Libertad Religiosa e Igualdad

The New York Times

September 16, 2011
Dutch to Ban Full-Face Veils
By REUTERS
AMSTERDAM (Reuters) — The Dutch government said Friday that it would ban face-covering veils worn by some Muslim women because the garments flout the Dutch way of life and culture.

Prime Minister Mark Rutte also announced tougher rules for immigrants and asylum-seekers who want to pursue Dutch nationality; in the future, he said, they will have to show that they have income and that they have not received financial assistance or benefits for at least three years.

The country’s reputation as relatively tolerant and open to immigration has changed over the last decade, reflecting voters’ concerns over a large influx of Muslim immigrants.

“The government believes the wearing of clothing that completely or almost entirely covers the face is fundamentally at odds with public life, where people are recognized by their faces,” the government said in a statement.

The new measures reflect the influence wielded by Geert Wilders, a populist politician whose anti-Islam, anti-immigration Freedom Party is the third-largest in the Dutch Parliament.

The government contended that the ban on face-covering veils did not represent a restriction on religious freedom, but that even if it was, it was “necessary and justified in the interest of protecting the character and way of life in the Netherlands.”

Niqabs, which leave the eyes uncovered, and burqas, which cover the face with a cloth grid, are far less commonly seen on the streets of the Netherlands than hijabs, or head scarves, which leave the face exposed.

Pena de Muerte y Discriminación Racial Hoy en en New York Times

The New York Times

16 de Septiembre de 2011

Editorial

Estado de Ejecución

Después de declarar el “estado de ejecución de Duane Buck a sólo horas de ser ejecutado en Texas el Jueves, la Corte Suprema debe ahora revisar el caso o, por lo menos, ordenar que un tribunal federal inferior considere el pedido del Sr. Buck de una nueva audiencia antes de decidir su sentencia. El Tribunal no puede permitir que tenga lugar una terrible injusticia.

El Sr. Buck, un Afro-Americano, fue condenado a muerte en 1997. En la etapa de sentencia de su juicio, un psicólogo que participaba como perito experto dijo que “sí” cuando se le pregunto si “el factor raza, negra”, icrementaba las chances de que el Sr. Buck pudiera llevar a cabo de nuevo una conducta peligrosa.

En Texas, esta es una pregunta clave: si si el estado no prueba “la peligrosidad futura” más alla de la duda razonable, no puede sentenciar al imputado a muerte. La fiscalía obtuvo la respuesta que quería y urgió al jurado a basar la decisión en ese testimonio. El jurado sentenció al Sr. Buck a muerte.

En el año 2000, el Senador John Cornyn, que era entonces el Jefe de los Abogados del estado de Texas, solicitó nuevas audiencias de sentencia en seis casos en los que se había condenado a muerte –incluuido el Sr. Buck- porque la raza de los imputados se había utilizado inapropiadamente como un factor relevante para obtener esa sentencia.

El Sr. Buck es el único de ese grupo al que no se le concedió una nueva audiencia. El Abogado de Distrito a cargo del caso del Sr. Buck reusó admitir que el uso de la raza fue un error constitucional que requería una nueva audiciencia. Cuando el caso llegó al juzgado federal, había un nuevo Jefe de Abogados del Estado de Texas, y éste se reusó a obedecer el juicio del Sr. Cornyn.

El claro racismo que tuvo lugar en el caso del Sr. Buck es una nueva prueba de que la pena de muerte es cruel e inusual porque es arbitraria y discriminatoria, además de bárbara, y debe ser abolida.

La traducción es mía. La versión original en inglés está abajo.


The New York Times

September 16, 2011
Stay of Execution
After granting a stay of execution to Duane Buck just hours before he was to be put to death in Texas on Thursday, the Supreme Court must now review the case or, at the very least, order a lower federal court to consider Mr. Buck’s plea for a new sentencing hearing. It cannot allow a terrible injustice to stand.

Mr. Buck, an African-American, was convicted of murder in 1997. At the sentencing phase of his trial, a psychologist who was an expert witness said “yes” when asked if “the race factor, black,” increased the chances that Mr. Buck would do something dangerous again.

