Guidelines for Informing Policy via Data

CHAPTER 3 - THE VALUE OF DATA AND INDICATORS AND THEIR ROLE IN POLICY MAKING (page 5)

3.5.2 Different Indicators to Fulfil Different Measurement Objectives

Different data-collection methods and sources are used depending on the objective of the measurement exercise, just as different types of indicators are used depending on the purposes of the exercise, the levels of measurement desired, and the rights that one intends to measure and assess.

3.5.2.1 Indicators are dependent on the purpose and level of measurement sought

Human rights can be measured at different levels. As mentioned by T. Landman, human rights can be measured “in principle (i.e., as they are laid out in national and international legal documents), in practice (i.e., as they are enjoyed by individuals and groups in nation states), and as outcomes of government policy that has a direct bearing on human rights protection” [22].

• Measuring rights in principle. References to human rights norms and principles can be found in international and national legislation and jurisprudence. Measuring such norms and principles shows States’ stated and formal levels of commitment to human rights. When this qualitative legal information is quantified, it enables us to compare these formal commitments with what is actually taking place.

• Measuring rights in practice. This measurement aims to capture the situation as it is actually experienced by groups and individuals. It is crucial for assessing, in a given country at a given time, the level of respect for human rights, for improving the human rights record, and for making governments accountable for their actions. Measurement of rights in practice is all the more interesting when compared to the measurement of rights in principle, that is, to a State’s official commitment to respect human rights. As mentioned by T. Landman, when such a comparison is made, three possible scenarios appear: the “negative gap” scenario, where actual practices fail to live up to the expectations generated by the State’s statement of intent with regard to human rights; the “zero gap” situation, where statements of intent and reality are in line; and the “positive gap,” where current practices are more favourable to human rights protection and promotion than the legal situation would suggest [23]. Such a measurement is important because experience has shown that regimes frequently make formal commitments to human rights that they only partially honour.

  Gathering comprehensive data on the respect, or violation, of human rights is an extremely difficult task. K.A. Bollen identifies six levels of information on human rights violations, which go from the ideal level, where all the characteristics of all the violations are recorded, to the most biased coverage of violations, where, for example, only specific violations are recorded, or only in specific areas, or only regarding particular groups of people [24].

• Measuring rights in government policies and outcomes. More indirect measures of human rights can also be obtained by using aggregate data relative to the outcomes of government actions and policies on human rights. Certain measures, though not providing direct information on the respect and protection of human rights, can be relevant to human rights monitoring if they show the degree to which governments support, or not, activities with a positive impact on human rights.

Though links between the nature and level of the measurement exercise and existing types of indicators are not automatic, parallels can sometimes be drawn. Before doing so, it is important to note the fact that the discussion on the different types of indicators available to monitor democratic governance and human rights has also been fed by another debate: that regarding the particular measuring requirements of the rights, or categories of rights, under scrutiny.

3.5.2.2 The nature of the rights to measure determine the data and indicators to use

It is common to separate human rights into different categories. Depending on the author and approach considered, human rights can be considered as negative or positive rights; first, second, or third generation rights; civil and political, or economic, social and cultural rights; or solidarity rights. There is also a debate in the field of human rights measurement and monitoring as to whether all such rights can be measured and, if so, whether they can be measured in the same way.

Civil and political rights are primarily designed to protect the individual against State inference. Such rights include the right to equality before the law, the right to a fair trial, the right to vote and political participation, etc. Historically, those rights have been seen as fundamental and are largely considered as negative rights due to the fact that they merely oblige States to refrain from engaging in certain activities, that is, these rights are fulfilled as long as they are not violated. On the other hand, social, economic and cultural rights are generally seen as less fundamental rights, and are considered as an obligation for the State to ensure some specified standard of living for all individuals, without discrimination. They are usually referred to as positive rights, i.e., they impose an obligation on States to take certain actions.

This distinction between different rights has been greatly challenged. A number of people active in the field of human rights claim that since all rights are indivisible and mutually reinforcing, rights should be considered as a whole body and not divided into types or categories. The dichotomy between negative and positive rights has also been questioned. If anything, many authors argue that it is possible to see all rights as having both positive and negative dimensions. As explained by T. Landman, positive dimensions include those actions taken by States to provide the resources and policies necessary for improving the protection of human rights, while negative dimensions are those actions deliberately taken by States that violate human rights, or those actions deliberately not taken by States to protect human rights. These positive and negative dimensions affect all rights.

Nonetheless, the debate between civil and political, and economic, social and cultural rights remains central to democratic governance and human rights measurement exercises, and has greatly influenced the methodological discussion behind them. Given the fundamental difference between the two categories of rights, i.e., immediate or progressive, different measurement methods and types of indicators may be best suited for each.

Interestingly, while some rights are over-represented in measurement exercises, others remain largely uncovered. Civil and political rights have tended to receive greater attention than socio-economic rights. Similarly, official data are usually focused on measuring “progressive” rights, whilst private data have tended to focus on measuring violations of “immediately applicable” rights [25]. The debate concerning the difference between civil and political, and economic, social and cultural rights, is based on the argument that second-generation rights are harder to measure, given that their progressive nature is linked to the government’s will and capacities, which are hard to assess. This reasoning is also much criticised; scholars such as A. Chapman [26] have called for more measurement exercises to be carried out in relation to economic, social and cultural rights.

22. See Landman, T., The Scope of Human Rights: From Background Concepts to Indicators, paper prepared for the AHRI-COST Action meeting, March 2005, p. 13. For further information, also see Landman, T., Measuring Human Rights: Principle, Practice, and Policy, 2004, op. cit.

23. Landman, T., Measuring Human Rights: Principle, Practice, and Policy, op. cit, pp. 914-915.

24. Ibid, p. 917.

25. Claude, R.P., Jabine, T.B., (eds), Human Rights and Statistics: Getting the Record Straight, "Exploring Human Rights Issues with Statistics," University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1992, pp. 5-34.

26. Chapman, A.R., "A ‘Violations Approach’ for Monitoring the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights," Human Rights Quarterly, 18, No. 1, 1996, pp. 23-66.