Rule of Law

Emerging Voices features contributions from scholars and practitioners highlighting new research, thinking, and approaches to development challenges. This article is from Ruth Canagarajah, a Fulbright fellow in northern Sri Lanka who is researching the intersection of natural resources, livelihoods, and post-war challenges. Here she analyzes the impact of military land grabs on Sri Lanka’s post-war recovery process. Weak and ineffective property rights pose many problems in post-conflict situations. Secure property rights are needed to revitalize an economy after a volatile period. For many workers, especially farmers and fishermen, their very livelihoods are dependent on secure rights and access to land. In addition, reliable property rights encourage investors to take more financial risks and invest in a post-conflict country. Unfortunately, the impacts of a conflict—including displacement and resettlement of people; secondary occupation of land by state and non-state actors; and loss or invalidation of property and other legal documents, such as death certificates, which affect succession—make land issues difficult to resolve. In the Sri Lankan civil war, which lasted almost twenty-six years and was only recently resolved in 2009, land was a central issue. Over the past three decades, the country, in particular the Northern and Eastern provinces, has been wrecked by man-made and natural disasters, leading to innumerable deaths and displaced people. The Sri Lankan government’s Commission of Inquiry on Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation declared in 2011 that ensuring land rights is a necessary step in the restoration and reconciliation process. However this finding has not been acted on. Although the government claims that managing the resettlement process has been one of their strengths in the post-war period, there are currently more than one thousand court cases filed by landowners who lost their land due to formalized land-grabbing policies. These government practices could result in a renewal of grievances and reemergence of civil unrest if the needs of original landholders are not met soon. Since the civil war, the Sri Lankan military has seized land under the pretenses of security and development. A circular released in January 2013 declares that land lost during conflict will be used for security purposes and vaguely-defined “development activities.” The act claims that the original land claimants are not traceable. Inhabitants of the Valikamam North region of the Jaffna peninsula, a hotbed of conflict during the civil war, have been greatly affected by these policies. The region’s Myliddy harbor, said to be one of the highest yielding and most important fish harbors in the country, is now under military control as part of the ad-hoc High Security Zone (HSZ): a swath of land that takes up fifteen percent of the Jaffna peninsula and was established twenty-four years ago to secure restricted, strategic military bases and industries. Meanwhile, the harbor’s original fishermen have struggled to resettle in areas such as Point Pedro and Valikamam East. Farmers in the Valikamam North province, who once grew cash crops such as red onions, chilies, and tobacco, in addition to bananas and tomatoes, were forced to abandon their fields and cultivable land when the HSZ was established. They once hoped to return after the war, but this seems increasingly unlikely as the military, which has now taken over farming activities within the zone, is legalizing its ownership of the land through section two of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act. Farmers that I spoke with in the small northern town of Tellippalai note that ever since they were forcibly displaced by the military, their lives have been in a constant state of flux: moving around the countryside, interrupting their children’s schooling; cultivating small plots offered by nearby neighbors; and remaining unable to accumulate physical assets due to numerous relocations. Decreases in relief funds over the last three years and inadequate to nonexistent government compensation have made matters worse. The government plans to turn the land it has grabbed into economic zones for the military and navy by constructing coal power stations, factories, and hotels, in addition to using the land for typical agricultural and fishing activities, but conducted by government workers instead of by the region’s original labor force. In areas neighboring the HSZ, government surveyors are assessing where military barracks might be constructed. These “land alienation” policies are meant to boost investment, tourism, and production, but in reality they hinder poverty-reduction measures and post-conflict reconstruction. To be sure, the military may have the resources and technology to make more optimal use of the land, but their actions undermine the post-war demilitarization and recovery process and threaten already unstable livelihoods that depend on restoration of private and public lands. In order for Sri Lanka’s development and peace-building process to succeed, property rights must be protected and local populations should be consulted in order to resolve land disputes and move the country forward.

