Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

An Index of Economic and Social Rights Fulfillment: Concept and Methodology

2009; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 8; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/14754830903110194

1475-4843

Sakiko Fukuda‐Parr, Terra Lawson-Remer, Susan Randolph,

International Development and Aid

Abstract In response to an increasing demand for rigorous monitoring of states in meeting their human rights obligations, a growing literature has emerged on measuring human rights fulfillment. Data are increasingly used in human rights assessment and advocacy but with an ad hoc approach, with three common limitations: frequent use of subjective indicators; focus on the right bearer enjoyment of right without taking account of duty bearer conduct; and event or country specific analysis that does not allow comparisons over time or space. This paper explores a methodology for measuring economic and social rights fulfillment that is reliable and authoritative. It proposes a composite index that: uses available survey-based objective, rather than subjective, data; focuses on state obligations rather than solely on individual enjoyment of rights; and captures progressive realization of human rights subject to maximum available resources. Two calculation methods are proposed: the ratio approach and the achievement possibilities frontier approach. The paper identifies key conceptual and data constraints. Recognizing the complex methodological challenges, the aim of this paper is not to resolve all the difficulties, but rather to contribute to the process of building rigorous approaches to human rights measurement. The proposed index provides important new information compared with other measures of economic and social rights fulfillment; although it still does not fully capture some desired features such as the right to nondiscrimination and equality, and the right to social security. The paper also outlines an agenda for longer term research and data collection that would make more complete measurement possible. Sakiko Fukuda-Parr is Professor of International Affairs at the New School. From 2004–2006, she was a Research Fellow at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government where she worked on a book on the political economy of agricultural biotechnology. From 1995 to 2004, she was director of the UNDP Human Development Reports, an influential publication; the Human Development Index (HDI) that it created has become a reference index of development. Her publications, in addition to the Human Development Reports, include: The Gene Revolution: GM Crops and Unequal Development (main contributor and editor); Readings in Human Development (edited with Shivakumar); Rethinking Technical Cooperation – Reforms for capacity building in Africa (with Elliot Berg); Capacity for Development (edited with C. Lopes and K. Malik), and numerous papers and book chapters on issues of poverty, gender, human rights, and technology. She founded and is editor of the Journal of Human Development and is on the Editorial Board of Feminist Economics. She is also on the board of several NGOs that advocate human rights and technology for development. Sakiko received her BA from Cambridge University (UK), MALD from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy (USA), and MA from the University of Sussex (UK). Terra Lawson-Remer, J.D, is a graduate of New York University School of Law and is currently completing her PhD in Political Economy and Economic Development at NYU's Law & Society Institute. Her research addresses natural resource governance, international human rights law, poverty and climate change, extractive industries, property rights and conflict, transnational corporations, trade law, and the relationship between de jure and de facto institutions. Ms. Lawson-Remer has worked as a Legal Fellow in the Business & Human Rights Program at Amnesty International USA; for former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, at the Ethical Globalization Initiative; and as a consultant to numerous other environmental, human rights, and social justice organizations. While a Fellow at EGI she advised on human rights aspects of the Millennium Development Goals Task Force Reports and the World Bank's Extractive Industries Review. Previously Ms. Lawson-Remer founded and directed a national grassroots membership-based NGO that advocated for corporate responsibility in the face of increased globalization, and pushed for greater public accountability by the World Bank, IMF, and WTO. Ms. Lawson-Remer earned her BA in Ethics, Politics, and Economics from Yale University. Susan Randolph is an Associate Professor in the Departments of Economics and Agricultural and Resource Economics. She is a faculty affiliate of the Human Rights Institute, the Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies, the Center for Contemporary African Studies, and the India Studies Program. She has served as a short-term consultant to The World Bank and the United States Agency for International Development and is affiliated with the Connecticut Center for Eliminating Health Disparities among Latinos. Prior to coming to UCONN, she worked for four years as head of the Program Development Division with Turkiye Kalkinma Vakfi, a grassroots development organization that enables poor, landless households to establish viable, self-sustaining economic enterprises. Dr. Randolph's research has focused on a broad range of issues in development economics, including poverty, inequality, food security, and economic rights, at both the country and regional levels and has been published in numerous referenced multidisciplinary as well as economic journals. One stream of her work has emphasized measurement while other streams have emphasized development policy. Her work on marginal malnutrition and food security has focused on Mexico and Senegal, while her other work on development policy has been focused cross-nationally as well as on Malaysia, Sudan, Bangladesh, Mexico, Egypt, Nepal, and Indonesia. Dr. Randolph received her BA in Political Science from the University of Oregon and her MA and PhD in economics from Cornell University. The authors are grateful to many people, too numerous to name individually, who have provided useful advice and comments in the course of developing this index. Thanks are particularly due to Claes Johansson, Alison Kennedy, David Stewart and John Stewart, and to the participants in brainstorming meetings and presentations held at the New School (through 2006/2007), UNDP New York (May 2008), UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (June 2008), the New School Workshop, New York (June 2008), NYU Workshop, New York (November 2008) as well as reviewers and editors of the Journal of Human Rights. We also thank the Canadian International Development Agency whose support made possible the June 2008 workshop in New York. Finally, we are grateful for the excellent research assistance provided by Michelle Prairie. All errors and omissions, however, remain the responsibility of the authors. Notes 1. It was in the early 1990s that literature began to emerge evaluating states on their compliance with human rights obligations. Notable were the works of Charles Humana (1992) Humana, Charles. 1992. World Human Rights Guide, New York: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] on identifying indicators on all sets of human rights, of Herbert and Louise Spirer (1993) Spirer, Herbert and Spirer, Louise. 1993. Data Analysis for Monitoring Human Rights, Washington, DC: American Association for Advancement of Science (AAAS) and HURIDOCS. [Google Scholar] on the use of data analysis to establish empirical evidence on human rights violations, of Cingranelli and Richards (2008) Cingranelli, D. L. and Richards, D. L. 2008. CIRI Human Rights Dataset Project viewed 22 January 2009, [Google Scholar] on political and civil rights data, and of scholars such as Audrey Chapman (1996) Chapman, Audrey. 1996. A violations approach for monitoring the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. Human Rights Quarterly, 18(1): 23–66. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar], Green (2004), Hunt (2003) Hunt, P. 2003. The Right of Everyone to Enjoy the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health Interim report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the right of everyone to enjoy the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, Mr. Paul Hunt submitted to the 58th Session, Agenda item 117 (c) (10 October 2003) [Google Scholar], and Landman (2004) Landman, Todd. 2004. Measuring Human Rights, Practice and Policy. Human Rights Quarterly, 26(4): 906–931. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar] on conceptual issues. The 2003 annual conference of the International Association of Official Statisticians organized by the Swiss Statistical Office was devoted to this issue and included many papers on innovations in methodology for use of measures and use of statistics in event-based indicators. By now there is a rich literature on the conceptual and methodological approaches to measuring human rights. See overviews of the literature in Hertel and Minkler 2007 for economic and social rights, Landman 2004 for civil and political rights. 2. See Rosga and Satterthwaite (2008) for a detailed analysis of the proposals. 3. This is the methodology used for example by Freedom House (2008) Freedom House. 2008. Freedom in the World viewed 22 January 2009, [Google Scholar]. 4. See CESCR (1990) Committee On Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR). 1990. General Comment No. 3: The Nature of States Parties Obligations (Art. 2, par. 1). (Fifth Session), UN Doc. e/1991/23, Annex III, viewed 22 January 2009 [Google Scholar]; UN (1945) United Nations. 1945. Charter of the United Nations (San Francisco, 26 June 1945), Art. 1 par. 3. 3 (entered into force 24 Oct. 1945) [Google Scholar] Art. 1, para. 3; CCPR (2004) Committee On Civil and Political Rights (CCPR). 2004. viewed 22 January 2009, General Comment No. 31: The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant (Art. 2) (2187th Meeting, 21 March 2004), UN Doc. CCPR/C/74/CRP.4/Rev.6. [Google Scholar]. 