Defending Dignity A Manual for National Human Rights Institutions on Monitoring Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Who has to do something about it? It is important to identify, in concrete terms, who are the duty bearers – those with obligations to act – for a specific human right and to define what is expected of them. For example, a particular policy decision might regulate the behaviour of public servants, businesses or certain individuals. What do they need to take action? This question helps identify critical capacity gaps that prevent action. These capacity gaps will nearly always involve gaps in legal, institutional, policy and budgetary frameworks. A knowledge gap on human rights awareness is also common. In this question, “they” refers to both rights holders and duty bearers. For example, a particular policy decision might give public servants too many discretionary powers, or it might not provide enough money to service providers, or it might not give people an avenue to lodge complaints, or it might not take into account the particular needs of women. How should action be taken? A key characteristic of the human rights-based approach is that the process is just as important as the outcome of development. For example, a particular policy decision may not have been taken in a way that is transparent, participatory and empowering for those who will be affected by it. THE COMPLEXITY OF POVERTY We build solutions based on how we see and identify the world around us. If one argues that a man is hungry because he has no food, the solution is to give him food. If one argues that a man is hungry because he is unable to get sufficient food from his small plot of land, then the solution will imply increasing the amount of land available or its output. If we add in extra information, i.e. that the plot is too small because most of the village land was taken over by a government farm then the solution is different again. If we also identify that he is in fact more likely to be a she, and that being a woman she was not eligible to the government scheme of redistribution of land then the complexity deepens further. Simple solutions may thus scratch only the surface of the reality that makes up poverty. Source: Danish Institute for Human Rights (2007), Applying a rights-based approach: An inspirational guide for civil society 1.4. HOW IS A HUMAN RIGHTS-BASED APPROACH DIFFERENT TO OTHER APPROACHES TO DEVELOPMENT? Traditionally, a country’s level of development was conceptualized narrowly, with an almost total focus on economic growth (i.e. the rise in a country’s gross domestic product or GDP). In recent decades, however, a broader view of “human development” has taken root. This conceptualization sees development as the improvement in people’s capabilities and standard of living, which is measured by indicators such as life expectancy and literacy rates, as well as income and poverty levels. Nevertheless, even the human development approach tends to be utilitarian, measuring development outcomes based on overall aggregate or average levels. Development professionals have tended to be economists and social scientists and their agenda is set through commitments made at international summits, such as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) or Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), poverty reduction strategies, economic policies and sector-based policies. A human rights-based approach, on the other hand, is normative – some would argue idealistic – and focused on individuals. It also pays close attention to inequalities and exclusion, rather than being satisfied with aggregate measures of ‘overall’ progress. Professionals working on human rights have tended to be lawyers and political scientists, who base their work on the human rights standards set out in international, regional and national laws, along with national human rights plans. While debates about how to better integrate human rights and human development have advanced a lot from these stereotypes, there are still some notable differences, as outlined in the following table from OHCHR. 10