Emerging Voices features regular contributions from scholars and practitioners highlighting new research, thinking, and approaches to development challenges. This article is from Dr. Ashok Sircar, India program director at Landesa, a global development nonprofit that works to secure land rights for the world’s poor. Here, he analyzes the obstacles preventing Indian women from exercising their right to inherit land and discusses potential policy solutions. It was like searching for that proverbial needle in a haystack. From September through December 2012, my colleagues and I searched three Indian states looking for 120 women in any district who had inherited farmland from their parents or their husbands in the last eight years. We wanted to interview these women as part of a study to determine how they exercised their rights to inherit land and what challenges they faced. Apparently the challenges were significant. Even though we searched an area with a population that included nearly one million rural women, we couldn’t find 120 such women. We looked in six districts in Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, and Madhya Pradesh. In one district we found five women who had recently inherited their land; in another twenty. But we couldn’t find enough to give us the sample size we needed for our study. As my colleagues and I searched the countryside, we saw no shortage of women laboring in the fields. Indeed, across India women are hunched over the ground planting, weeding, fertilizing, and harvesting in unprecedented numbers. Data across many states makes clear that Indian women do more than half the agricultural labor. And in orchards, cotton, and ground nut cultivation, they do the majority. More than 80 percent of rural women in India work in agriculture. But they don’t own the land they depend on. This is not just a matter of a piece of paper awarding them ownership rights. It is about power, security, equality, and opportunity. Without land titled in their names, women have no proof of residency and can’t access institutional credit, such as bank loans. They also can’t take advantage of agricultural extension programs, such as government offers of subsidized seeds and fertilizers. That women do not inherit land impacts India’s ability to climb out of poverty. First, it is clear that women lack access to the tools (credit) and programs (agricultural extension services) they need to climb out of poverty. Second, as a wealth of research indicates, when women have control over land, they direct more of their income than do men toward their children’s education and nutrition. This means that most rural women across India inherit poverty not property generation after generation. As a result, India is missing an opportunity. My country’s constitution promises women more than this. It says women are equal to men. India prides itself on gender-sensitive legislation. In fact, in an effort to eliminate any remaining doubt about women’s inheritance rights, the central government in 2005 passed an amendment to the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 that spelled out that all Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, and Jain women (who make up the vast majority of women in India) have the same rights as their brothers to inherit residential property and agricultural land. However, as our research indicates, these progressive laws have not helped ordinary Indian women—those who live in rural areas and depend on the land to survive. Currently, many women tell us they are not aware that they can legally inherit land. A recent study by my organization (Landesa) and UN Women conducted in two states found that only 22 percent of families surveyed knew about the 2005 amendment that gave women equal inheritance rights. And those women who know they have a right to land say that powerful social customs prevent them from asking for their share. Women say that if they assert their right to inherit land, they will cause conflict in their families. Their brothers and extended family will see them as greedy. And should their marriages fail or should they need to rely on their brothers for future help, their pleas for assistance might be dismissed. This fear is so pervasive that our earlier study found that almost half of all women said they didn’t want to inherit land because they feared it would create bad feelings in the family and community—even though it could help them climb out of poverty. Not only is the progressive 2005 amendment not helping women, it appears as though it may actually be hurting them. Since its passage, women are reporting a disturbing trend: families are pressuring their daughters and sisters to circumvent the law by relinquishing their claim to their inheritance in writing in favor of their brothers. So what has always been a social practice—women forfeiting their claim in exchange for family harmony and cordial relations with their parents and brothers--is increasingly being legally legitimized by written declarations. Given these strong social customs that prevent women from getting a share of their parents’ land, robust support systems are needed to help women stand up for their rights and begin to claim the land that is rightfully theirs. The government of India has started this by establishing women’s self-help groups (the Mahila Samakhya Program) in twelve states. These village-level groups support women dealing with a variety of challenges, including alcoholic husbands, domestic violence, unfair labor practices, and disrespected property rights. In Andhra Pradesh, Landesa trained the volunteers who help run these groups to help them better advocate for their members’ land rights. Where microfinance groups are strong, throughout Odisha, Bihar, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal, they offer another opportunity to educate and support women on their land rights. And local officials, particularly revenue officials, need to be aware of the challenges women face, and should be trained to support women’s claims to land. Many local revenue officials are not knowledgeable about women’s rights. Landesa has begun such training in Odisha. And in Gujarat, the Women’s Group for Women’s Land Ownership has also been training revenue officials. Lastly, educating both young boys and girls about their equal inheritance right will help ensure that they support their mother’s claim to their family land. Landesa has begun a promising project that has thus far educated 7,000 girls about their land rights. Another 30,000 girls will enroll later this year, with boys also participating. It is in everyone’s interest that women be recognized as the farmers that they are. Their continued lack of assets contributes to not only their individual vulnerability, but also my country’s stubborn poverty.