In Texas, this is a pivotal question: if the state does not prove “future dangerousness” beyond a reasonable doubt, it cannot sentence a convict to death. The prosecution got the answer it wanted and urged the jury to rely on this testimony. The jury sentenced Mr. Buck to death.

In 2000, Senator John Cornyn, who was then the Texas attorney general, called for new sentencing hearings for six men given the death penalty — including Mr. Buck — because race was improperly used as a factor in their sentencing.

Mr. Buck is the only one who has not been granted a new sentencing hearing. The state district attorney in charge in Mr. Buck’s case refused to admit that the use of race was a constitutional error that required a new hearing. By the time the case got to federal court, there was a new Texas attorney general who refused to abide by Mr. Cornyn’s judgment.

The gross racism in Mr. Buck’s case is proof again that the death penalty is cruel and unusual because it is arbitrary and discriminatory, as well as barbaric, and must be abolished.

The New York Times

August 27, 2011
Ugly? You May Have a Case

By DANIEL S. HAMERMESH



Daniel S. Hamermesh, a professor of economics at the University of Texas, Austin, is the author of "Beauty Pays," published this month.

BEING good-looking is useful in so many ways.

In addition to whatever personal pleasure it gives you, being attractive also helps you earn more money, find a higher-earning spouse (and one who looks better, too!) and get better deals on mortgages. Each of these facts has been demonstrated over the past 20 years by many economists and other researchers. The effects are not small: one study showed that an American worker who was among the bottom one-seventh in looks, as assessed by randomly chosen observers, earned 10 to 15 percent less per year than a similar worker whose looks were assessed in the top one-third — a lifetime difference, in a typical case, of about $230,000.

Beauty is as much an issue for men as for women. While extensive research shows that women’s looks have bigger impacts in the market for mates, another large group of studies demonstrates that men’s looks have bigger impacts on the job.

Why this disparate treatment of looks in so many areas of life? It’s a matter of simple prejudice. Most of us, regardless of our professed attitudes, prefer as customers to buy from better-looking salespeople, as jurors to listen to better-looking attorneys, as voters to be led by better-looking politicians, as students to learn from better-looking professors. This is not a matter of evil employers’ refusing to hire the ugly: in our roles as workers, customers and potential lovers we are all responsible for these effects.

How could we remedy this injustice? With all the gains to being good-looking, you would think that more people would get plastic surgery or makeovers to improve their looks. Many of us do all those things, but as studies have shown, such refinements make only small differences in our beauty. All that spending may make us feel better, but it doesn’t help us much in getting a better job or a more desirable mate.

A more radical solution may be needed: why not offer legal protections to the ugly, as we do with racial, ethnic and religious minorities, women and handicapped individuals?

We actually already do offer such protections in a few places, including in some jurisdictions in California, and in the District of Columbia, where discriminatory treatment based on looks in hiring, promotions, housing and other areas is prohibited. Ugliness could be protected generally in the United States by small extensions of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Ugly people could be allowed to seek help from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other agencies in overcoming the effects of discrimination. We could even have affirmative-action programs for the ugly.

The mechanics of legislating this kind of protection are not as difficult as you might think. You might argue that people can’t be classified by their looks — that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That aphorism is correct in one sense: if asked who is the most beautiful person in a group of beautiful people, you and I might well have different answers. But when it comes to differentiating classes of attractiveness, we all view beauty similarly: someone whom you consider good-looking will be viewed similarly by most others; someone you consider ugly will be viewed as ugly by most others. In one study, more than half of a group of people were assessed identically by each of two observers using a five-point scale; and very few assessments differed by more than one point.

For purposes of administering a law, we surely could agree on who is truly ugly, perhaps the worst-looking 1 or 2 percent of the population. The difficulties in classification are little greater than those faced in deciding who qualifies for protection on grounds of disabilities that limit the activities of daily life, as shown by conflicting decisions in numerous legal cases involving obesity.

