The Proportionality of an Economic Crisis

Is imposing income poverty on vulnerable groups a proportionate response to an economic crisis? The regularity of ‘unprecedented’ fiscal emergencies means the United Kingdom (UK) Supreme Court has repeatedly been asked this question. It has accepted that the austerity measures implemented in light of an economic crisis are indirectly discriminatory against women, children, and disabled persons. However, these inequalities are justified in pursuit of economic recovery. The violation of the right to equality is permitted through a highly deferential light-touch limitation review. The justification analysis ignores the role of the economic crisis in prompting the welfare reforms and, echoing the political rationale for austerity, overemphasizes the recklessness of unchecked welfare spending. This chapter rebalances the limitation arguments by placing the need for discriminatory austerity policies within its full context. A more searching justification analysis, which uses a high intensity proportionality framework, can accurately account for the economic emergency. This in turn shifts the focus at justification away from the perceived overdependence of welfare recipients and towards questioning whether it is fair to ask the most vulnerable and marginalized to bear the costs of the crisis. Taking seriously the role of the economic crisis in perpetuating inequalities can challenge the accepted political–economic orthodox narrative and call into question whether the discrimination against protected groups who live in poverty can be justified in the name of austerity.