Last week the UN High-Level Panel on the Post-2015 Development Agenda released its long anticipated report: A New Global Partnership: Eradicate Poverty and Transform Economies Through Sustainable Development. I’ve finally had time to give the long report a good read. It is an aspirational manifesto, reflecting a “new mainstream” in development thinking that departs substantially from the development thinking of the 80s, 90s, or even the 2000s. The High Level Panel (HLP) focuses on some critical issues that have too long been sidelined: governance and rule of law, inequality and social and economic exclusion, and sustainability (especially climate change) to advance shared opportunity within and across generations. The report also recognizes the central role played by global economic rules, rather than aid flows, in creating opportunity or perpetuating poverty and exclusion. This attention to the local impact of global rules is similarly the starting point of my ongoing CFR series on poverty, inequality, and global economic governance. Below I’ve highlighted some key quotes for each the five major themes identified by the HLP. 1. Leave no one behind. “We should ensure that no person – regardless of ethnicity, gender, geography, disability, race or other status – is denied universal human rights and basic economic opportunities. We should design goals that focus on reaching excluded groups, for example by making sure we track progress at all levels of income, and by providing social protection to help people build resilience to life’s uncertainties.” 2. Put sustainable development at the core. “We must act now to halt the alarming pace of climate change and environmental degradation, which pose unprecedented threats to humanity. We must bring about more social inclusion. This is a universal challenge, for every country and every person on earth… Developed countries have a special role to play, fostering new technologies and making the fastest progress in reducing unsustainable consumption.” 3. Transform economies for jobs and inclusive growth. “This is a challenge for every country on earth: to ensure good job possibilities while moving to the sustainable patterns of work and life that will be necessary in a world of limited natural resources. We should ensure that everyone has what they need to grow and prosper, including access to quality education and skills, healthcare, clean water, electricity, telecommunications and transport.” 4. Build peace and effective, open and accountable institutions for all. “Freedom from fear, conflict and violence is the most fundamental human right, and the essential foundation for building peaceful and prosperous societies… We are calling for a fundamental shift--to recognize peace and good governance as core elements of wellbeing, not optional extras. This is a universal agenda, for all countries.” 5. Forge a new global partnership. “Perhaps the most important transformative shift is towards a new spirit of solidarity, cooperation, and mutual accountability that must underpin the post-2015 agenda…It is time for the international community to use new ways of working, to go beyond an aid agenda and put its own house in order: to implement a swift reduction in corruption, illicit financial flows, money-laundering, tax evasion, and hidden ownership of assets. We must fight climate change, champion free and fair trade, technology innovation, transfer and diffusion, and promote financial stability.” Three things are most notable, in my view. First, the recognition that a rising tide does not necessarily raise all boats, so a clear commitment to combating inequality and advancing social and economic inclusion must be at the core of the global development agenda. Second, the realization that current economic growth trajectories in developed countries are wreaking havoc on the environment, undermining the patrimony of future generations, and imposing distributional consequences that disproportionately impact the most vulnerable, so sustainability must be moved to the core of growth and development approaches. And third, a strong embrace of an agenda that puts governance, rule of law, and human rights at the center—both as an ends and as a means. It’s a rich and interesting report, not least for the way it reflects an evolution in global development thinking. These are just the highlights; stay tuned for more detailed analysis in the coming weeks.