There are other possible objections. “Ugliness” is not a personal trait that many people choose to embrace; those whom we classify as protected might not be willing to admit that they are ugly. But with the chance of obtaining extra pay and promotions amounting to $230,000 in lost lifetime earnings, there’s a large enough incentive to do so. Bringing anti-discrimination lawsuits is also costly, and few potential plaintiffs could afford to do so. But many attorneys would be willing to organize classes of plaintiffs to overcome these costs, just as they now do in racial-discrimination and other lawsuits.

Economic arguments for protecting the ugly are as strong as those for protecting some groups currently covered by legislation. So why not go ahead and expand protection to the looks-challenged? There’s one legitimate concern. With increasingly tight limits on government resources, expanding rights to yet another protected group would reduce protection for groups that have commanded our legislative and other attention for over 50 years.

We face a trade-off: ignore a deserving group of citizens, or help them but limit help available for other groups. Even though I myself have demonstrated the disadvantages of ugliness in 20 years of research, I nonetheless would hate to see anything that might reduce assistance to groups now aided by protective legislation.

You might reasonably disagree and argue for protecting all deserving groups. Either way, you shouldn’t be surprised to see the United States heading toward this new legal frontier.

BIENVENIDOS/AS!!!

Bienvenidos al Blog del Curso de Igualdad Constitucional de Roberto Saba. Aquí encontrarán materiales e información útil referida a las lecturas obligatorias y opcionales para las clases.

Les sugiero que se suscriban para que reciban alertas sobre nuevos posts.

Saludos,

Roberto Saba

Inglaterra: Discriminación Estructural en Escuelas

Social class affects white pupils' exam results more than those of ethnic minorities study

Poverty affects grades less among non-white children with social divide noticeable from primary school

Jessica Shepherd, education correspondent

The Guardian, Friday 3 September 2010

Study finds that white children's social class affects their school-leaving grades. Photograph: John Alex Maguire/Rex Features

A child's social class is more likely to determine how well they perform in school if they are white than if they come from an ethnic minority, researchers have discovered.

The gap between the proportion of working-class pupils and middle-class pupils who achieve five A* to C grades at GCSE is largest among white pupils, academics found.

They analysed official data showing thousands of teenagers' grades between 2003 and 2007. Some 31% of white pupils on free school meals – a key indicator of poverty – achieve five A* to Cs, compared with 63% of white pupils not eligible for free school meals, they found.

This gap between social classes – of 32 percentage points – is far higher for white pupils than for other ethnic groups.

For Bangladeshi pupils, the gap is seven percentage points, while for Chinese pupils it is just five percentage points, the researchers discovered.

The study – Ethnicity and class: GCSE performance – will be presented to the British Educational Research Association conference at Warwick University tomorrow.

It argues that one of the reasons why class determines how white pupils perform at school is that white working-class parents may have lower expectations of their children than working-class parents from other ethnic groups.

The researchers, from the Institute of Education and Queen Mary, both part of the University of London, also found that Chinese pupils from families in routine and manual jobs perform better than white pupils from managerial and professional backgrounds. They also discovered that African and Bangladeshi girls had vastly improved their GCSE grades in the last few years.

Professor Ramesh Kapadia, who led the study, said this may be linked to "cultural aspirations and expectations, as well as parental support for education. This appears to have been the case for Indian and Chinese pupils for many years," he said.

A separate study has found that a similar pattern can be identified for children in primary schools: social class is more likely to determine how well a pupil will perform if that child is white than if they are from other ethnic groups.

Researchers from the University of Warwick analysed the scores of pupils living in the south London borough of Lambeth. White children from well-off homes were the top-performing ethnic group at the age of 11, while white pupils eligible for free school meals had among the worst test results.

Professor Steve Strand, who will present the findings to the British Educational Research Association's conference today, said the effects of poverty are "much less pronounced for most minority ethnic groups".

"Those from low socio-economic backgrounds seem to be much more resilient to the impact of disadvantage than their white British peers," he said.

However, he added that well-off white children may do particularly well because their parents might be "a bit more savvy about ensuring that they go to schools with similar pupils".

"More recent immigrant groups, such as the Portuguese, Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities often see education as the way out of the poverty they have come from. By contrast, if you've been in a white working-class family for three generations, with high unemployment, you don't necessarily believe that education is going to change that.

