Legal change vs. Social change in India

I imagine this story in the New York times, about the challenges poor (and lower caste) women in India face in breaking social restrictions and taboos, is getting a lot of play. I read it carefully, and had a few thoughts. First, it reminded me of articles (like this one) I've assigned to students, about the difference between legal rights and rights that can be achieved in a real social environment. Its one thing to pass laws that guarantee people their rights; its even something to enforce those laws through legal mechanisms. But until social norms change, and societies alter the way they see women and other groups, these laws will never be fully implemented to change people's lives. The "discourse of rights" has, for too long, been focused on legal change, and many of the top organizations fighting for rights are probably way to focused on legal change rather than social change. This doesn't mean that laws aren't important, but they're also, often, not enough.

On second thought, though, I saw another thing here. There is a place where some legal change would help women and lower-caste people like those in the story, but that's more about "access to justice" programs than it is about the law itself. The story tellingly discusses how women were, or were not, able to find lawyers and police willing and able to back up their claims. Laws can be powerful, but they aren't enough without the infrastructure to make them accessible, and unless people have enough education to understand what their options are. Its important in economic development programs to make these options available. And as a previous post posted out, studies by international organizations involved in this work have revealed a dismal record in actually making these changes operational. There just isn't the capacity to fight the entrenched legal system that has no interest in protecting people's rights. So, the answer seems to be that one has to work from both ends towards the middle, changing both the law and the social environment around it. This may seem obvious, but far too many development programs fail to see this; they work on one side or the other only. Its time for a more holistic view of what it means to "implement" rights, and see how these rights feed into the larger goals of development.

Assessing the rights-development link

My initial interest in Human Rights and Development came from the idea of measurement: how do we measure the effectiveness of a rights-based approach to development? This was, I thought and still think, the "holy grail" of development studies: if one can really show a link between rights, civil liberties, democracy, and development, in a mathematically rigorous way, this would give a lot of impetus to the movement for RBA and the promotion of human rights across cultures. Indeed, the book manuscript I now have under review came back with a reviewer's comment that I don't consider enough the possibility that rights do NOT promote development; the reviewer clearly had China and other fast-growing Asian economies (eg Singapore, Vietnam) where there are not real civil liberties yet fast growth and good distribution of income. Its still an open question.

When I started this project, I visited the assessment people at UNDP and other agencies to look for data I could use. To some extent, I realize now, I was being naive, and getting a lot of looks that implied they thought I was a little crazy. The big problem was that I was trying to look at whether rights led to greater GDP growth; that's what I mean when I asked "does it work?" On the other hand, a lot of the UNDP and UNICEF people weren't all that concerned about economic growth; they were, following Amartya Sen I suppose, defining development as rights promotion; thus the question "does it work" related to "are we really helping people achieve their rights?" rather than is there a growth in economic activity. It might be refined a bit -- are women's incomes growing, are the incomes of marginalized groups growing? -- but the general idea was still to look beyond these measures. Yet there's an obvious problem, for wouldn't the growth of, say, women's incomes be a good indicator that women's rights were being recognized? It might or might not be that rights make people more economically successful, but surely they give people more access to the economy, and surely that has to show up in standards economic figures? So, in retrospect, I think I was probably closer to something accurate than I had at first realized.

In my manuscript I point out that this problem still bedevils UN agencies and others. One report after another about RBA, commissioned to rate project effectiveness, starts off by stating how hard it is to come up with any real figures on effectiveness. Its just too hard to say that, say, working for the rights of lower-caste people in India through legal empowerment or access to information actually leads to real results in people's lives. What do you measure, if not economic activity? And even if you show that its growing, how can you draw a clear line of causation? You can't. It would be nice to find a methodology to do so, and perhaps some sort of social controlled quasi-experimentation would work some time, but I fear I don't have the statistical skills to pull something like that off. Still, the lack of really good assessment tools would be concerning, except for the fact that no one seems that concerned. Rights are a good thing in and of themselves, of course, and you don't have to "prove" that in any traditional way. But it would be nice if you could.

