Human Rights, Human Development and the Seven Freedoms

By J. Paul MARTIN

Poverty is a major cause of human rights violations. This and other linkages and interactions between human rights and human development are studied in the latest Human Development Report 2000 published by UNDP. A review of this new publication is offered by J. Paul Martin, Executive Director of the Center for the Study of Human Rights at Columbia University in New York.
THIS LONG-AWAITED REPORT is an important contribution to bringing the fields of a remarkably thorough process of wide consultation with experts in both fields. The report combines 128 pages of analytical articles and a comprehensive bibliography with 148 pages of country-by-country statistical data of human development indicators.
The most innovative contributions are the first chapter, written largely by Nobel prize winning economist Amartya Sen, and the second, which describes struggles for freedom. Building on Sen's analysis in the first chapter, this second chapter proposes a new taxonomy comprising seven freedoms (see box). This formulation is designed to define common terms of reference for human rights and human development. The next three chapters examine respectively the role of democracy in promoting human rights, how rights empower in the fight against poverty, and indicators of accountability. The final chapter sets out priorities for action.
Overall the Report is optimistic, in the sense that it underlines the twentieth century's achievements in both human rights and development. It urges international actors to move "from naming and shaming to positive support"
It is impossible to address in depth the range of issues raised in the report. Given the extent of human suffering that we call human rights violations, the Report's conceptualization and findings are a call for more study and more action. Regarding the relationship betweenthe human rights and human development paradigms, the Report, and Sen in particular, argue that they differ very little in the matters they deal with (as illustrated by the seven freedoms for-mula, as well as in the motivations and goals of their respective protagonists. Both human rights and human development use similar data, although the data currently available presents problems for both. Both perspectives also are mutually reinforcing, and both can learn from each other. The combination of these two perspectives gives us something that neither can provide alone. Defining "human development as the freedom to be able to live as well would like, " Sen shows that achieving this state depends on personal and social capabilities and that democratic freedoms and civil rights can be extremely important for enhancing the capabilities of people who are poor. This expresses the standard argument in the human rights community that the realization of economic and social rights is closely linked to the condition of civil and political rights.
The two approaches are mutually reinforcing. The main contribution of the development approach to human rights thinking is to emphasize poverty as a major cause of human rights violations and as a major target of any remedial policies. Chapter 1 is especially strong in its arguments in favor of the human rights approach on account of its emphasis on mechanisms of implementation and enforcement. "In asserting the right we are claiming that all are entitled to a free elementary education, and that if some persons avoidably lack access to it , there must be some culpability some where in the social system" (p. 21). While the word "avoidably" qualifies the statement, it is still strong language.
The chapter also points out that the human rights perspective emphasizes not only outcomes, but also how they came about. The rights of minorities, for example, cannot be sacrificed for the good of the whole. Moreover, if they are truly rights, the enjoyment of those out comes must be socially protected and guaranteed. The human rights perspective adds to human development the concepts of duty, accountability and ultimately culpability, although Sen admits it can be difficult to apportion such responsibilities.
If this view were pursued to its radical conclusion, it would include a definition of duties and obligations, including not only ethical but also legal obligations. But these elements are never fully addressed in the rest of the report. Certainly there is no discussion of culpability. Poor governance and corruption in developing countries are only part of the problem. All potential actors international organizations, governments, multinational corporations are urged to "implement pro poor policies and policymaking processes that guarantee the right to participation by the poor' (p. 88). Globalization and economic marginalization are seen as processes beyond the control of individual governments in developing countries. Both are having a major impact on poor, even only moderately poor, countries. For example, it is noted that in 1998 45 per cent of Ecuador's national budget went to debt servicing and only 4 per cent to health. But the relative impact of these global economic forces receives little attention in the report. Certainly they are not seen in a rights perspective. The plight of Angola is discussed without reference to the diamond trade. Past and current development interventions by the World Bank and other agencies are never put in question. The consequences of a rights perspective and popular participation have yet to be traced through into these areas.
As with all recommendations in an international document or conference, the lists of laudable priorities set out in chapter IV lack immediate political and economic context. With little resources and international support, the nations in greatest need can only go through the motions, such as the guarantee of compulsory primary education in all their constitutions by 2010! The international agenda proposed on page 119ff reverts to non rights, idealistic language: "reduce global inequality and marginalization" and "prevent deadly conflicts." Implementation of these goals requires the hard choices of concrete planning.
Human rights advocacy has traditionally been built on the obligations of states. The Report spreads the responsibility to nonstate actors and focuses its arguments more on measurement and indicators rather than on unfulfilled legal obligations. Even if nonstate actors have obligations, in the opinion of this author the legal obligations of states remain a key fulcrum in the system. Their obligations are diminished. Government budget decisions, for example, have a huge impact on the rights of those within its territories, Modern states also control the major public institutions needed to protect rights on a day to day basis. Global economic forces may limit government options, but governments are not thereby powerless, although they may lack vision and effectiveness. Certainly they need external technical and financial aid to be able to pursue the antipoverty goals out lined in the report. On the order hand, both the human rights and the human development approaches require governments to set political priorities and define and implement strategies that have a chance of working. The Report does not delineate any system of accountability of governments.
The most important contribution of the Report is to set out a frame of reference for a new generation of research and planning. The challenge now is to use this framework to delineate strategies that, by incorporating the best lessons of the two approaches, result in more beneficial political and economic outcomes. This approach seems readily applicable to countries like Ecuador, with substantial economic and human resources, but where economies are still failing. We look forward to the Report's being a major stimulus to development thinking and planning.
For information on ordering the Human Development Report, see page 162