de v elopment
de v elopment
59
58
communities, focusing on the hardest-to-
reach children, yields the most cost-
effective results. The additional results
usually outweigh the additional efforts
and costs. An extensive modelling
exercise showed that in the poorest
countries with the highest burden
of under-five mortality, a pro-equity
approach could save up to 60% more
children per dollar than through our
current approach. In other words, when
we invest in equity - and equitably
in people - we get better, more cost-
effective results for our investment.
Scaling-up immunisations is a good
example. Two studies by Johns Hopkins
Bloomberg School of Public Health show
that if we scaled up the use of existing
vaccines in 72 of the poorest countries,
we could save 6.4 million lives, and avert
US$6.2 billion in treatment costs and
US$145 billion in productivity losses over
the next decade. This, necessarily, would
include a focus on getting vaccines to
those who are not now covered - almost
20% of the world’s population. The ‘fifth
child’… the forgotten children. Indeed,
polio is now making its last stand in some
of the hardest to reach places in the
world, where many of these children live.
Which leads me to the second reason
why equity is right in practice - because
it spurs long-term, sustainable growth.
Highly unequal societies grow more slowly
and erratically than more equal ones.
These divisions set in motion a
downward spiral. Stagnant growth
means lower demand for goods and
services - which means fewer jobs to go
around - which means lower household
income - which means too many people
struggling to survive. This weighs down
productivity and progress for everyone.
But we can take inspiration from
countries that have invested in their
social programmes, and are enjoying
significant economic growth.
A report by the UN Economic
Commission for Latin America and the
Caribbean addresses why poverty in
that region has fal