"All of these factors may combine to make the effect of socio-economic status remarkably strong for white British kids."

Meanwhile, headteachers' leaders have warned secondary schools to consider axing subjects that few pupils take to cope with imminent budget cuts.

The Association of School and College Leaders told the Times Educational Supplement that A-levels in foreign languages, for example, could be scrapped. Last week, French dropped out of the top 10 most popular GCSEs for the first time. "Languages in some schools will be vulnerable," he said. "We are already worried about them and this could speed up the decline."

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2010

Escuelas y Raza en New York

The New York Times

August 15, 2010

Triumph Fades on Racial Gap in City Schools

By SHARON OTTERMAN and ROBERT GEBELOFF

Two years ago, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and his schools chancellor, Joel I. Klein, testified before Congress about the city’s impressive progress in closing the gulf in performance between minority and white children. The gains were historic, all but unheard of in recent decades.

“Over the past six years, we’ve done everything possible to narrow the achievement gap — and we have,” Mr. Bloomberg testified. “In some cases, we’ve reduced it by half.”

“We are closing the shameful achievement gap faster than ever,” the mayor said again in 2009, as city reading scores — now acknowledged as the height of a test score bubble — showed nearly 70 percent of children had met state standards.

When results from the 2010 tests, which state officials said presented a more accurate portrayal of students’ abilities, were released last month, they came as a blow to the legacy of the mayor and the chancellor, as passing rates dropped by more than 25 percentage points on most tests. But the most painful part might well have been the evaporation of one of their signature accomplishments: the closing of the racial achievement gap.

Among the students in the city’s third through eighth grades, 40 percent of black students and 46 percent of Hispanic students met state standards in math, compared with 75 percent of white students and 82 percent of Asian students. In English, 33 percent of black students and 34 percent of Hispanic students are now proficient, compared with 64 percent among whites and Asians.

“The claims were based on some bad information,” said Michael J. Petrilli, a vice president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a research group that studies education policy. “On achievement, the story in New York City is of some modest progress, but not the miracle that the mayor and the chancellor would like to claim.”

Reducing racial gaps in educational performance has been a national preoccupation for decades. But after substantial progress in the 1970s and ’80s, the effort has largely stalled, except for a brief period from 1999 to 2004, where there were some gains, particularly in reading, according to a report released this month by the Educational Testing Service, which develops standardized tests used across the country.

The achievement gap was also the main thrust of the No Child Left Behind law, which mandated annual testing for all students in grades three through eight and required school systems to track the performance of each racial and ethnic group, with the goal of bringing all children to proficiency by 2014.

New York City’s progress in closing its achievement gap on those tests drew national attention as a possible model for other urban school districts. It won praise from President George W. Bush as evidence that No Child Left Behind was working. In 2007, the city won a prestigious urban education prize from the Broad Foundation, which cited the city’s progress in narrowing the racial achievement gap.

But the latest state math and English tests show that the proficiency gap between minority and white students has returned to about the same level as when the mayor arrived. In 2002, 31 percent of black students were considered proficient in math, for example, while 65 percent of white students met that standard.

Experts have many theories, but no clear answers, about why national progress on closing the gap has slowed. They included worsening economic conditions for poor families and an increase in fatherless black households, social factors that interfere with students’ educational progress.

Mr. Klein said in an interview that he was not discouraged by New York City’s performance on the 2010 state tests, and that he still felt “awfully good” about improvements for black and Hispanic students, noting their rising graduation rates and college enrollments.

“I don’t think we claimed it was a miracle; certainly I don’t believe it was a miracle,” he said. “I think there are sustained steady gains here, and I think that’s important.”

Unbowed, Mr. Klein said the new test results reinforced some of his beliefs and policies: he said he would continue to close low-performing schools, for example, and would keep pushing to pay more to teachers who work in hard-to-staff neighborhoods or subjects, which the teachers’ union has resisted.

The bulk of Mr. Bloomberg and Mr. Klein’s effort to overhaul the education system has been focused on the lowest-performing students. The city has closed 91 poorly performing schools, established about 100 charter schools and sent waves of new young teachers and principals into schools in poor neighborhoods.