Human rights, sexual orientation, and gender identity

I'm reading today about human rights, sexual orientation, and gender identity. This is as part of my interest in the UNDP's work to push for "third gender" rights in Nepal. Its interesting to read some of this; I'm looking now at a paper by Nicholas Barry about theoretical justifications for "sexual orientation and gender identity" (SOGI) rights, based on Ronald Dworkin's idea of political rights as "trumps over otherwise adequate justifications for political action. " He argues that Charles Beitz's justification for rights, which relies too much on what is actually achievable in the political realm, is inadequate to justify this. I disagree somewhat with his argument; he seems to think that Beitz is rejecting any rights claim that will be political difficult to implement under current conditions, and that therefore there is little aspirational in it, while I doubt thats what Beitz means; I read Beitz as making more a point about "ought implies can," meaning that rights that could not work under any circumstances would be problematic.

More to the point, though, is the fact that there are a number of ways of justifying attention on these issues. The UN comes to SOGI/LGBT rights through the prism of HIV/AIDS. Look at my book "Power and Principle," in the chapter on the WHO; that agency is dragged kicking and screaming to the idea of rights, by Dr. Jonathan Mann, entirely on the basis of how to effectively combat the spread of the AIDS virus. Its so contentious, in fact, that the Global Programme on AIDS has to be spun off from WHO and given to UNAIDS. I think WHO sill has a very hard time dealing with human rights and "right to health" issues, because of their technical orientation. UNDP, UNICEF, et.al., to my understanding, are of two minds. A lot of people in these agencies still see LGBT rights as needing justification through public health arguments, the "argument from effectiveness" as I've put it (that is, that defending these rights is effective at pursuing some independent goal). But I think what UNDP has been doing in Nepal is more along the lines of "this is right in and of itself." That's Dworkin's argument for rights, less dependent on a utilitarian argument and more based on the good of preserving human freedom and dignity. But this is not an easy sell outside the "traditional" human rights machinery, although it is gaining some traction.

Event at the UN on January 26th

Here is a notice for an event I'm organizing at the UN: Please come if you can!

“The UN confronting war and violence: Lessons after 70 years.”

The International Studies Association and the United Nations Academic Impact will host a special panel discussion on January 26th at the United Nations from 10am to 1pm (please arrive no later than 9:30am). The topic will be “The UN confronting war and violence: Lessons after 70 years.” Confirmed speakers include Jean Krasno (CCNY); Arturo Sotomayor (University of Texas – San Antonio); Cyril Obi (SSRC); Rima Salah (Former Deputy Executive Director of UNICEF) and Hardeep Singh Puri (Secretary-General of the Independent Commission on Multilateralism and Vice President of the International Peace Institute).  Others panelist(s) may be included. This event is free and open to the public.
Please register by January 20 through an email to academicimpact@un.org with ISA-UNAI in the subject line; we will reply only if it so happens that there is no more room.

Attendees should  to the UNITAR building, 801 United Nations Plaza, located at the northwest corner of First Avenue at 45th Street between 9.00 and 9.30 am on the 26th. We will not be able to accept anyone after this time. (Please refer to the attached map for details.)

Once through security you will be guided to the conference room.

This event will kick-off a series of future discussions between ISA members, UN staff, and members of the diplomatic community, cosponsored with United Nations Academic Impact. Members of the ISA are invited to suggest topics and panel members to the ISA, which will support applications on a competitive basis and find UN counterparts for interactive, informal discussions. Panel suggestions will be reviewed by a committee comprising Severine Autesserre (Columbia University); Jacqueline Braveboy-Wagner (CUNY); Kurt Mills (University of Glasgow); Delidji Eric Degila (Sciences Po Lyon); and Joel Oestreich (Drexel University). Inquiries can be directed to Joel Oestreich, jeo25@drexel.edu.

Pretty interested in what will happen to the right to peace concept as it moves forward. Is this the ultimate in promising people a right to things they can't actually have? Is it like a "right to health," (which, I often point out, is not really what is being promised when people talk more about a right to health care). Rights are often aspirational, such as a right to education, which can't be immediately guaranteed in most places but should be worked towards. A "right to peace" might be put in that category. It might also be said to involve a host of other rights which can be achieved: democracy (based on the notion that democracies don't go to war with each other); bodily integrity; religious freedom; and so forth. If its a UN document, it also fits well with the UN's overall goal of promoting international peace; maybe its mostly a way to further sanctify other UN goals. On the other hand, it might become something of a laughing-stock, proof that the word "right" has been tossed around so much that its become unmoored from its intended meaning. I hope not, and it seems like it can be deployed in a way that keeps its importance while avoiding seeming like a joke of some sort.

