Assessing the success of National Human Rights Action Plans from a political economy perspective: The case of Chile

IF 2 3区 经济学 Q2 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Development Policy Review Pub Date : 2024-08-08 DOI:10.1111/dpr.12804
Paola Fajardo-Heyward, Jose Cuesta
{"title":"Assessing the success of National Human Rights Action Plans from a political economy perspective: The case of Chile","authors":"Paola Fajardo-Heyward,&nbsp;Jose Cuesta","doi":"10.1111/dpr.12804","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Motivation</h3>\n \n <p>National Human Rights Action Plans (NHRAPs) turn state commitments to human rights into policy. Despite their widespread implementation internationally, they remain little studied and there is limited consensus as to their effectiveness.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>This article addresses this by using a political economy model to develop a framework to evaluate the success of NHRAPs. Within this framework it is argued that capacity, political structure, and political consensus are key drivers in the design and implementation of NHRAPs. We hypothesize that a country is likely to design and effectively use an NHRAP in policy-making if at least these three requirements are met: (1) they are built on political consensus; (2) their perceived political benefits exceed their costs; and (3) governments have adequate resources to design and implement them.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Approach and methods</h3>\n \n <p>We evaluate this hypothesis using Chile as a case study. In 2016, Chile enacted a national law mandating NHRAPs. Since then, the country has adopted two NHRAPs: one spanning 2018–2021 and another covering 2022–2025.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Findings</h3>\n \n <p>None of the three stipulated requirements were met in Chile. There was deep polarization rather than consensus building; the political costs of implementing an NHRAP exceeded the benefits; and key government bodies in Chile lacked the personnel and mandate to implement NHRAPs.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Policy implications</h3>\n \n <p>This study advances our understanding of the nuances of designing public policies for human rights, and the complex political costs associated with them. Unless political actors are committed to investing political capital and resources, it is unlikely that these plans will succeed. Our political economy framework can be replicated across multiple national action plans, countries, and contexts. Future studies can identify contributing conditions that can mitigate political costs, increasing the likelihood of the success of these plans.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":51478,"journal":{"name":"Development Policy Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Development Policy Review","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dpr.12804","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Motivation

National Human Rights Action Plans (NHRAPs) turn state commitments to human rights into policy. Despite their widespread implementation internationally, they remain little studied and there is limited consensus as to their effectiveness.

Purpose

This article addresses this by using a political economy model to develop a framework to evaluate the success of NHRAPs. Within this framework it is argued that capacity, political structure, and political consensus are key drivers in the design and implementation of NHRAPs. We hypothesize that a country is likely to design and effectively use an NHRAP in policy-making if at least these three requirements are met: (1) they are built on political consensus; (2) their perceived political benefits exceed their costs; and (3) governments have adequate resources to design and implement them.

Approach and methods

We evaluate this hypothesis using Chile as a case study. In 2016, Chile enacted a national law mandating NHRAPs. Since then, the country has adopted two NHRAPs: one spanning 2018–2021 and another covering 2022–2025.

Findings

None of the three stipulated requirements were met in Chile. There was deep polarization rather than consensus building; the political costs of implementing an NHRAP exceeded the benefits; and key government bodies in Chile lacked the personnel and mandate to implement NHRAPs.

Policy implications

This study advances our understanding of the nuances of designing public policies for human rights, and the complex political costs associated with them. Unless political actors are committed to investing political capital and resources, it is unlikely that these plans will succeed. Our political economy framework can be replicated across multiple national action plans, countries, and contexts. Future studies can identify contributing conditions that can mitigate political costs, increasing the likelihood of the success of these plans.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从政治经济学角度评估国家人权行动计划的成功:智利的案例
国家人权行动计划(NHRAPs)将国家对人权的承诺转化为政策。尽管《国家人权行动计划》在国际上得到了广泛实施,但对其研究仍然很少,对其有效性的共识也很有限。本文采用政治经济学模型,建立了一个评估《国家人权行动计划》成功与否的框架,以解决这一问题。在这一框架内,我们认为能力、政治结构和政治共识是设计和实施《国家人权行动计划》的关键驱动因素。我们假设,一个国家如果至少满足以下三个要求,就有可能在决策过程中设计并有效利用《国家人权行动计划》:(我们以智利为例对这一假设进行评估。2016 年,智利颁布了一项授权实施《国家人权行动计划》的国家法律。此后,智利通过了两项《国家人权行动计划》:一项横跨 2018-2021 年,另一项涵盖 2022-2025 年。智利没有达到规定的三项要求:两极分化严重,而不是建立共识;实施《国家人权行动计划》的政治成本超过了收益;智利主要政府机构缺乏实施《国家人权行动计划》的人员和授权。除非政治行为者承诺投入政治资本和资源,否则这些计划不可能取得成功。我们的政治经济学框架可以在多个国家行动计划、国家和环境中推广。未来的研究可以确定减轻政治成本的有利条件,从而提高这些计划取得成功的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Development Policy Review
Development Policy Review DEVELOPMENT STUDIES-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
5.90%
发文量
87
期刊介绍: Development Policy Review is the refereed journal that makes the crucial links between research and policy in international development. Edited by staff of the Overseas Development Institute, the London-based think-tank on international development and humanitarian issues, it publishes single articles and theme issues on topics at the forefront of current development policy debate. Coverage includes the latest thinking and research on poverty-reduction strategies, inequality and social exclusion, property rights and sustainable livelihoods, globalisation in trade and finance, and the reform of global governance. Informed, rigorous, multi-disciplinary and up-to-the-minute, DPR is an indispensable tool for development researchers and practitioners alike.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Assessing the success of National Human Rights Action Plans from a political economy perspective: The case of Chile Reshaping gender norms: Exploring the ripple effect of refugeeism on women's empowerment Does subsidizing seed help farmers? Nepal's rice seed subsidies Social sustainability discourse in cohesion policy: A critical review of Interreg Europe 2021–2027
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1