Mr. Klein began to use test scores to measure schools’ performance, and joined with the Rev. Al Sharpton in forming the Education Equality Project in 2008 to promote good instruction and education reform for minority and poor children. “It is certainly what makes Joel Klein tick,” said Kati Haycock, the president of the Education Trust, which advocates for progress on the issue. “And you can’t say that for everyone.”

The city has even tried to attack the deeper issue of how children are reared at home, by offering some families monetary incentives to go to the dentist for checkups, for example, or to maintain good school attendance. The three-year-old pilot project was ended in March after it showed only modest results.

For several years, data suggested that the city had seen improvements among all ethnic groups, including in graduation rates, which have risen about 14 percentage points for black and Hispanic students since 2005, and a national standardized test given every other year to a sampling of fourth and eighth graders.

Even so, the scores on the national test, considered tougher than the state tests, did not exactly show a mastery of material. Forty-nine percent of white students and 17 percent of black students showed proficiency on the fourth-grade English test in 2009, for example, up from 45 percent of white students and 13 percent of black students in 2003.

The city made no statistically significant progress in closing the racial achievement gap in that time, said Arnold Goldstein, a statistician at the National Center for Education Statistics, which administers the national test. With few exceptions, including Charlotte, N.C., and Washington, D.C., the achievement gap on the national tests has remained constant in all major cities.

But the test scores that the mayor and the chancellor chose to highlight were the state standardized tests, and they built their entire system around it, with schools’ A-through-F grades, teachers’ bonuses and now tenure decisions dependent on how well their students performed on the tests.

By 2009, the passing rates of black students on English exams had narrowed to within 22 percentage points of white students’, and within 17 points on the math exams. And charter schools, which predominantly serve black students, were doing so well that one Stanford University researcher proclaimed that they had practically eliminated the “Harlem-Scarsdale” gap in math.

But skeptics argued that comparing passing rates was flawed because they did not account for whether a student passed by a little or a lot. In New York City, black and Hispanic students were far more likely to pass with scores barely above the minimum requirement, thereby masking the real difference in performance among groups.

The State Education Department recalibrated the scoring of the tests this year, raising the number of correct answers needed to pass and saying that the previous standards were not accurate measures of what students needed to know at each grade level. When that happened, the passing rates of white and Asian students dropped a little, but those of black and Hispanic students plummeted.

Asian students have generally performed better than white students on state math tests in the city, and about the same on English tests. Those gaps have remained fairly consistent over the years.

While the slow improvement of all groups is “still a success story,” Mr. Petrilli said, the achievement gap, which shows how different groups perform relative to one another, still means that most black and Hispanic students will be at a sharp disadvantage when they have to compete against white and Asian peers as they move through schools and into the workplace.

While the gap is not closing, Mr. Klein said he was encouraged that the scores for black and Hispanic students were rising nonetheless.

“Do I wish that we had eliminated the entire achievement gap?” he said. “Sure.”

Jennifer Medina contributed reporting.

Gasparini: Igualdad y Distribución

Leonardo Gasparini: ”Argentina experimentó un fracaso distributivo como pocos países en el mundo”

Clarin
08/08/10

Las crisis extremas, la frágil contención social y las aperturas de los 70 y 90 hicieron que el país cayera en picada en el ranking de igualdad de América latina en los últimos 30 años, sostiene este experto.

PorSEBASTIÁN CAMPANARIO

Cuando se refieren a variables volátiles como el precio de las acciones o el tipo de cambio, los economistas suelen apelar a la figura- l ugar común de la “montaña rusa”. Los números de distribución del ingreso evocan, por sus escasos cambios a través del tiempo, una actividad más aburrida: analizar las series de desigualdad, dicen los académicos especializados en este campo, equivale a “mirar el pasto crecer”. De hecho, en América latina, la tabla de posiciones en materia de desigualdad se mantiene sin cambios desde hace décadas. Con una sola excepción: la Argentina.

