A/HRC/29/31 national income and the top 10 per cent earned about 32 per cent. In Sweden, in 2012, the top 1 per cent earned around 7 per cent of the national income, from a low of around 4 per cent in 1981, and the top 10 per cent earned around 28 per cent of the national income, from a low of around 22 per cent in 1984. Income inequality in the United States in 2012 is comparable to income inequality in Colombia in 2010, where the top 1 per cent of earners also received about 20 per cent of the national income. 10. In Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Mr. Piketty shows that in 1970 the wealthiest 10 per cent in Europe owned about 60 per cent of all wealth, while in the United States the figure was about 65 per cent. Today, that share has increased by 5 percentage points in both places. In January 2015, Oxfam International presented figures showing that the richest 1 per cent of the world have seen their share of global wealth increase from 44 per cent in 2009 to 48 per cent in 2014, with a prediction that it will exceed 50 per cent by 2016. Of the remaining wealth, only 5.5 per cent goes to those outside the top quintile.8 11. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has developed several indicators that measure social and horizontal inequalities. An inequality-adjusted human development index, calculated for 145 countries, indicates how achievements in the areas of health, education and income are distributed among a population. UNDP also publishes the coefficient of human inequality, which is a calculation of average inequality across the three dimensions mentioned above. UNDP further measures gender inequality in its gender inequality index. Looking at these different indices, which are not always as intuitive as the income indices described above, it becomes clear that many countries do not even come close to the levels of equality in terms of health, education and gender that exist in the more egalitarian countries. Where Norway had an inequality-adjusted human development index value of 0.891 in 2013, indicating a high level of equality in comparison with other countries, the figures in countries such as the United States (0.755), the Russian Federation (0.685), Chile (0.661), India (0.418) and the Central African Republic (0.203) are much lower. The gender-related development index (female to male ratio of the human development index) ranges from very high levels of equality between men and women in Norway (0.997) to a very high level of gender inequality in Afghanistan (0.602). B. Economic inequalities and equal opportunity 12. Perfect economic equality is not achievable and arguably not desirable, and there is no reason to object to a certain degree of economic inequality if it reflects differences in effort and talent and is instrumental in achieving greater welfare for society as a whole. There does seem to be a consensus, however, that every human being is entitled — at the very least — to equal opportunity.9 Two United States Presidents have articulated this principle eloquently. Barack Obama described it as “the idea that success doesn’t depend on being born into wealth or privilege, it depends on effort and merit”. 10 In 1860 Abraham Lincoln said: “When one starts poor, as most do in the race of life, free society is such that he knows he can better his condition; he knows that there is no fixed condition of labor, for 8 9 10 See “Wealth: having it all and wanting more”, Oxfam Issue Briefing (January 2015), p. 2. “Although the principle of formal equality is the basis for social and economic interaction in most modern societies, the social consensus on how much inequality of market outcomes is acceptable, differs considerably among societies. But irrespective of cross-country differences in the level of effective inequality, the increase in inequality over time has given rise to growing concerns in many countries about its social and economic repercussions.” See Trade and Development Report 2012 (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.12.II.D.6), p. 32. Barack Obama, “Remarks by the President on economic mobility”, Washington, D.C., 4 December 2013. 5