Bridging the Digital Divide?

Interesting post today in the World Bank's "Africa Can End Poverty" blog (linked to the right also) about bridging the "digital divide" in Africa as a way to fight corruption and poor governance. I think the jury's stil out on the link between internet connectivity and development. There has been a lot of easy talk in World Bank and UNDP about using information technology to increase transparency, facilitate democratic participation, empower people with legal knowledge, and the like. And its fairly obvious that there is a lot of potential here: it ought to work, and no one can be against spreading knowledge and information. Of course, that last sentence is not entirely true: governments are often against spreading such knowledge, and many do resist internet connectivity for their citizens, or at least, fully free connectivity.

The Jordan case linked above shows that capacity is important, and I think that's been a theme in all the projects I've looked at; the Bank, governments, UNDP, etc., just don't have the expertise to implement all these projects effectively, and pretty often seem to underestimate how complex they will be. These organizations usually seem to rely on very young, inexperienced staff to implement these complex projects, often embedded in local bureaucracies that are either disinterested or actually resistant to change. In education, there has been disappointment with the idea of bringing computers to all students, both domestically and internationally. In the judicial reform projects I cited in an earlier post, the effect of using computers to bring legal knowledge to "the people" as well as jurists was mixed at best, and largely ineffective.

Still, in Kenya they are reporting a lot of success, from the ability of people to instantly report being shaken down for bribes, to the use of cellphones to check food security and market prices, and the gathering of more data on development projects. In the human rights field, the "right to information" is a key human right in and of itself, regardless of how it empowers people; but empower it does and importantly. I think, though, that its a mistake for development agencies to spend TOO much money and time on technology until more fundamental things -- like literacy, and anti-corruption efforts -- are in place, or they will be doomed to fail, or at least to cost more money than they're worth. But I'm interested to see more evidence of successful projects where information technology has really empowered citizens beyond what they could do through more "traditional" means.

Nicholas Kristof has an op-ed in the Times about the plight of the Rohingya in Myanmar (Burma). This got me thinking about what the UN might be doing, and in particular about the rights-development link. In India, I had a chance to visit Chhattisgarh State, where the Indian government confronts a Naxalite insurgency. The UNDP and UNICEF were active in this region and others facing civil unrest, working to bring relief to both sides and to make resolution of the conflict a priority.

I was surprised, therefore, and quite disappointed to find essentially nothing on UN websites about the Rohingya in Myanmar, outside of the UN Human Rights and Refugee machinery. Nothing at all in the UNDP Annual Report; the UNICEF Report briefly mentions "Internally Displaced People" in Rakhine State (the epicenter of the problem) but says very little, and never mentions Rohingya specifically. Evidently, back in 2014 UNICEF used the word "Rohingya" in a report and may or may not have apologized to the government! (Update: It appears the Secretary General himself has been asked not to mention the Rohingya publicly.)

This is at odds with the proclaimed goals of these agencies, which make promotion of human rights -- all human rights -- part of the very definition of development in their work. But its also a reminder of how political these issues really are. In my India research I spoke with a highly placed UNDP staff person who claimed that she would be just as willing in Laos (her former post) to bring up rights, as she was in India; and the former Resident Representative insisted he too pushed for rights everywhere he worked. But there are, evidently, exceptions. What is surprising is that this is true even with Aung San Suu Kyi as effective head of government, as Kristof points out. I'd like to think that these agencies are pushing behind the scenes for change, but its not at all clear that this is the case. 

Trade and Poverty -- intriguing short articles in ISR

The December 2015 International Studies Review (vol 17, no. 4) has an interesting series of short pieces on the link between international trade and poverty alleviation. It remains a surprising non-surprise to hear Nita Rudra and Kristen Skillman point out that there is no convincing research that globalization and trade helps the poor. This despite the millions of people pulled out of poverty in China and India most notably; it seems likely, as the authors point out, that globalization and trade are only of many factors that have to interact in order to see the positive effects on poverty.

