1 / 42

Measuring Progress in Democracy and Human Rights: Why? How? To whom?

Measuring Progress in Democracy and Human Rights: Why? How? To whom? By Jan Robert Suesser and Raul Suarez de Miguel Second OECD World Forum on Statistics, Knowledge and Policy: “Measuring and Fostering the Progress of Societies” Istanbul, Turkey, 27-30 July 2007.

ringo
Download Presentation

Measuring Progress in Democracy and Human Rights: Why? How? To whom?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Measuring Progress in Democracy and Human Rights: Why? How? To whom? By Jan Robert Suesser and Raul Suarez de Miguel Second OECD World Forum on Statistics, Knowledge and Policy: “Measuring and Fostering the Progress of Societies” Istanbul, Turkey, 27-30 July 2007

  2. INDICATORS OF PROGRESSIN THE AGE OF GLOBAL HUMANISM

  3. AN 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) • Now, happiness ?

  4. A GLOBAL PARADIGM OF PROGRESS • Universally shared values • Universally shared goals • Universally shared tools

  5. THREEKEY DIMENSIONS OF PROGRESS… • Human rights • Democratic participation • Governance and accountability … THAT DESERVE PROPER MEASUREMENT

  6. A NEED FOR EVIDENCE-BASED ASSESSMENT IS EMERGING WORLDWIDE • Huge demand for robust data and meaningful indicators (national policy actors and civil society, international institutions, development agencies). • Many measuring initiatives are being implemented in different regions of the world. Partly identified through a global survey, these initiatives are being documented in an inventory, available on-line in: www.metagora.org.

  7. ON-GOING MEASURING EFFORTS INCLUDE: • Global initiatives to build indicators of democracy, human rights and governance • Regional initiatives to set-up evidence-based monitoring mechanisms • Nationaland local initiatives to measure human rights and democratic governance

  8. THESE INITIATIVES PRESENT SEVERAL LIMITATIONS: • International indicators are of rather limited use in assessing the impact of national policies. Their sources and methods are often opaque and their comparative scope (ranking) is broadly questioned. • Regionalinitiatives are still incipient. • Nationaland localinitiatives are too often based on rather rudimentary quantitative methods. They are implemented with very limited human, technical and financial resources.

  9. 2. THE METAGORA PROJECT: APPROACH, METHOD AND LESSONS

  10. CAN HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE REALLY BE MEASURED ? • By whom? • With which methods? • Under which conditions? • For which purposes?

  11. METAGORA FORMULATES RESPONSES, RELYING ON ITS 2004-2006 EXPERIENCE Several pilot national experiences were carried out in various regions of the world.These pilot experiences, which willingly addressed sensitive issues, were selected by national stakeholders in different political, social and cultural contexts

  12. A Decentralized Laboratory Content

  13. THESE PILOT EXPERIENCES WERE CONDUCTED BY SEVERAL ORGANIZATIONS gathering together and sharing their specific expertise within a North/South community : • Human Rights Institutions • Research Organizations • Civil Society Organizations • National Statistical Offices • Governmental bodies

  14. STEERING IMPLEMENTING ASSESSING Committee of Donors Independent Panel of Experts Coordination Team OECD / PARIS21 AAAS USA HSRC South Africa Partners’ Group PCBS Palestine Fundar Mexico DIAL France CHR Philippines SGCA Andean Community Group of NSIs Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Mali, Niger, Senegal, Togo & Madagascar Group of NSIs Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru & Venezuela

  15. ADRESSING SOME 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?

  16. METAGORA METHOD OF WORK (1)A bottom-up approachconsisting of: • identifying with stakeholders national key issues for which evidence-based assessment could be policy relevant; • applying statistical methods adapted to each particular context; • assessing these methods for their capacity to provide policy-relevant results; • providing stakeholders with a shared knowledgeon the policy issues at stake; • contributing to draw shared lessonsfrom the pilot experiences.

  17. METAGORA METHOD OF WORK (2) • The Metagora bottom-up approach complements the top-down global approaches to measure democracy, human rights and governance. • It aims at generating measurement tools which can contribute at designing, implementing and evaluating national and local policies. • Its primary goal is not to compare national performances or to make international ranking, but to address major national issues.

