus far been kept largely separate, in a counterproductive and ultimately self-defeating way. It is true that there are points of divergence between the two concepts, but they have vastly more potential if their synergies are recognized, rather than being ignored. Among the differences are the following: (a) the social protection floor mostly draws on experience in developing countries,104 while basic income advocates tend to emphasize developed countries; (b) social protection floors aim to guarantee both income security and access to essential 102 103 104 Ganesh Sitaraman, The Crisis of the Middle-Class Constitution: Why Economic Inequality Threatens Our Republic (Knopf, 2017). Anne L. Alstott, “Good for women: a response to ‘A basic income for all’ by Philippe van Parijs”, Boston Review (2000). Available from http://bostonreview.net/archives/BR25.5/alstott.html. International Labour Office, Social Protection Floor for a Fair and Inclusive Globalization: Report of the Social Protection Floor Advisory Group (2011), p. xxii. 19