Leaving no one behind the imperative of inclusive development

Who is being left behind? 83
generally lacking, the existing evidence indicates that differences exist also
in the intrahousehold distribution of resources within and across social
groups. Research on the gender dimension of expenditure allocations shows
that resources are often not shared equitably between boys and girls − with
boys benefiting disproportionately from investments in health care, private
education and childcare − and that women are often excluded from economic
decision-making within their households (United Nations, 2015a). Female and
male poverty rates are similar overall, but not at all ages or for all household
characteristics. Women in developed countries are more likely than men to
be poor at older ages, particularly when living alone, while differences by
sex among youth aged 18-24 years are noticeable only in a small number
of countries. In Latin America and the Caribbean in contrast, women are
most likely to be poorer than men in young adulthood, that is, between the
ages of 25 and 34 (United Nations, 2015a). Poverty is also more prevalent
among female-headed households than among male-headed households,
even though poverty reduction has been faster in the former, at least across
Africa, since the late 1990s (Milazzo and van de Walle, 2015). There are many
characteristics that can affect decision-making and resource allocation within
the household beyond sex, namely age and disability, and these vary across
cultures and over time. However, there has been little analysis of most of them
(Bolt and Bird, 2003).
3. Conclusions
There are significant differences in access to the labour market and in
employment opportunities among social groups. These differences persist
in many of the examples shown once the effects of education, age structure
and area of residence are accounted for. Thus employment inequalities
are not driven exclusively by differences in human capital and other basic
socioeconomic characteristics. Partly as a result of these employment
disadvantages, indigenous peoples, ethnic minorities, migrants and persons
with disabilities are more likely to live in poverty and experience deeper
poverty than the rest of the population.
Discrimination plays a key role in holding back some groups, as
discussed in chapter IV. However, the inequalities observed cannot be
attributed solely to bias. The characteristics of different social groups
and the circumstances in which they live or seek employment may not be
comparable even after accounting for the effect of educational attainment,
place of residence or age on employment status. For example, education and
place of residence affect access to resources that are not adequately measured
through a basic quantitative approach, namely social capital and economic
opportunities. Even within what national censuses or surveys define as rural
areas, the places where each ethnic group resides may differ in terms of land
endowments, access to services and other attributes. Alesina, Michalopoulos