Guidelines for Informing Policy via Data

CHAPTER 3 - THE VALUE OF DATA AND INDICATORS AND THEIR ROLE IN POLICY MAKING (page 4)

3.5 THE SPECIFICITY OF DATA AND INDICATORS FOR DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE AND HUMAN RIGHTS MEASUREMENT

3.5.1 Democratic Governance and Human Rights Data Sources

Many authors who have written about democratic governance and human rights monitoring have attempted to categorise the sources of data available for measuring a given State’s compliance with and promotion of human rights norms and principles, and its commitment to democratic governance. Although such categorisation varies from author to author, and although the primary focus can shift between human rights and governance [18], a number of key and recurrent elements can be identified. The sources presented below are not, in any way, exhaustive.

There are numerous potential sources of data for democratic governance and human rights exercises, many of which one might not necessarily think of at first. . Referring to the main data-collection methods presented above, we will now focus on highlighting ways in which they can be used:

• Household survey or census data. Household surveys and census data may be useful to democratic governance and human rights measurement exercises in two ways. As highlighted by R. Malhotra and N. Fasel, censuses allow for socio-economic data to be gathered, which can be extremely useful in providing information on the level of fulfillment of various human rights. “There is (…) an important body of work on criminal justice statistics, within the domain of socio-economic statistics that relates explicitly to the civil and political rights” [19]. . Censuses can also show the percentages of individuals entitled to vote, voter participation by age and gender, etc. [20]. Household surveys can reveal people’s perceptions of governmental bodies or of a specific policy, as well as their opinions on democratic governance and human rights.

  In addition, household surveys and censuses can be useful as an initial platform on which democratic governance and human rights measurement exercises can be developed. Based on the experience of the DIAL, regular household surveys or censuses can be used as the basis on which specific democratic governance and human rights modules can be added. This “piggy-backing” onto regularly implemented measurement instruments was successfully used by DIAL over the past few years to collect democratic governance and human rights information, especially poverty-related data, in several African and Andean countries.

• Administrative data can provide information on issues such as health, social security and welfare, and learning and educational services. Such data are collected together with information regarding the person’s origin, age, gender, etc. It is therefore possible, by combining these data, to measure the degree to which governments do or do not respect basic democratic governance and human rights principles. If unjustified differences appear regarding the access to such services, which should, according to fundamental human rights principles (e.g. non-discrimination) be accessible to all, then these administrative data point to inequalities and human rights violations.

• Expert or focus group interview data are also an extremely useful source of information for democratic governance and human rights measurement exercises. Whether they are individual or group interviews, data collected via this method allow for in-depth analyses of a large variety of democratic governance and human rights-related topics, and for understanding of the perceptions, needs and concerns of the population(s) under study. Interviews can either be carried out from scratch or previously carried out by other researchers, NGOs, experts, etc.

• Events-based data. In broad terms, this kind of data includes “testimonies of victims, witnesses, information provided by the media and reports of States, civil society organisations and other interest groups” [21], which are recorded in a standardised manner and compiled. In terms of democratic governance and human rights, events-based data are essential, since they provide data concerning the incidence of a series of elements (human rights violations) which, in turn, reveal the democratic governance and human rights situation in particular areas. This kind of data can be positive or negative. When a violation is recorded, it is negative data; but if what is recorded is the holding of an election or the fact that a victim of abuse was given reparation, then it should be considered as positive events-based data.

• Expert judgment · can be particularly useful. In the absence of other forms of data (i.e., household surveys, administrative data, or events-base data, etc.), expert judgment is an essential alternative source of information. Since this particular source of data is essentially qualitative, it is potentially very useful for measurement exercises in their preliminary and exploratory phases.

• Desk study. By providing important background information, desk studies can inform the preliminary and exploratory phases of various democratic governance and human rights exercises. Since they are, to a large extent, based on the analysis of domestic legislation, desk studies can provide information on the respect of “human rights, in principle,” as will be seen later in this chapter.

• Expert coding. Experts are sometimes asked to evaluate and score given democratic governance and human rights situations. Such data are useful for an overall impression of a given situation, and they make it possible to compare democratic governance and human rights records between countries or over time. An example of expert coding is the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), published annually by the NGO Transparency International (TI). However, the methods of obtaining, and using, such data have been criticised, as will be discussed later in this chapter.

  Another example of expert coding is that provided by the Sri Lankan experience. In a country where there are tremendous inconsistencies in facts and figures regarding ethnic and political violence and human rights violations, the sharing and pooling of human rights-violations data among NGOs were facilitated in order to support the development of a massive and objective statistical record of human rights violations. That record was then used to inject new, objective, and scientifically rigorous evidence into the peace process and transitional justice mechanisms. Expert coding therefore played an essential role in measuring democratic governance and human rights, and in truth and reconciliation work.

There are parallels between the use of these different sources of data and the specific objectives of measurement exercises. For example, desk studies relate particularly well to the measurement of “human rights, in principle,” whilst other sources refer more specifically to measuring “human rights, in practice” (see below for a more detailed explanation of the different purposes and objectives of measurement exercises).

18. For instance, M. Sudders, writing about governance indicators, refers to four primary data sources: standards, codes, and treaties; events-based data; narrative reports; and surveys. T. Landman refers to three sources of human rights data for measuring human rights in practice: events-based data; standards-based data; and survey-based data. R. Malhotra and N. Fasel refer to five main data sources to monitor human rights: the international legal framework; events-based data; socio-economic and other administrative statistics; household perception and opinion surveys; and data based on expert judgments.

19. Malhotra, R., and Fasel, N., op. cit., p.8.

20. Ibid.

21. Ibid, p. 5.