Last week a federal judge ruled that mentally disabled immigrants facing deportation have a right to representation in immigration proceedings, and ordered immigration courts in Arizona, California, and Washington to provide legal representation for mentally disabled immigrants if they cannot represent themselves. The facts in Franco-Gonzalez v. Holder are disturbing. One of the plaintiffs had been detained without a hearing for more than five years, and many others for six months or more, because they are too mentally disabled to represent themselves in the court proceedings. Yet the government would not release them because of their suspected illegal status. And, as is too often true for poor defendants, the detainees could not afford to hire a lawyer. So they remained trapped, in indefinite and uncertain detention. Until now, immigrants facing deportation, including, most troublingly, young children on their own and people with mental disabilities, have not had a right to counsel. Instead, they must represent themselves in complex and confusing immigration proceedings. The court ruling makes some incremental but important steps towards a more equitable system, at least for severely mentally disabled immigrants. This topic is a bit far afield from usual Development Channel fare, but the ruling is a big deal, and has important implications for some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the global economy. Indeed, in our meeting at the Council this week with Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, participants discussed the income and distributional consequences of the fact that capital is increasingly mobile across borders, while laborers (a.k.a. immigrants) are most definitively not. And the international human rights implications of indefinite detention without access to representation or a chance for one’s day in court are quite serious. Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Right (ICCR) requires that “anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful.” Indefinite detention of mentally disabled immigrants unfit to represent themselves at a hearing suggests to me a clear violation of U.S. international human rights commitments. Plus, my sister, Alexa Lawson-Remer, is counsel on the case, so I was triply compelled to write about it. The court ruling is a victory for human rights here in the United States. According to Alexa (an associate at the law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell, which helped litigate the case pro bono along with the ACLU, Public Counsel, the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, and Mental Health Advocacy Services), “It is potentially the most significant decision for due process and equality before the law since the Supreme Court’s decision in Gideon v. Wainwright.” In Gideon v. Wainwright the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that everyone accused of a crime is entitled to a lawyer, and that the court must appoint counsel for the indigent. Gideon is widely acknowledged as a watershed legal decision to make real the principle that the law must be impartial and equitable in practice, not merely on paper. Suspected illegal immigrants are not covered by Gideon because they are confronting deportation, not criminal proceedings. In the face of the impending court order in the case, this week the federal government issued a new policy that, in essence, applies the judge’s ruling nationwide—guaranteeing legal representation to mentally disabled immigrants facing deportation proceedings in every state in the union. The new federal policy was a direct response to the likely injunction in the case, sources close to the proceedings say. The court ruling and new federal policy are an important watershed for human rights here at home. Nice work sis.

Last week Lori Wallach, Director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, joined me at CFR for a rare on the record roundtable meeting. Living up to her reputation for incisive and provocative remarks, Wallach sparked a heated debate about the impacts of investment treaties in the global south. She argued that Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs), which aim to protect foreign investors from unfair and arbitrary treatment by governments, are themselves arbitrary and unfair. BITs are treaties between governments that guarantee foreign investors a number of rights, including protection against expropriation and limitations on capital controls and performance requirements, and give foreign investors the ability to bring cases against governments in binding international arbitration to enforce these rights. Wallach pointed out that investors have no corresponding obligations, so it can be difficult for governments and citizens to hold them accountable for playing by the rules. She also detailed a number of rulings by arbitral panels (pages ten through twelve of Wallach’s slide deck, PDF) in investor-state disputes that have undermined government efforts to protect the environment and promote human rights. And, according to Wallach, these arbitral panels in any case lack legitimacy as a global governance regime; she reported that “15 arbitrators alone have captured the decision-making in 55 percent of the total investment treaty cases known today” (page nine of slide deck). In short, Wallach argued that BITs as currently designed disadvantage governments and local small business owners, so are “antithetical to equitable and inclusive economic growth.” Citing the academic research, Wallach said that these treaties do not in fact promote foreign direct investment (FDI)--meaning that the “grand bargain,” under which capital-importing countries relinquish domestic policy space in order to increase FDI and therefore growth, is not delivering as promised. If BITs do not actually empirically increase FDI, what do they do, and what are they good for, she asked the audience. Many participants had very different views, arguing that these investment treaties generate important beneficial outcomes for both developing and developed countries by fostering investment and growth. This debate will be examined further in upcoming Development Channel articles and CFR meetings. You can view Lori Wallach’s presentation here.  A recording of the roundtable meeting is available here. More coming soon on poverty, inequality, and global economic governance.