I was particularly intrigued by Helen Milner and Nita Rudra's point that states often have an incentive to retain their informal economy, even in the presence of a growing formal economy; the informal economy soaks up surplus labor, keeps wages low, and provides more flexibility. An example from Nigeria certainly seemed to fit with my own experience living and working there, admittedly many years ago, and also more recent work in India and Bangladesh. Edmund Malesky points out how transfer pricing can be manipulated to hide profits and spirit them out of countries: he recounts an interesting anecdote in which Coca Cola greatly expands their presence in Vietnam while denying that they have ever made a profit there! And Pablo Beramendi and Erik Wibbels show in another way the complexity of understanding corporate profits on pro-poor policies by showing the uncertainties inherent in the varying abilities of states to tax and spend in a pro-poor way. All worthwhile reading.

I was reminded of research I've done recently on the effect of democracy and human rights in economic growth. The rights-based approach is central now to most agencies, yet the connection is a hard one to make. My current manuscript, under review as I write, was criticized by the ever-challenging "reviewer number two" because I failed to mention the evidence that non-democratic, authoritarian governments might actually have better development outcomes than democratic ones; India and China, of course, being the exemplars. (Leaving aside exactly the nature of democracy and participation in India.) My point is that we want to see these connections, but they are awfully difficult to pin down, given the complexity of all that goes into national progress. Particularly all the politics that goes out outside the ballot-box. The ISQ articles reinforce that intuition.

Transgender rights and HIV/AIDS

I'm starting a new project on transgender rights in Nepal. I'm very interested in the decisions in Nepal that have led to an official "third gender" category on Nepali IDs, and the resulting legal protections.

In doing some quick searches on the UNDP's website about transgender rights, I'm struck by the fact that nearly every document I've found refers to transgender people and HIV/AIDS. This surprises me a little, since my experience looking at transgender "hijra" in India suggests that UNDP and other agencies are interested in far more than HIV/AIDS issues when discussing these groups. They also feel that there is a basic human rights and inclusivity issue; these are people who are historically discriminated against and excluded from regular society, and protecting their rights is an element of development in an HRBA system.

On the other hand, this is consistent with a lot of my other research on rights, where I see the reluctance of UN agencies to admit that they want to promote rights for rights' sake. Thus women's rights are important because women make up so much human capital; indigenous peoples' rights are important because of their knowledge of sustainable land use policies; etc. So I assume that the promoting of LGBT rights with the justification that this helps prevent the spread of AIDS, is a similar smokescreen at least in some situations; a way of making a "practical" justification for a larger rights issue. I hope that's the case, anyway, as it would suggest a real commitment to LGBT rights for their own sake, like the one I saw in India, is spreading to other countries as well.

Judicial reform, real results, and politics

I've just looked over a World Bank assessing the performance of a judicial modernization project in Azerbaijan. You can find it here: Azerbaijan Judicial Modernization Project. Its a pretty damning document, and reminds me a lot of one I read some years ago about a project in, I think, Uzbekistan trying to do much the same thing. (I can't seem to quickly track down the Uzbek project; if I find it, I'll include the link.) The assessment lists a litany of things that went wrong: unrealistic project goals, use of vague terminology and catch-phrases with little idea of what they mean, poor planning, little buy-in from the government, and a lack of expertise and capacity, among other things. The overall project was rated "unsatisfactory" and it sounds like little or nothing was really accomplished, other than convincing the people of Azerbaijan that the World Bank has no idea what its talking about.

It reminded me a lot of projects I looked at in India during my research time there. I heard a lot of stories about "trainings" for Indian judges and judicial officials, during which most of the participants were playing games on their phones or just napping. Its not that they don't care about doing their jobs well, but more that they doubt these trainers know anything they don't already. Its also because these projects don't really get at the political and bureaucratic problems that hold back effective legal processes. Its not about just throwing around phrases like "transparency" or "rule of law" and then getting the judges on board; they're part of a system that moves on whatever they're doing; and in any bureaucracy, the incentives imposed on actors by the system are far more powerful than than whatever new ideas (often not really so new) are brought by well-meaning foreigners.

