Exponential Inequalities: Equality Law in Times of Crisis ed. by Shreya Atrey & Sandra Fredman (review)

"At the start of the pandemic, it seemed that Covid-19 was a great leveller … The reality has been different"¹—starts the book Exponential Inequalities, edited by Shreya Atrey and Sandra Fredman. The editors and authors of this timely, comprehensive, and thought-provoking volume use this observation to explore the striking rise of inequality during the pandemic, when the wealth of the ten richest men in the world more than doubled, as did many markers of disadvantage among already particularly marginalized groups.² And they look at the role equality law played (or failed to play) in it. The book contains nineteen chapters from twenty-eight authors on four hundred pages and spans all continents. It examines constitutions, legislation, and policy. It also looks at the lives of members of disadvantaged groups, whether they possess a single protected ground—such as the disabled or the elderly—or whether their experience lies at an intersection of axes of disadvantage—e.g., lone mothers, immigrant women, migrant workers in the informal economy (importantly, the book treats socio-economic disadvantage as a ground for the purposes of its analysis). The authors use a range of methodologies, both legal (comparative and international) and interdisciplinary (e.g., an economic analysis by Diane Elson and Marion Sharples) to advance three main arguments: two empirical and one normative.

First, the chapters in the book add to existing—mostly social science—literature in showing how the COVID-19 crisis perhaps not so much created new ones as exacerbated pre-existing inequalities in society. The pandemic hit with exceptional severity vulnerable populations who have already suffered from earlier, unequal or even discriminatory, policies. Aleta Sprague, Amy Raub, and Jody Heymann document, cross-jurisdictionally, how disabled persons and workers in the informal economy were systematically (constitutionally) unprotected by workplace injury compensation and sickness pay, which left them out of important protections during the pandemic. Kelly Loper shows how the Hong Kong preexisting democratic deficit meant that women from ethnic minorities and immigrant women lacked voice to contribute to decisions which concerned them. A particular type of these pre-COVID-19 measures were adopted after the 2008 financial crisis, when the (asserted) need for austerity was "distributed" in a way which disproportionately affected already disadvantaged populations. In the United Kingdom (U.K.), Aaron Reeves, Kate Andersen, Mary Reader, and Rosalie Warnock demonstrate, these welfare reforms systematically impoverished large families, in a gendered and racialized way.³ Meghan Campbell shows that the U.K. benefits cap and work conditionalities fell especially heavily on lone mothers, and the "bedroom tax" created particular difficulties for disabled people and women who experience domestic violence.⁴ These policies made vulnerable populations particularly exposed to the ravages of the COVID-19 crisis.

Second, the book advances, and substantiates, the claim that equality law was not fully equipped to deal with the challenges posed by the pandemic. Some authors show that some aspects of equality law might not be fit-for-purpose. A commonly identified culprit—and a usual suspect in critiques of equality law—is the adversarial model of enforcement through individual litigation (e.g. chapters by Colm O'Cinneide; Mark Bell; and Jessica Clark). Other doctrines have potential but are not used to their proper extent. Meghan Campbell shows that although the U.K. courts largely recognized the above mentioned restrictions on welfare measures as prima facie indirectly discriminatory, their scrutiny of them, especially at the proportionality stage, needed to be more probing. Victoria Miyandazi (for Kenya), Aparna Chandra (for India), and Catherine Albertyn (for South Africa) observe that there is scope for better use of their countries' constitutional equality provisions, especially when it comes of socio-economic rights' adjudication.

Connectedly, and finally, based on the critical assessments, many authors provide normative proposals or suggest "good practice" to be followed. These go, firstly, for equality law itself. Several authors suggest "substantive equality" measures—beyond an individualized litigation model, often ex ante and...