“Nuestro país ha experimentado un fracaso distributivo como pocos lugares en el mundo”, dice el economista Leonardo Gasparini, profesor de la Universidad Nacional de La Plata (UNLP) y una de las mayores autoridades académicas en América latina sobre desigualdad y pobreza. “Si bien Argentina nunca fue un país escandinavo en materia social, algunas de sus estadísticas sociales se parecían más a las europeas que a las latinoamericanas”, explica Gasparini. “Hoy somos más parecidos a América latina”, explica, “en parte porque en las últimas tres décadas las estadísticas distributivas latinoamericanas no han cambiado mucho, y en parte porque las argentinas se han deteriorado”.

En números: la brecha proporcional de ingreso entre el 10% más rico y el 10% más pobre era alrededor de 16 en los sesenta, 18 en los setenta, 22 en los ochenta, 25 a mediados de los noventa, subió a más de 40 en 2002, y hoy retornó al valor de 25.

“En síntesis, estamos igual que hace 25 años”, cuenta Gasparini, que vive en Gonnet con su familia, mide más de un metro noventa y es extremadamente tímido. Este hincha fanático de Gimnasia se las ingenió para instalar en la UNLP el Centro de Estudios Distributivos Laborales y Sociales, donde trabajan 30 economistas y estudiantes avanzados de la carrera. El CEDLAS se volvió una referencia regional en estudios sobre desigualdad: el Banco Mundial les pidió que monitoreen las estadísticas de distribución para toda América latina.

Gasparini tuvo una infancia que cualquier chico envidiaría: se la pasó cazando dinosaurios. Su madre, una paleontóloga especializada en plesiosaurios, se llevaba a su hijo a las exploraciones por la Patagonia. Inclusive -cuenta orgulloso- existe un “gasparinisaurus”.

¿La desigualdad en América latina viene de los tiempos jurásicos?

No, en realidad es un fenómeno bastante más reciente de lo que muchos creen. Hay estudios que muestran que las sociedades americanas precolombinas eran más igualitarias que las europeas en la misma época. Los problemas distributivos serios empiezan con la colonia y se explican por la presencia de dos factores: concentración de algún recurso natural y mucha población para ser explotada en su extracción. Pronto se formaron sociedades polarizadas entre elites europeas ricas y grandes masas de trabajadores de ingresos muy bajos, indios o esclavos. Es interesante notar que en las colonias inglesas de América del Norte y las españolas del Río de la Plata y Costa Rica, que carecían de riqueza minera o agrícola de extracción y de abundante población, se formaron sociedades más igualitarias.

¿Cómo está la Argentina hoy en materia de distribución del ingreso en relación al resto de la región?

Hasta hace 20 o 30 años, la Argentina era con Uruguay, por lejos, el país más igualitario de América latina. Desde entonces es el país que más cayó en este aspecto. Aún está entre los cinco de mejor distribución, pero mucho más cerca del promedio (donde se ubican naciones como Chile) y también de Brasil, un país tradicionalmente muy desigual, pero que ha venido mejorando en forma notable en los últimos años.

¿América latina es el continente más desigual del planeta?

Siempre se dijo eso. Probablemente haya países asiáticos y del Africa Subsahariana que son más desiguales, pero es difícil comprobarlo porque sus estadísticas son precarias. Pero claramente Latinoamérica está en el grupo de las regiones de alta desigualdad.

¿Y por qué en la Argentina la distribución empeoró más?

Hubo varios “terremotos” en esta materia. El primero y el más importante fueron las crisis macroeconómicas, con alta inflación, como las “híper” de fines de los 80 y principios de los 90, o la caída de 2001-2002. Fueron procesos que destruyeron igualdad en forma trágica. Otra razón importante la constituyen algunas reformas de mercado y apertura comercial implementadas sobre todo a fines de los 70 y en especial en los 90, que implicaron una modernización muy brusca de la economía, que redujo fuertemente la demanda de trabajo no calificado con efectos sobre el desempleo, la pobreza y la desigualdad. Y todo en un marco de contención social muy frágil. Por último, hay una serie de círculos viciosos. Uno de ellos es la segregación tanto escolar como barrial. El auge de escuelas y barrios privados ha dividido más la sociedad: esa división -y en particular la huida de las clases medias hacia escuelas privadas- es fuente de desigualdades futuras. La consolidación de grupos entrampados en situaciones de “pobreza perpetua”, con pocos incentivos y expectativas de progreso, es otro problema que retroalimenta la desigualdad.