5. An example of this is the Metagora project, based at OECD, which was a major international effort to develop the use of indicators in human rights assessment. 6. For example, in 2000, the Human Development Report on Human Rights (UNDP 2000) argued a composite index would not be appropriate because of: lack of reliable data on many essential human rights such as political freedom and dimensions such as participation and transparency; and dangers of misuse, overuse, and abuse for purposes other than building human rights accountability. In 2005, a three-day workshop held at the Harvard Carr Center that brought together nearly 50 leading members of the human rights community recommended against pursuing a composite index approach (Carr Center 2005). They argued that both the Human Development Report 2000 and the Carr Center Workshop were concerned that human rights advocacy should focus on specific issues at the country level and that country rankings could be "fundamentally dangerous"; such rankings could be politically explosive and could only be taken up to oversimplify human rights challenges. 7. The right to food is guaranteed in the UDHR, Art. 25; (UN 1948), ICESCR Art. 11 (UN 1966a), and CRC Art. 24 (UN 1989), and is discussed and clarified in ICESCR General Comment 12 (CCESCR 1999). 8. UDHR, Art. 26 (UN 1948); ICESCR Art. 13 (UN 1966a); and CRC Art. 28 (UN 1989). 9. UDHR, Art. 25 (UN 1948); ICESCR, Art. 12 (UN 1966a); and CESCR General Comment 14 (CESCR 1999). 10. UDHR, Art. 21 (UN 1948); ICESCR, Art. 11 (UN 1966a); CERD Art. 5e (UN 1965). 11. UDHR Art. 23 (UN 1948); ICESCR Art. 6 (UN 1966a). 12. UDHR Art. 22 (UN 1948); ICESCR Art. 6 (UN 1966a). 13. Supra, note 4. 14. See, e.g., Human Rights Council (2007) Human Rights Council. 2007. Resolution 5/1, Institution-building of the United Nations Human Rights Council (18 June) [Google Scholar] Resolution 5/1, "UN Human Rights Council: Institution Building" (June 18, 2007), establishing the Human Rights Council Complaint Procedure in compliance with General Assembly Resolution 60/251, "Human Rights Council" (Sixtieth Session, April 3, 2006). 15. See Supra, note 4. 16. See ICESCR Art. 3, para 2 (UN 1966a); UDHR Art. 1 & 2 (UN 1948). 17. In particular, UDHR (UN 1948 United Nations. 1948. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted 10 Dec. 1948, United Nations General Assembly Res. 217 A (III) (1948)New York [Google Scholar]); ICESCR (1966a) United Nations. 1966a. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), 1966. adopted 16 Dec. 1966, G.A. Res. 2200 (XXI), U.N. Gaor, 21st Sess., Supp. No. 16, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 993 U.N.T.S. 3 (entered into force 3 Jan. 1976) [Google Scholar]; ICERD (UN 1965 United Nations. 1965. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, adopted 21 Dec. 1965, G.A. Res. 2106 (XX), U.N.T.S. 195 (entered into force 4 Jan. 1969) [Google Scholar]); ICCPR (UN 1966b); CEDAW (UN 1979); and CRC (UN 1989). 18. See ICESCR, Art. 3, para 1 (UN 1966a). 19. See ICESCR, Art. 3, para 1 (UN 1966a). 20. See Dani Rodrik (2008) Rodrik, D. 2008. One Economics, Many Recipes: Globalization, Institutions, and Economic Growth, Princeton: Princeton University Press. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]. 21. Data Source: OECD Program for International Student Assessment. 22. See ICESCR (UN 1966a) and General Comment No. 15, Nov. 2002. 23. Percent children under 5 well nourished = 100 – child stunting rate. 24. Child survival rate = (1000 – under 5 mortality rate)/10. 25. Assisted birth rate = Percent of births attended by skilled health personnel. 26. Non-poor rate = 100 - $1 poverty rate. 27. Normal birth weight rate = 100 - % infants with low birth weight. 28. Av. Percent PISA score = (.5 PISA science score + .5 PISA math score)/10. 29. Percent not long-term unemployed = 100 – long-term unemployment rate. 30. Percent not relatively poor = 100 – Percent below 50 percent median income. 31. See Uppsala Conflict Data Program and the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo. (2007) Uppsala Conflict Data Program and The International Peace Research Institute, Oslo. 2007. UCDP/PRIO Armed Conflict Dataset Codebook: Version 4-2008" viewed 22 January 2009, [Google Scholar]. UCDP/PRIO Armed Conflict Dataset Codebook: Version 4-2008 and Gleditsch, Wallensteen, Eriksson, Sollenberg, and Strand (2002). This data base defines a major military conflict as a country in which there are at least 1,000 battle-related deaths in a given year. 32. Specifically, those countries with a code of two on the variable "Int" in the "UCDP/PRIO Armed Conflict Dataset: Version 4-2008." 33. See Cingranelli and Richards (2007) Cingranelli, David and Richards, David. 2007. "Measuring Government Effort to Respect Economic Human Rights: a peer benchmark". In Economic Rights: Conceptual, Measurement and Policy Issues, Edited by: Minkler, A. and Hertel, S. New York: Cambridge University Press. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]. 34. Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) is a project funded by USAID and other donors implemented by ORC Macro. See Web site: http://www.measuredhs.com/.