  18. ENHANCING NATIONAL CAPACITIES Metagora promotes and stimulates: • participatory processes based on large consultative mechanisms; • mutual learning among the national stakeholders and actors committed in national pilot experiences; • international transfer of skills; • fostering, through increased authoritative skills, the leading role of key national institutions and actors.

  19. DRAWING LESSONS FROM THE METAGORA PILOT EXPERIENCES 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. 2. On the basis of this information,indicators can be produced that are relevant and useful for political decision and action.

  20. DRAWING LESSONS FROM THE METAGORA PILOT EXPERIENCES 3. Quantitative data and qualitative information can and should interrelate to properly inform assessment of human rights and democratic governance. 4. Official Statistical Agencies can be efficiently involved in various forms in evidence-based assessment of human rights and democratic governance.Nevertheless the decision on such an involvement should be taken along a national coherent strategy for the development of the national statistical system.

  21. DRAWING LESSONS FROM THE METAGORA PILOT EXPERIENCES 5. Quantitative indicators and statistical analysis bringa significant value-added to the work of national Human Rights Institutions. 6. Statistical methods can substantiallyenhance the research and advocacy of civil society organizationsin the fields of human rights and democracy. 7. Available statistical data should be used to structure and inter-relate relevant indicators of social, economic and cultural rights.

  22. DRAWING LESSONS FROM THE METAGORA PILOT EXPERIENCES 8. Indicators gain relevance when they: • Are related to specific public policies and programs; • make evident the accountability of identifiable public authorities; • allow to addressspecific human rights issues for specific populations; • serve as basis for democratic dialogue, policy design and decision-making processes.

  23. DRAWING LESSONS FROM THE METAGORA PILOT EXPERIENCES 9. To become sustainable, statistics and indicators must: • be nationally based and owned (appropriation); • Rely on independent and robust professional basis; • enjoy a broad social and political legitimacy; • be authoritatively institutionalised; • be financed through ad-hoc headings of public budgets.

  24. 3. TOPICAL EXAMPLES OF WHAT CAN BE MEASURED

  25. Persons without contact 76 % Example:measuring irregularities, abuse of power and ill-treatment in Mexico City (Federal District) 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. 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 %

  26. Example:Non-physical abuse in contacts with law enforcement authorities (Survey results correspond to 2,300,000 contacts experienced by 1,520,000 persons)

  27. Example:Reasons for not reporting abuses (spontaneous multi-answer)

  28. Example: incidence of corruption within public agencies in Peru

  29. Example:levels of corruption and civil servants’ wages in Antananarivo, Madagascar

  30. Example:in Peru, support for democratic regime weakens as corruption perception increases

  31. Example:measuring dimensions of democracy: are they fundamental? Are they respected?

  32. Example: comparing expectations for and respect of democratic principles in French speaking Africa

  33. Example: comparing support to democracy in Andean countries

  34. Example: how important is democracy for people in Ecuador?

  35. Example: linking quantitative and qualitative approaches to assess indigenous peoples’ rights in the Philippines

  36. COMPARING OFFICIAL STATISTICS WITH EXPERTS’ VIEWS • Appended Module to Regular Household Surveys conducted by National Statistical Offices in French Speaking Africa (35,600 persons interviewed; 4,500 for each capital city in average);* • Expert panel survey (“Mirror survey”) conducted by DIAL-France (246 persons surveyed; 30 experts for each country in average). * In Madagascar, results are drawn from the 2003 survey.

  37. How far can we trust experts’ opinion ?

  38. How far can we trust experts’ opinion ?

  39. ASSESSING ACHIEVEMENTS, DOCUMENTING PILOT EXPERIENCES AND PRODUCING TRAINING MATERIALS • An independent panel of senior experts is monitoring the process and assessing the outcomes of the Metagora pilot experiences. • Experiences, problems encountered and lessons learned were documented in the form of on-line training materials aimed at facilitating the replication and extension of the pilot experiences in other countries and other contexts.

  40. UPCOMING CHALLENGES • Consolidating the working method • Replicating and extending the pilot experiences • Enlarging the Metagora community • Enhancing the policy impact • Enriching the methodology and tool box • Financing field operations and analytical work

  41. Warm Thanks for Your Attention !

More Related