3rd INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR CHILD INDICATORS CHILDREN’S WELL-BEING: THE RESEARCH AND POLICY CHALLENGES UNIVERSITY OF YORK, UK.

Child Wellbeing in developing countries – limitations of the United Nations-Child Rights Convention (UN-CRC) Framework while developing children’s social policies

Suman Khadka, NepalMonash University, Melbourne, Australia

Topics to be coveredPopularity of CRC in Child

Wellbeing/social policy plansChild soldier storyLimitations of child rights frameworkAlternative frameworksWelfare regime frameworkApplication of welfare regime theory to

Nepal’s case- some preliminary findings( note – crosscutting thread – Nepal, child

soldier)

Popularity of child rightsCRC is widely used framework for

devising any wellbeing plans and hence social policies

National plans of Nepal take their principles from CRC –the child Welfare Act itself came because of the CRC ( a decade ago)

So why do children especially in developing countries still lack most basic needs of life?

Child Soldier’s storyChild Soldier story.....................Nepal child soldier in UN Security......

Where is the state?Where are their social policies?

They got rights – but where are the Services?

CRC and Social Policy: ProblemsPROGRESSIVE REALISATION OF RIGHTS:

prioritisation of resources when rights conflict ( Divisibility of rights/ negative are prioritised over positive rights )

CRC Article 4‘With regard to economic, social and cultural rights, States Parties shall undertake such measures to the maximum extent of their available resources and, where needed, within the framework of international co-operation’

adequate standard of living’ (art. 27) the ‘highest attainable standard of health’ (art. 24) –

who sets the limit? Eg. Nepal’s health policy

This conflict is critical to social policy, due to the simple equation that social policy is largely about re/distribution of resources and in particular if state should back any needs/rights with resources/creation of socio-economic conditions required for wellbeing and hence which rights?

Too subjective/ Relative - need absolute and global normative standards

CRC is also apolitical, technical and neglects equality and stratification –fundamental to social policy - Can’t look at the poor without problematising the rich

CRC - neglects two different welfare state in the world – west and non west

Leads to adhoc, fragmented social policy responses in name of poverty reduction causing state neglect in universal pro poor social policies – no need OF IMMEDIATE ENFORCEMENT

So instead of facilitating the CRC actually obstructs accessing basic needs as these form the core socio-economic rights.

Hence for many children in developing world who have to rely on resource less families and communities to get basic needs ‘any instrument that slows down the process of accessing such needs for the poor should be vigorously challenged’

Policy Challenge for Children’s wellbeing

Framework of ‘CRC’ is hence inappropriate and ineffective’ - however it is the foundation for interpreting much of child wellbeing and hence influencing how social policies are developed (research ,policies and discourse)

Certain rights – esp social/welfare rights should be interpreted as Basic needs within command over resources and basic rights principle– not outcomes but means.- ABSOLUTE INDICATORS-

CRC need not be discarded but Reconceptualised along universal social policy models/ power and political economy approach and within Command over resources and social rights principle

Divisibility of rights – but flip it due to importance of welfare rights-basic needs in children’s lives

FLIP ITNegative rights

positive rights

Alternatives: Welfare Regime Theory• Found Welfare Regime Theory as the appropriate

normative theoretical framework– departure from dominant CRC discourse with focus on social rights

• Welfare regime theory developed by Gough and Wood (2004) - prioritizes basic needs/social rights, as well as expands established frameworks of welfare state theory (Esping-Anderson, 1990) to suit developing countries

• Accordingly, basic rights should be fulfilled in such a way that it reduces clientelisation and commodification. – focus on declientelisation

Specific to developing countries –a person is in informal rather than formal economy/ analysis based on life-cycle principle where current needs (safety nets) are considered more valuable than the future needs (investment needs).

It also includes international influence- aid is important in present discourse

The theory also provides an aim for social policy – i.e. to shift towards formal welfare state regime.

Theoretical Model for Welfare Regime Shift in Nepal (based on Gough/Wood, 2004)

Where Nepal stands nowWhere Nepal stands now

Where Nepal should be moving towards

Where Nepal should be moving towards

Challenges Welfare state approach rarely applied in the

south- Why welfare state for poor countries?

I AM IN MINORITY – is this a tool to become like west????

NEPAL IS TOO POOR TO DO WELFARE- ‘we are not rich enough to look after all the

children yet...let us become rich first.’

- ATTITUDE is THE problem

Application of welfare regime theory to Nepal: What do people really want

Post Conflict Countryn- A decade of Maoist armed conflict

New constitution underway.... Critical to know which rights are important for the people? Esp the poor?

The Case Study- NepalVariables

Welfare services

Range of entitlements

Service Provider

Eligibility rules

Service Reach

Equity/Stratification

Quality/adequacy/effectiveness

Social Security

Housing support

Education Services

Health Care Services

Personal services and social Care

Preliminary findingsNepal’s welfare regime nature90% in informal sectorResidual/safety net vs universal Institutionalisation of children for

supportNature of commodification of

health care and education

No formal comprehensive acknowledgement of children by the state until they themselves seek citizenship card at the age of 16, birth reg too not universal and not linked to direct service

Children rely on family and kins and I/NGOs and there is absence of government protection mechanisms in a comprehensive manner

Theory - RevisitedDecommodification as imp as

declientelisation - even in peripherals economies- hence social democratic model still valid

Although important privatisation / social capitalism should be transitional and be regulated to ensure equality and least stratification

Local political change more important than I/NGO civil society reforms – Nepal’s case very clearly demonstrates this

Possible outcomes of study1st -theoretical contribution to emerging

discourse -esp applying welfare state theories to the

underdeveloped conditions - Emerging importance of social policy in south/

will be challenged by intl residual models - social protection floor ?2nd – concrete programmatic welfare state model and can serve a normative reference point for other models in south