On Tuesday the Supreme Court ruled that victims of torture, arbitrary executions, and other human rights abuses in foreign countries could not seek justice in U.S. courts. The ruling in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum halted a widely watched case brought by a group of Nigerians, which alleged that in the 1990s Shell Oil was complicit in the torture and murder of protesters at the company’s operations in the impoverished but oil rich Ogoni region. The Supreme Court held unanimously that the “presumption against extraterritoriality” applies to Alien Tort Statute cases, meaning that foreigners cannot use U.S. courts to seek justice against foreigners for crimes committed on the soil and in the territory of foreign nations. Since the 1980s, when a landmark case opened the door for such claims, the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) has been used by victims of human rights abuses worldwide to seek redress in the United States for egregious human rights violations when justice would not otherwise be available through regular channels in domestic courts. Over the past 20 years, ATS defendants have included companies accused of colluding with authoritarian governments to enslave or murder local citizens. The most notable victory for human rights came in 2005, when Unocal agreed to settle a case brought by Burmese villagers, who claimed that Unocal used forced labor to construct a major gas pipeline (stretching through Myanmar into Thailand), and turned a blind eye as the notorious military junta raped and murdered local people to force them to clear the way for the pipeline. While unsurprising from a legal standpoint, the recent Supreme Court ruling brings into sharp focus one of the most pressing policy challenges of our time: in an increasingly integrated global economy, where transnational investors and companies have profound effects on the lives of people around the world for both good and ill, how can the human rights of marginalized communities be protected from violations by powerful rogue and unaccountable actors? Where domestic courts can be relied upon to fairly enforce the rule of law and protect the rights of all citizens, justice can be sought and served through regular channels within capital-importing countries. But the problem is acute when corrupt or autocratic governments do not protect the rights of their least powerful citizens, deliberately colluding with foreign investors to advance policies that further the interests of elites at enormous human costs. Autocratic oil producing countries like Equatorial Guinea and Sudan are particularly likely to conspire with foreign companies to exploit oil reserves regardless of the human consequences. And although many companies are increasingly making important efforts to safeguard human rights, the rising role of new transnational investors from countries like China who reject such human rights protections is compounding the problem. Unfortunately, given the Supreme Court’s ruling on Tuesday, human rights accountability in the global economy remains elusive.

Counter-intuitively, economic growth (a prerequisite for reducing poverty in the world’s poorest countries) and the well-being of the worst-off and most vulnerable populations are often at odds in the developing world. This tension between poverty, equity, and economic growth is most visibly salient in disputes over land—a key resource for the food security and livelihoods of the poor, but also an essential resource for growth-enhancing investments in energy production and industrial manufacturing. Simmering land disputes that pit growth against equity roil just beneath the surface in many countries; just this past week, these conflicts have boiled over for different reasons across continents, from Kenya to China to Myanmar. In China, villagers in the southern village of Shangpu overturned cars and blockaded roads this past weekend, accusing the local party chief of grabbing communal farmland and leasing it to a local businessman in a sweetheart backroom deal that could spur investment in one of China’s major export producing regions. The villagers, outraged that the land lease would deny them access to the their major source of livelihoods, in exchange for a meager and uncertain compensation, are calling for the party chief’s ouster. In Kenya, land disputes remain a perennial source of ethnic rivalries and violence, despite the week’s largely peaceful election. Kenya’s complex land injustices are legacies of colonialism, further perpetuated by corrupt post-independence governments. The British appropriated the best arable land from native owners and reallocated it to white settlers and colonial regime loyalists. Dispossessions continued post-independence, with the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights describing these land grabs as the “most pervasive corrupt practice” perpetrated by president Daniel arap Moi. Yet Kenya has shown remarkable growth rates over the past two decades, and despite a few stalled years after the 2007 election-related violence, remains one of the economic engines of the continent. And in Myanmar, residents of the Irrawaddy Delta township demonstrated last week against the confiscation of between 500 and 1,000 acres of land by the former military junta for investment purposes, calling for restitution and justice. According to reports, dozens of people were injured and one police officer was killed in the clash. “We have nothing--we are poor and suffering--and want to get back to farming,” said local resident Tin Tin Nwe. The data shows that, historically, property insecurity of non-elites can enhance economic growth, but also encourages conflict—which can, on the other hand, undermine long-run growth and inclusive economic development. Using a new set of indicators that measure the property insecurity of marginalized ethno-cultural minority groups, my research demonstrates that the severity of property insecurity for the worst-off group in a country is strongly associated with the onset of armed conflict, but, putting aside this conflict risk, property insecurity for marginalized minorities actually corresponds with higher growth rates. In short, economic growth can occur when the property rights of elites are secure but marginalized minorities face high a risk of expropriation, as land is reallocated into the hands of investors with access to capital. But the risks of this short-cut to growth are real. The potentially growth-enhancing effect of forced displacement is tenuous, because this property insecurity also increases the likelihood of armed conflict. As the events of recent weeks demonstrate, reconciling the tensions between poverty, equity, and economic growth remains a daunting challenge, made all the more salient when lives are on the line.