¿Qué pasó con la distribución después de la crisis de 2001-2002?

La desigualdad había alcanzado una meseta alta a fines de los noventa, pero la crisis la disparó hasta niveles inéditos en 2002, donde alcanzó un pico. Cuando la economía se estabilizó y empezó a crecer, la desigualdad se redujo, en forma importante, pero no muy diferente de la experimentada por cualquier economía que se estabiliza después de una crisis macroeconómica profunda. De hecho, la caída de la desigualdad entre 2003 y 2006 es muy parecida a la caída entre 1990 y 1993 después de la híper. Desde 2006 hay alguna reducción adicional por factores más genuinos y estructurales, pero es lenta. Además, las ganancias distributivas están permanentemente amenazadas por la erosión de la inflación, que es un factor desigualador. La gran apuesta para reducir la desigualdad de manera significativa es la Asignación Universal por Hijo.

¿Cómo afectó la intervención del INDEC a las estadísticas sobre distribución del ingreso?

Tuvimos una suerte de “apagón” a principios de 2007, cuando se dejaron de difundir los números de la Encuesta Permanente de Hogares (EPH), que son nuestro insumo fundamental. A principios de este año, por presión de organizaciones como el CELS y de las universidades, el Gobierno volvió a hacer públicas estas estadísticas. Por supuesto que hubo muchas dudas sobre su posible adulteración. Hasta ahora, nosotros las hemos analizado en detalle, con desconfianza a priori. Y la sensación que nos queda es que no se han tocado.

¿Cuál es el margen de políticas públicas que hay para mejorar la situación?

La mayor parte de los gobiernos contemporáneos en América latina tomaron la bandera de la mejora en la distribución del ingreso, y esa toma de conciencia es muy buena. Por ahora, es una tendencia que está más presente en el discurso y menos en la realidad de las medidas, pero igual es un paso adelante. Brasil es tomado por muchos como un ejemplo: con la Bolsa Trabajo y otras iniciativas sociales logró una movilidad importante de clase baja a clase media-baja y de ésta a clase media. En la Argentina, el Plan Jefes de 2002 fue un punto de inflexión, aunque es cierto que hubo que llegar a un punto límite para que la clase política se moviera.

Robert Reich, ex secretario de Trabajo de EE. UU, dijo recientemente que la crisis en su país no fue causada por la burbuja inmobiliaria, sino por el crecimiento de la desigualdad.

En toda sociedad hay permanentes pujas distributivas. Si esas pujas se canalizan en los mecanismos de mercado o con las instituciones vigentes, no alcanzan a tener consecuencias. Si esas pujas no se encauzan y se desbordan, se desencadenan crisis. En Argentina, el gran derrumbe de fines de los 80 o la gran crisis de 2001/02 pueden verse como estallidos de una puja distributiva que no logró encausarse y que terminó en el primer caso en una hiperinflación y en el segundo en una megadevaluación.

¿Las sociedades más igualitarias son más felices?

Sí, definitivamente. La nueva economía de la felicidad sugiere que la gente es más feliz viviendo en sociedades más igualitarias. Esto implica que aceptaría vivir con menos recursos propios, pero en una sociedad que percibe como más justa.

¿Los temas de desigualdad están bien enseñados en las currículas universitarias?

Están subrepresentados en relación a la importancia que vienen adquiriendo en los últimos años. Los libros de texto de las carreras de grado dan definiciones de pobreza, pero van poco más lejos. Junto con Martín Cicowiez y Walter Sosa terminamos un libro de texto sobre este tema hace seis meses, pero todavía no conseguimos una editorial interesada en publicarlo. Es un proceso arduo.

Es como mirar el pasto crecer.

Sí (risas). Esperemos que en algún momento se convierta en una montaña rusa.

Copyright Clarín, 2010.