Measuring Key Dimensions of Progress: Human Rights and Democratic Governance By Raul Suarez de Miguel International Conference… (PUT HERE THE TITLE OF THE CONFERENCE) Sanaa, Yemen, XX-XX April 2007
EVOLVING PARADIGM OF PROGRESS • Enlightenment: knowledge and freedom (18th cent.) • Modern science and technology (19th–20th cent.) • Economic growth / economic integration (40s-60s) • Social integration / fair distribution of wealth (60s) • Quality of life (70s and 80s) • Human development (80s and 90s) • Sustainable development (90s and 00s) • Millennium Development Goals (late 90s and 00s) • Gross National Happiness (00s)
GLOBAL HUMANISM: TODAY’ S PARADIGM OF PROGRESS AND DEVELOPMENT • Universally shared values • Universally shared goals • Universally shared tools
GLOBAL HUMANISM: THREE KEY DIMENSIONS OF DEVELOPMENT • Human rights • Democratic participation • Governance and accountability
CAN THESE KEY DIMENSIONS OF DEVELOPMENT BE MEASURED? • By whom? • With which methods? • Under which conditions? • For which purposes?
through several pilot national experiences carried out in different regions of the world in an interactive fashion.These pilot experiences were willingly selected to address sensitive issues in real difficult environments and in different political, social and cultural contexts. METAGORA FORMULATES A RESPONSE
A Decentralized Laboratory Content
A North/South communitygathering together, on a partnership basis, the multidisciplinary expertise of leading organizations and individuals with different specific skills, missions, institutional profiles and constituencies. WHO IS IMPLEMENTING METAGORA?
METHOD OF WORKA bottom-up approachconsisting of: • identifying with stakeholders national key issues for which evidence-based assessment could be policy relevant; • applying statistical methods adapted to the particular context; • assessing these methods for their capacity to provide national policy-relevant results; • providing stakeholders with a shared knowledge on the policy issues at stake; • contributing to draw global lessons from the local pilot experiences.
A PARTICIPATORY PROCESSbased on local multi-disciplinary teams and consultative mechanisms. This includes: • Around 70 experts working in the various national implementing teams; • Some 100 stakeholders involved in local advisory bodies and mechanisms; • Some 550 stakeholders who have been attending, at the national level, consultation meetings, workshops, training sessions or focal group discussions.
RESPONDING TO BASIC QUESTIONS • Can multidimensional human rights and democratic governance issues be measured through surveys? • Will people respond to sensitive questions? • Will the gathered information be statistically significant and politically relevant? • Can official statistical agencies be involved? • How to build rights-based indicators? • How can qualitative narrative information be coded and processed and subject to statistical analysis? • etc…
LESSON 1 • Measuring human rights and democratic governance is technically feasible and politically relevant. Sensitive data on human rights, democracy and governance can be collected and analysed using statistical tools.
Incidence of contact with public security and procurement of justice authorities Target population: persons aged 15 or more living in the Federal District (6,400,000 persons) Reference period: events occurred between November 2003 and October 2004 Measuring method: random sample household survey, conducted through face-to-face interviews. Persons without contact 76 % Incidence of abuse Type of abuse Persons with contact 24 % Persons without abuse 47 % Persons with abuse 53 % Persons with non-physical abuse 93 % Persons with physical ill-treatment 7 % Example:measuring irregularities, abuse of power and ill-treatment in Mexico City (Federal District)
Example:Non-physical abuse in contacts with law enforcement authorities (Survey results correspond to 2,300,000 contacts experienced by 1,520,000 persons)
LESSON 2 • On the basis of this information,indicators can be produced that are relevant and useful for political decision and action.
Example:levels of corruption and civil servants’ wages in Antananarivo, Madagascar
Example:in Peru, support for democratic regime weakens as corruption perception increases
LESSON 3 • Quantitative data and qualitative information can and should interrelate to properly inform assessment of human rights and democratic governance.
Example: linking quantitative and qualitative approaches to assess indigenous peoples’ rights in the Philippines
LESSON 4 • Official Statistical Agencies can be efficiently involved in evidence-based assessment of human rights and democratic governance.
VARIOUS FORMS OF INVOLVEMENT OF NATIONAL STATISTICAL OFFICES • Leading / conducting measurement • Supporting / advising SCOs based work • Providing SCOs and policy-makers with proper measuring tools
LESSON 5 • Statistical analysis and quantitative indicators bringa significant value-added to the work of national Human Rights Institutions.
LESSON 6 • Statistical methods can substantiallyenhance the research and advocacy of civil society organizationsin the fields of human rights and democracy.
LESSON 7 • Evidence-based assessment of human rights and democratic governance is a widespread need emerging worldwide.Many initiatives in different regions of the world, with approaches and objectives similar to those of Metagora, have been identified and documented.
LESSON 8 • Pilot experienceds, problems encountered and lessons learned were documented in the form of training materials. These aim at facilitating the replication and extension of the pilot experiences in other countries and other contexts.
LESSON 9 • A North/South network of experts and institutions has been consolidated around Metagora and is continuously growing.This operational network, which is unique in the world, is able to provide the international community with skills and capacities for making a decisive jump towards the enhancement of measuring methods and indicators
LESSON 10 Use measuring tools as a policy-oriented engine for: • generating evidence-based assessment and monitoring of progress, • addressing grass-roots, nationally specific concerns and expectations, • developing indicators that reflect what local actors consider important, • enhancing sustainable national capacity to measure and analyze human rights and democratic governance isues, in NGO / official statistics / academic intersection, • replacing fragile expert-based estimates by robust survey-based data and analysis, • enhancings the role of leading national institutions, in particular National Statistical Offices, Civil Society and Academy.
Conclusion: official statistics can inform policies and have a concrete impact. • Mexico: dialogue between human rights institutions, stakeholders, political authorities and heads of law-enforcement authorities; • Philippines: empowerment of stakeholders action and review of census design to increase visibility of indigenous people; • South Africa: institutional follow-up of surveys’ results (Dept of Land Affairs) and improved interaction between stakeholders; • Palestine: concrete interaction and mutual support between the NSO and NGOs in monitoring social and economic rights; • Madagascar and Peru: starting of analysis of impact of policies based on time series produced by NSOs.