As discussed in previous blog posts in this series, good governance and human rights are central aspects of global development. Fundamental to human freedom, these objectives are both an end in themselves and a means to an end, and should be included in the post-2015 global development agenda. In this regard, guaranteeing personal security is a critical development goal. This goal meets the criteria for goal setting—it embodies a consensus normative and ideational objective, is actionable and serves a “booster” function for an important but neglected issue, is universally applicable, and appropriate targets and indicators would strengthen accountability. Once again, measuring performance on this goal is not as impossible as it may appear at first glance. This post discusses indicators for personal security.  My last post tackled the challenge of measuring fulfillment of civil and political rights. "Personal security" is an inherently context-specific issue, so at least some indicators should be designed from the bottom up. A bottom-up approach would ensure that indicators support policy objectives close to the operational level, and ensure that they are actually appropriate and practically relevant. Such “active indicators” should be designed by the domestic operational authorities responsible for the administration of justice (e.g., police, judges) to reflect performance on crime, public safety, police effectiveness, and detention. Measures could include both surveys of end-users and standard socioeconomic demographic data. Does this country-owned, bottom-up approach meet the selection criteria for indicators? There are also some cross-nationally comparable indicators that could be appropriate measures of personal security, to complement the bottom-up indicators.  These include the proportion of population feeling "unsafe," (e.g. walking alone in area after dark or alone at home at night), based on public perception surveys or household surveys; and the number of internally displaced persons (number of individuals who have been forced to leave their homes as a result of or in order to avoid the effects of armed conflict, situations of generalized violence, violations of human rights or disasters, and who have not crossed an international border). Both are based on demographic data and expert assessments from the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, as used by UNHCR. Do these cross-national measures meet the selection criteria for indicators? Previous posts in the series can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

As discussed in previous blog posts in this series, good governance and human rights are central aspects of global development.  Fundamental to human freedom, these objectives are both an end in themselves and a means to an end, and should be included in the post-2015 global development agenda. In this regard, guaranteeing Civil Rights, Political Rights, and Personal Security is a critical development goal. This goal meets the criteria for goal setting—it embodies a consensus normative and ideational objective, is actionable and serves a “booster” function for an important but neglected issue, is universally applicable, and appropriate targets and indicators would strengthen accountability. Measuring performance on this goal is not as impossible as it may appear at first glance. This post discusses indicators for civil and political rights. My next post tackles indicators for personal security. Given that civil and political rights targets aim to hold governments accountable for fulfilling international human rights treaty obligations, assessment should be external to government authorities, impartial, and conducted by legitimate international bodies charged with monitoring rule of law and human rights commitments. Although civil and political rights are inherently complex and interdependent, two potential “bellweather” cross-national indicators, based on UN expert reports, are: Number of cases of arbitrary deprivation of life, as reported by the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions to the UN Human Rights Council; and Number of cases of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment perpetrated by an agent of the State or any other person acting under government authority without judicial due process, as reported by the UN Special Rapporteurs on Torture and on Violence against Women. Do these UN expert reports meet the selection criteria for indicators?  UN expert reports could be complemented by public perception and expert surveys.  Most relevantly, the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index assesses countries’ performance on the nine areas of: limits on government power, corruption, order and security, fundamental rights, open government, regulatory enforcement, civil justice, criminal justice, and informal justice. The scores are built from assessments of the general public and local legal experts to measure the extent to which countries adhere to the rule of law in practice. The score derived from public perception surveys regarding fundamental rights would be an excellent indicator for this goal. Does the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index meet the selection criteria for indicators?  The next post in this series tackles personal security.  Previous posts in the series can be found here, here, here, here, here, and here.

