Topics to be covered

1. 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 SumanKhadka, Nepal Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

2. Topics to be covered • Popularity of CRC in Child Wellbeing/social policy plans • Child soldier story • Limitations of child rights framework • Alternative frameworks • Welfare regime framework • Application of welfare regime theory to Nepal’s case- some preliminary findings • ( note – crosscutting thread – Nepal, child soldier)

3. Popularity of child rights • CRC 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)

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

5. Child Soldier’s story • Child 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?

6. CRC and Social Policy: Problems • PROGRESSIVE 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’

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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’

10. 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-

11. 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 IT Negative rights positive rights

12. 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

13. 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.

14. Theoretical Model for Welfare Regime Shift in Nepal (based on Gough/Wood, 2004) Where Nepal should be moving towards Where Nepal stands now

15. 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

16. 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?

17. The Case Study- Nepal

18. Preliminary findings • Nepal’s welfare regime nature • 90% in informal sector • Residual/safety net vs universal • Institutionalisation of children for support • Nature of commodification of health care and education

19. 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

20. Theory - Revisited • Decommodification 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

21. Possible outcomes of study • 1st -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