What could make these programs more effective? One problem, I think, is that the incentives for Bank and UNDP staff, for example, are just way, way different than those of local staff. Development agency personnel still feel pressure to "get things done": to set up a project, hire consultants, hold trainings. When its found that the project was a dud, most of these staff will have moved on anyway. That's an old problem. Also, these agencies are still only at the beginning of really tackling the governance problems that lie at the heart of these inefficiencies. No one truly wants to tackle the big problems, like fighting the corruption that leads judges and lawyers to act arbitrarily; its just too political. I think that staff is slowly starting to appreciate that they have to get into the guts of a political system to affect real change in governance, but there is a long way to go.

Working with hijra (transgender) communities in India

I hope the good people at http://duckofminerva.com/ won't mind if I re-post this, from a few years ago...

A few days ago I met the woman in the attached photograph. Her name is Karima. She is a college graduate who was born a male and, at 21, had gender reassignment surgery. Some time later she entered the “Miss Transgender India” contest and took fifth place. Her boyfriend, out of jealousy, set her on fire (her neck, torso, and upper arms show terrible scars) and broke her leg so badly that she can no longer stand unassisted.

After that experience, Karima joined a group of “hijra”. In India, hijra are communities of transgendered people who identify as women or who have actually had sex-change surgery. Shunned, or worse, by society, they survive largely by begging, by dancing and giving (or withholding) blessings at weddings, or through sex work. They normally have few other employment options, and can expect little protection from government and the police. Usually groups of hijra are led by “gurus” who exploit the “chelas”, or disciples, under them, taking their earnings and forcing them into sex work.

I met Karima because she was participating in a program, run by a local NGO and sponsored by the UN Development Programme, to teach the transgender community about their civil rights. The training, which took place over two weeks in the city of Raipur in Chhattisgarh state, included talks and exercises on legal remedies, community organizing, right to information issues, and petitioning for government action. It also had psychological social workers talk about building self-esteem, and an effort to build job skills. The NGO is talking to employers about finding jobs for hijras.

Why is the UN sponsoring such programs? The idea of a “human rights based approach to development” began with talk about many economic and social rights – the right to food, shelter, education – but has led UN agencies increasingly towards promoting civil and political rights as well. That means working with marginalized groups such as lower castes and untouchables, indigenous (“tribal”) peoples, and even hijra. It also means promoting social change, and challenging government power. This happens at the highest level – where, for example, UN agencies have quietly pushed back against Indian government opposition to providing aid in areas held by Maoist rebels – and at the local level – where NGO workers on UNDP projects have been roughed up for promoting lower-caste rights. Of course the UN agencies understand their limits, and in the past UN officials have been asked to leave – quietly – for speaking of rights too much. But its no longer a taboo topic.

There’s no upbeat ending to Karima’s story. This tiny project in one state is hardly likely to change very many lives; it’s a pinprick in the vast social fabric of India. True reform will require Indian action, not anything the UN can do. But it points to interesting changes in how human rights are pursued by the UN system. And is indicative of how the very meaning of development has undergone a transformation internationally

Leadership in International Organizations

Currently reading the new James P. Grant biography, A Might Purpose, by Adam Fifield. I've had the privilege of corresponding with Fifield recently and he'd done an amazing job of explaining what Grant was able to accomplish through brilliant ideas, force of will, and unwavering energy. I'll say more about this when I get through more of it. Its a great read but I'm short of time.

It does have me thinking about the importance of leadership in international organizations, though. I get the sense that for those who work in IOs, its obvious that leadership makes an enormous difference. Just ask anyone who worked at the World Bank under James Wolfensohn, and then had the pleasure of doing the same under Paul Wolfowitz! Political Scientists have been playing catch-up for a while on the importance of leadership rather than the influence of member states, or the political economy of bureaucracies (and their desire for more resources, influence, etc.). A lot of good literature is being produced here, under the general theoretical model of "constructivism" for the most part.

In my pending book on HRBA in India, the importance of good leadership comes up again and again. The meaning of HRBA for, say, the country Health strategy for UNICEF is often not clear to staff; and even when it is, if they aren't convinced that it leads to measurable results, they will be nervous about putting too many resources or too much time into it. Good leaders are needed to make staff feel comfortable using HRBA when their training leads them in other directions. This isn't captured well in a lot of the writing on HRBA but needs to be explored further, and has powerful explanatory power in looking at cross-national variation in implementation.