As discussed in previous blog posts in this series, good governance and human rights are essential to human well-being, and should be included in the post-2015 global development agenda. Rule of law and access to justice are linchpins of these concepts. Globally, the United Nations Development Program estimates that four billion people live outside the law’s protection, leaving them vulnerable to abuse and neglect. Empowering individuals and communities to assert and realize their rights can ensure that the law protects against government corruption and discrimination, and gives a voice to the least politically powerful, who might otherwise be ignored. Rule of law and access to justice can also acts as a powerful economic lever, allowing small farmers and entrepreneurs the opportunity to protect their assets and enforce contracts. And rule of law and access to justice are universally applicable issues, in rich and poor countries alike, making these goals particularly appropriate for a global development agenda that aims to have far-reaching scope and relevance. Although "rule of law" and "access to justice" seem like abstract concepts that would be difficult to measure, a simple indicator for the "access to justice" could be the proportion of the population who can access reliable, affordable legal advice should they need it, with “access” defined as living within three hours of a lawyer or paralegal provider (using standard available transit). Likewise, legal identity, as measured by the proportion of the population registered at birth, could be a reliable indicator for "rule of law." Birth registration is often a precondition for obtaining formal identity documents such as passports and national ID cards, and therefore determines access to a wide range of fundamental social services and benefits, including healthcare and education. The tables below summarize how these two indicators meet important selection criteria. The next post in this series tackles civil rights, political rights, and personal security.  Previous posts in the series can be found here, here, here, here, and here.

Tuesday’s blog post discussed the importance of incorporating the goal of combating discrimination and inequality into the post-2015 global development agenda. This post discusses the significance of another goal: open and accountable government for all. Scholars, practitioners, and policymakers agree that open and accountable government is a crucial aspect of socioeconomic development. This emerging consensus is reflected by the overwhelming international participation in the new global Open Government Partnership (OGP), as well as by the commitments to transparency and accountability that have been included in a range of global statements over the past decade, including G-20 declarations in Seoul 2010 and Pittsburgh 2009 and the 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. Although open and accountable government may seem an abstract and immeasurable goal, it is indeed feasible to assess performance on these critical governance issues. Over the past fifteen years a number of global efforts have emerged to track and quantify governance practices through both cross-nationally comparable and country-owned measures. These efforts include the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index; the Corruption Perceptions Index from Transparency International; the AfroBaromoter/LatinoBarometro, a series of national public attitude surveys on democracy and governance in Africa and Latin America; and the OGP Independent Reporting Mechanism. In terms of important advances in cross-national measures, the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index assesses countries’ performance across nine areas of good governance, including aspects of transparency and accountability, based on survey assessments of the general public and local legal experts. The Corruption Perceptions Index by Transparency International and the AfroBarometer/LatinoBarometro indices likewise assess perceived levels of corruption within countries as seen by expert respondents and the general public. By gathering the informed views of relevant stakeholders through surveys of firms, public officials, and individuals, these data reveal clear levels and trends regarding the actual conditions of transparency and corruption within countries. Country-owned indicators that better reflect the specific challenges and particular conditions faced by each country are not as common as cross-country measurements for transparency and corruption, but are equally important. The most robust country-owned indicators for this goal are now being developed by the OGP’s Independent Reporting Mechanism. OGP participant countries create country action plans, including measures of progress and performance, based on inputs from a range of sources including civil society, technical experts, and government self-evaluation. An international experts panel produces annual independent reports for each OGP country that could be incorporated for measuring open and accountable government. Taken together, cross-country comparable and country-owned governance measures now make it possible to set real goals and targets to realize open and accountable government for all. The next post in this series will examine the importance of including the goal of the rule of law and access to justice for all in the post-2015 global development framework. Previous posts in the series can be found here, here, here, and here.

