Advertisement

Measuring the World: Indicators, Human Rights, and Global Governance

  • Sally Engle Merry
Chapter

Abstract

Indicators are rapidly multiplying as tools for assessing and promoting a variety of social justice and reform strategies around the world. There are rule of law indicators, indicators of violence against women, and indicators of economic development, among many others. Indicators are widely used at the national level and are increasingly important in global governance. There are increasing demands for “evidence-based” funding for non-governmental organizations and that the results of civil society organizations to be quantifiable and measurable. The reliance on simplified numerical representations of complex phenomena began in strategies of national governance and economic analysis and has recently migrated to the regulation of non-governmental organizations and human rights. The turn to indicators in the field of global governance introduces a new form of knowledge production with implications for relations of power between rich and poor nations and governments and civil society. The deployment of statistical measures tends to replace political debate with technical expertise. The growing reliance on indicators provides an example of the dissemination of the corporate form of thinking and governance into broader social spheres.

Keywords

Quantification Global governance Corporate social responsibility Human rights New governance 

References

  1. Alston, P. (2005). Richard Lillich Memorial Lecture: Promoting the Accountability of Members of the New UN Human Rights Council. Journal of Transnational Law and Policy, 15(1), 49–96.Google Scholar
  2. American Enterprise Institute (AEI). (2008). An Innovative Approach to Foreign Aid. Retrieved from: https://www.aei.org/publication/an-innovative-approach-to-foreign-aid/
  3. Bloom, S. S. (2008). Violence Against Women and Girls: A Compendium of Monitoring and Evaluation Indicators. Washington, DC: US AID.Google Scholar
  4. Center for International Development, & Conflict Management (2017). Research. [Website] Retrieved from: https://cidcm.umd.edu/landing/Research
  5. Cohn, B. S. (1996). Colonialism and Its Forms of Knowledge: The British in India. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Davis, K. (2004). What Can the Rule of Law Variable Tell us About Rule of Law Reforms? Michigan Journal of International Law, 26, 141–161.Google Scholar
  7. Davis, K. E., & Kruse, M. B. (2007). Taking the Measure of Law: The Case of the Doing Business Project. Law and Social Inquiry, 32(4), 1095–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dirks, N. B. (2001). Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern India. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Doing Business. (2016). Economy Rankings. Washington, DC: Doing Business. Retrieved from: http://www.doingbusiness.org/EconomyRankings
  10. Filmer-Wilson, E. (2005, March 31). Summary Report of Material Collated Regarding Practical Guidance to Implementing Rights-Based Approaches, Human Rights Analyses for Poverty Reduction and Human Rights Benchmarks from Development Actors and Other Relevant Communities. London: Department for International Development. Retrieved from: http://www.gsdrc.org/docs/open/con30.pdf
  11. Goonesekere, S. (2004). Introduction: Indicators for Monitoring Implementation of CEDAW. In United Nations Development Fund for Women, South Asia Regional Office (Ed.), CEDAW Indicators for South Asia: An Initiative. Columbi: Centre for Women’s Research (CENWOR).Google Scholar
  12. Green, M. (2001). What We Talk About When We Talk About Indicators: Current Approaches to Human Rights Measurement. Human Rights Quarterly, 23, 1062–1097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. ICF. (2017). [Website]. Retrieved from: http://www.icf.com
  14. Kaufmann, D., & Kraay, A. (2007). Governance Indicators: Where Are We, Where Should We Be Going? (Policy Research Working Paper, No. 4370). Washington, DC: The World Bank. Retrieved from: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/KraayKaufmannGovernanceIndicatorsSurveyNov12.pdf
  15. Kipnis, A. B. (2008). Audit Cultures: Neoliberal Governmentality, Socialist Legacy, or Technologies of Governing? American Ethnologist, 35(2), 275–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Malhotra, R. & Fasel, N. (2005). Quantitative Human Rights Indicators: A Survey of Major Initiatives (Background Paper for the UN Expert Meeting on Human Rights Indicators). Oslo: Norwegian Centre for Human Rights. Retrieved from: http://www.gaportal.org/sites/default/files/Quantitative%20Human%20Rights%20Indicators.pdf
  18. Maurer, B. (2005). Mutual Life, Limited: Islamic Banking, Alternative Currencies, Lateral Reason. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  19. MEASURE Evaluation. (n.d.). Mission. [Website]. Retrieved from: https://www.measureevaluation.org/about/mission
  20. Millennium Development Goals Indicators. (2017). [Website]. Retrieved from: https://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Default.aspx
  21. O’Malley, P. (1999). Governmentality and the Risk Society. Economy and Society, 28, 138–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Poovey, M. (1998). A History of the Modern Fact: Problems of Knowledge in the Sciences of Wealth and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Porter, T. M. (1995). Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Power, M. (1999). The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Randeria, S. (2006). Entangled Histories of Uneven Modernities: Civil Society, Caste Solidarities and Legal Pluralism in Post-Colonial India. In J. Keane (Ed.), Civil Society – Berlin Perspectives (pp. 213–242). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Rose, N. (1989). Governing the Soul: The Shaping of the Private Self. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Rose, N. (1996). The Death of the Social? Re-Figuring the Territory of Government. Economy and Society, 25, 327–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rose, N. (1999). Predicaments of Freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Rosga, A. J., & Satterthwaite, M. L. (2009). The Trust in Indicators: Measuring Human Rights. Berkley Journal of International Law (BJIL), 27(2), 253–315.Google Scholar
  30. Rottenburg, R. (2009). Far-fetched Facts: A Parable of Development Aid. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sen, A. K. (1999). Development as Freedom. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  32. Shore, C., & Wright, S. (2000). Coercive Accountability: The Rise of Audit Culture in Higher Education. In M. Strathern (Ed.), Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics, and the Academy (pp. 57–90). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Strathern, M. (Ed.). (2000). Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics, and the Academy. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Turku Expert Meeting on Human Rights Indicators. (2005). [Website]. Retrieved from: www.abo.fi/instut/imr/indicators/index.html
  35. UN Division for the Advancement of Women. (2007). Report of the Expert Group Meeting: Indicators to Measure Violence Against Women. Geneva: UN Division for the Advancement of Women, UN Economic Commission for Europe, UN Statistical Division.Google Scholar
  36. UN Global Compact. (2007). Annual Review. New York: UN Global Compact. Retrieved from: https://www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/news_events/8.1/GCAnnualReview2007.pdf
  37. UN Global Compact. (2008). The Practical Guide to the United Nations Global Compact Communications on Progress (COPs). Revised Version of 2004 Report. New York: United Nations Global Compact. Retrieved from: www.unglobalcompact.org
  38. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2000). Using Indicators for Human Rights in Accountability. In Human Development Report 2000 (pp. 89–111). New York: UNDP.Google Scholar
  39. US Agency of International Development. (2009). Threshold Program.Google Scholar
  40. US State Department. (2009). Human Rights Report 2009. Washington, DC: US State Department. Retrieved from: https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/
  41. Von Bogdandy, A. & Goldman, M. (2009). The Exercise of Public Authority Through National Policy Assessment (Institute for International Law and Justice Working Paper 2009/2, Global Administrative Law Series). New York: Institute for International Law and Justice. Retrieved from: http://www.iilj.org/publications/the-exercise-of-international-public-authority-through-national-policy-assessment/
  42. Welker, M., & Wood, D. (2011). Shareholder Activism and Alienation. Current Anthropology, 52(Suppl. 3), S57–S69.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sally Engle Merry
    • 1
  1. 1.New York UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations