Mostly just getting ready for my trip today, not much insight to report in terms of rights and development. Getting ready to go to Benin is a challenge in packing, but not for the obvious reasons. The question of what to bring is balanced by the knowledge that I can, of course, get most stuff I need there, if I don't remember to bring it. I find packing more about comfort than anything else: what tokens of home will help me on a six-month excursion? Bringing the luxuries actually becomes more important than bringing the basics.
When I was in my 20s I lived a year in Bangladesh, and tried to stay out of the expat zones as much as I could. I looked at the embassy and USAID people, living in relatively luxurious situations and hanging out at the expat clubs, and thought "how can they really know what is going on, if they live that way?" But, as I get older, not unexpectedly I see things differently. I want a bit of comfort, and if I'm to be away from home for a long time I want the trappings of a "normal" life. This is not less judgmental than I used to be, towards those who want to be comfortable.
Sunday, September 23, 2018
Tuesday, September 18, 2018
Norm Avoidance and Rights-based approaches
I'm finishing an article now on "Headwinds and Tailwinds for the Rights-Based Approach for Development." I'm trying to summarize some of the factors in favor of RBA and some against. In favor are the normative argument that a rights-development link is the "right thing to do"; the still-shaky argument that RBA is more effective than other approaches; the support of the UN and its agencies; and a few other things. Against are institutional inertia (as agencies want to continue "business as usual"; state pressure, from states that don't like being lectured to about human rights; lack of evidence of effectiveness; and traditional sovereignty rules.
One thing this has me thinking about is norm "evasion", as my colleague Zoltan Buzas likes to put it: states that pretend to adhere to letter of international norms, but also try to avoid the spirit of the norm. I think there is a lot of that here: no one wants to say "we oppose a rights-based approach," but there are ways to avoid its spirit. Primarily this means repackaging traditional development approaches as RBA; for example, to continue to emphasize growth in export sectors and repackage this as empowering workers; or to keep with traditional health initiatives and repackage them as guaranteeing "a right to health".
This raises an interesting IR theory question: is it a "norm" if states don't adhere to it? I'm sorting through that, too, right now. How many states have to accept it before its a norm? I realize this isn't a new question, but I do think its one that is getting ignored too much. Most of what I've read is on the systemic level: how do we know the system has accepted a norm? But it rarely asks how many individual states need to adhere...its always about collective data. Keep an eye out for the article, hopefully I'll have some answers by the time I submit it!
One thing this has me thinking about is norm "evasion", as my colleague Zoltan Buzas likes to put it: states that pretend to adhere to letter of international norms, but also try to avoid the spirit of the norm. I think there is a lot of that here: no one wants to say "we oppose a rights-based approach," but there are ways to avoid its spirit. Primarily this means repackaging traditional development approaches as RBA; for example, to continue to emphasize growth in export sectors and repackage this as empowering workers; or to keep with traditional health initiatives and repackage them as guaranteeing "a right to health".
This raises an interesting IR theory question: is it a "norm" if states don't adhere to it? I'm sorting through that, too, right now. How many states have to accept it before its a norm? I realize this isn't a new question, but I do think its one that is getting ignored too much. Most of what I've read is on the systemic level: how do we know the system has accepted a norm? But it rarely asks how many individual states need to adhere...its always about collective data. Keep an eye out for the article, hopefully I'll have some answers by the time I submit it!
Monday, September 17, 2018
Resurrecting the blog
I started this blog as an experiment, to see how it would work...and the answer was, not super-well. Just didn't have enough to say at that time. BUT, I'm going to give it another try! I will be moving to Cotonou, Benin, to teach at the University of Abomey-Calavi and hopefully get some research done as well. Hope to post photos, observations, and other things here as I go along; possibly some in French, but with translations, since a large part of this adventure has the goal of improving my mediocre French language abilities. I have a little less than two weeks before I ship out to Cotonou: I'll post on occasion as I get ready, then start for real once I arrive.
Monday, February 1, 2016
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.
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.
Monday, January 18, 2016
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.
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.
Thursday, January 14, 2016
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 13, 2016
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.
“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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)