Emerging Voices features contributions from scholars and practitioners highlighting new research, thinking, and approaches to development challenges. This article is from Amanda Richardson, an attorney and land tenure specialist with Landesa. She discusses the benefits that secure land rights can bring to women and their communities. The Council on Foreign Relations Development Channel recently posted an exciting article by Stephanie Hanson of the One Acre Fund on empowering female smallholder farmers. The article highlighted four obstacles women farmers in the developing world face: poor quality seed and no fertilizer, no access to credit, limited education and training, and no access to markets. We at Landesa agree strongly with this assessment. However, we would add one fundamental obstacle that presents a significant burden for women across the developing world: their lack of secure land rights to the land they rely on. The fact is that women make up only a fraction of the agricultural landholders in most developing regions. In fact, the number is often less than 5 percent and generally less than 20 percent. This means the overwhelming majority of women farmers in the developing world don’t have secure rights to the land they till. As Hanson’s article points out, women are often unable to access credit in rural communities because they do not have a formal title to their land. In fact, studies have shown that women with land rights are more likely to receive credit. However, secure land rights mean more than just access to credit. When women have secure rights to the land they use, they have incentives to make the land more productive with, for instance, better seeds and fertilizer. In Rwanda, a study found that women are the primary farmers but are granted only temporary, insecure use rights to the land they farm. These weak land rights contribute to a lack of investment in land that has led to severe problems with soil erosion. Furthermore, women with secure rights tend to practice traditional conservation methods, such as mulching and intercropping. In many countries government services cannot be accessed without a title deed. In India, for example, the government provides many agricultural extension services, from education to seeds to fertilizer, but only if the recipient has a land title. And as we know, the vast majority of women don’t have a title and therefore can’t access these services. In fact, in India, women own less than 10 percent of the land. When women have secure rights to land, it also improves their status in both their households and their communities. This enhanced status can empower women to participate more effectively and fully in community-level organizations, such as collectives that negotiate with traders, making those institutions more responsive to women’s needs. Improved status can also render women less vulnerable to domestic violence. A study in India indicates that women who own land or a house face a significantly lower risk of marital violence. Furthermore, these benefits accrue to the next generation. Women with land rights contribute a greater proportion of their own income to the household and exercise greater control over the household’s agricultural income in general, according to a study in Nicaragua and Honduras. They are also more likely to spend these funds on food for the family, leading to better nutrition for children. In fact, a study in Nepal found that the odds that a child is severely underweight are reduced by half if the mother owns land. Furthermore, when women in the household have land rights, as the Nicaragua and Honduras study found, children are more likely to go to school and have higher levels of educational attainment. Organizations must recognize the importance of targeting women and tailor their programs to meet their needs, as the One Acre Fund does so admirably. However, secure rights to land are of fundamental importance to women smallholders. In many ways they are a foundational first step. Organizations looking to help women farmers would enhance their impact by incorporating this issue.

Transparency International just released its 2012 country rankings of corruption in the public sector. The index is based on a variety of corruption-related data, including public opinion polls and assessments collected from experts living and working in the areas studied. It examines enforcement of anticorruption laws, prevalence of bribery, and government transparency, among other factors. Top of the list for the least corrupt governments are Denmark, New Zealand, and Finland. This should surprise no one. I spent time doing doctoral work in Finland, and was constantly impressed by the Finns’ remarkable trust in strangers. (One friend of a colleague of a friend--whom I had never met--let me stay virtually for free in their beautiful unoccupied Danish Modern apartment, complete with sauna, taking pity on a broke graduate student.) Afghanistan, North Korea, and Somalia bring up the rear, ranking as the bottom three of the 176 countries and territories surveyed. Again, based on my own experience working on the challenges of the banking sector and extractive industries development in Afghanistan while at U.S. Treasury, this assessment is an affirmation of the tragically obvious. The real question is whether the evaluation and ranking of transparency (or lack thereof) can help build the political will and public pressure to make difficult reforms that challenge entrenched interests. Does transparency about transparency increase accountability? Since its first appearance on the list in 2005, Somalia’s position and score has changed little. Receiving only a 2.1 out of 10 in 2005, Somalia earned an abysmal 0.8 in 2012 (8 out of 100 potential points) because of its perceived high levels of administrative and political corruption. According to a UN report released earlier this year, “the systematic misappropriation, embezzlement and outright theft of public resources have essentially become a system of governance” in the country. The report also explained that large portions of international donor funds were being misused. Yet, despite this prolonged bleak picture, there is hope for reducing corruption in Somalia in the new year. Although the country has been without an effective central government since 1991, in September, Somalia elected a new president, Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, a professor and peace activist who has worked for UNICEF and several civil society groups. Experts argue that Mohamud represents a change for Somali politics, but he faces daunting obstacles that will make reform difficult. Alongside poverty and economic stagnation, Mohamud must contend with Somalia’s corrupt and weak government, which is threatened by piracy and violent opposition forces. Africa scholars recommend that Mohamud’s top priorities should be statebuilding and anticorruption efforts, such as establishing and empowering an anticorruption commission. Can new reform efforts by new reformers upend expectations in future Transparency rankings? Let’s hope so.