out of the vehicle and made their way up the muddy hillside by foot. The midwife, who claimed not to have appropriate footwear, stayed in the ambulance. When they arrived at the house, Maria was not speaking or moving, and there was a lot of blood on the ground. She died a few moments later, before the doctor could examine her. The cause of death was determined as hemorrhage from Uterine Atony, a condition that could have been treated with a simple injection with an inexpensive drug.

Following Maria’s death, the family suffered significantly. Francisco took the oldest child out of school so he could help in the fields and with looking after the younger children. The younger children were not well cared for, however, and often stayed home from school, as their brother was lacking in skills and Francisco needed to spend most of his time taking care of the crops and livestock. The new baby, Felix, did not have a birth certificate, as he was not born in a health facility. Without a birth certificate he could not receive his vaccinations or receive assistance through the hospital. Also, without the certificate Francisco could not apply to social programs such as JUNTOS, a cash transfer program to help indigent families. Baby Felix had initially been breastfed by Maria’s sister, but she stopped after a few months as she was also feeding her own child. Felix was given canned milk instead, which was cheaper than formula, but not suitable for infants. Felix died 3 months old.

Maternal mortality, low educational outcomes, low life expectancy, infant mortality, low caloric intake, poor health and poverty are just some of the outcomes that stand out in this story. It is a story repeated every day, not just in the _Altiplano_ in Peru, but in many parts of the world. It is a story in which the outcomes are not a result of neutral forces, but are largely derived from the values and discriminatory attitudes held within societies around the world and the way in which they serve to structurally exclude some social groups from a healthy, productive life of their own choosing.

# **2. Survey data show that discriminatory attitudes are widespread**

Discriminatory attitudes are widespread, often to a greater extent than an examination of formal institutions, such as law and policy, will reveal (Lawoti 2010, Schwartz 1994, Bertrand and Mullainathan 2004). Often, these prejudices act at a subconscious level, where individuals are unaware of harboring negative attitudes or practicing discriminatory behavior. Through experiments, researchers demonstrate the prevalence of underlying discriminatory attitudes even among those who claim to hold tolerant views. In one such experiment, employers graded fictitious resumes for an advertised position less favorably when the names indicated that the applicant was African-American rather than white (Bertrand and Mullainathan 2004). Employers who listed ’Equal Opportunity Employer’ in their ad discriminated as much as other employers.

Cross-section surveys illustrate that discriminatory attitudes are ubiquitous around the world, even in countries where formal institutions embody principles of equality. For the analysis reported in the following section, we rely on the second Life in Transition Survey (LiTS II) which was designed to assess the public’s attitudes (perceptions, beliefs, attitudes and choices) and well-being and the impacts of 5