Terrorism and development -- what is the link?

I’ve been thinking a lot about the link between development and terrorism lately, and where (if anywhere) the UN machinery can fit into the fight against terror. (I ought to say I use the phrase “fight against terror” knowing its clumsy and inaccurate. I was always one of those who thought the whole concept of a “war on terrorism” was odd, as if after Pearl Harbor the US had declared “a war on torpedo bombers.”   But I’ll use it here anyway.) President Obama recently gave a statement linking climate change, poverty, and terrorism; Bernie Sanders did much the same thing. Their logic was clear enough: climate change will lead to more poverty and dislocation, which leads desperate people to turn to extreme political groups, which leads to violence and terrorism. I assume thrown in there is also the potential for conflict over natural resources: desertification and water shortage and short growing seasons will cause people to fight over shrinking land and water resources, and this sort of violence breeds terrorism.

The fact is that most research fails to find a connection between poverty and terrorism. The studies I’ve looked at recently, interestingly, all start by noting that the standard assumption is that there is a connection; they then go on to refute it, and act surprised by their findings. The connection makes some intuitive sense, of course, particularly when you talk about “suicide” attacks: a rational actor approach has to assume that the suicide attacker finds more perceived value in a glorious death than in their potential life prospects. But one study after another suggests that income and education may even be positively correlated with participation and terrorism and violence. Certainly the people involved in the recent Paris and San Bernadino attacks were not from “the poorest of the poor.”

That’s not to say that conflict isn’t likely to stem from climate change, overpopulation, environmental pressure, and other similar factors. “The wars of the 21^st century will be wars over water” is a popular phrase, and if we aren’t quite seeing water wars yet, the pressure is certainly building in many parts of the world.

What does correlate with terrorism is political freedom. The research seems pretty clear there. A match between expectations and opportunities also correlates with terrorist activities: people who have higher expectations but feel stymied by the social conditions they live under – whether in Syria or Belgium – are easier to recruit for extreme ideologies. So development broadly understood – a definition of development that includes not just economic growth, but how that growth is shared, how its perceived, and also how political systems and human rights interact with growth – does play a role in who turns to terrorism and other extremism.

In that respect, RBA would seem to be a good way of fighting terrorism in the long-term, so long as RBA means that rights, the progress of women, political reform, transparency, and good governance are part of the package. This goes well beyond the simple “public diplomacy” outreach that some advocate, and really means getting into the guts of how governments function. Unfortunately, there is precious little courage for this in current bilateral development policy. UN agencies seem to be a bit more courageous, but only a bit: still, they do promote good governance and political accountability. There is obvious need to see more resources put here, but that does not just mean financial resources. It will also have to be the political resources needed to really press for reform in countries that are resistant to it. It’s a surprise to me that policy makers in the US and elsewhere do not seem more prepared to stand behind the UN in these efforts.

This blog is a work in progress; if you stumble across it in these early days, please give me a little time to get it up and running. I will soon be adding some posts, other blogs I follow, and additional material.

I would like to use this blog to share my thoughts on a few things. I currently have a book manuscript under review at a press; the book is on how UN agencies view the rights-based approach to development in the Indian context, and how they implement that agenda. I am particularly interested in the political side of that process; how they pursue this agenda despite the fact that it is much more overly political than other activities they might be involved in. Its one thing to help a country immunize its children, or build irrigation projects; its quite another to tell them to respect the rights of indigenous peoples, or to set aside seats in political bodies for women. Those sorts of activities would seem to challenge national sovereignty in a way "traditional" development projects do not.

I also have a long-standing interest in how International Relations theory views the independence of UN agencies. They are, theoretically, accountable to member states, and supposed to follow the directives of those states; in fact, however, they show considerable independence and the ability to set their own agenda. They even sometimes use their own opinions to press members states on issues those members might prefer to ignore. How they do this sheds light on the ways in which traditional IR theory fails to understand these agencies. My project helps build towards a better understanding of this.

I also anticipate working on a project regarding the transgender community in Nepal, and the policy of UN agencies to promote transgender ("hijra") rights there.

More coming soon. Please feel free to reach out to me if you want to discuss any of these topics, or my blogging in general.