Showing posts with label basic_needs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label basic_needs. Show all posts

Sunday, 22 July 2018

Basic goods as basic rights

a post by Kenneth A. Reinert for the OUP blog


Kids water by Abigail Keenan. Public domain viaUnsplash

If we were to try summarizing the many statements on human rights within the United Nations system, it might be as follows: basic goods are basic rights. True, there was an old approach to human rights that focused exclusively on “negative” political rights and cast doubt on “positive” subsistence rights. For example, it has been argued that we should not focus on economic or social rights because this would distract attention from political rights. This distinction, however, was forcibly shown to be illogical by political philosopher Henry Shue in his book Basic Rights (Princeton University Press, 1997).

As demonstrated by Shue, and as common sense suggests, even “negative” political rights require positive action in the form of the provision of human security services, legal services, and judicial services. Further, it is impossible for individuals to effectively exercise political rights when severely deprived of subsistence goods. Starkly put, there are no functioning political rights for the prematurely dead.

Continue reading


Friday, 8 June 2012

Needs as the determinant of absolute poverty: …

estimating the cost of nutrition, clothing and footwear, and transportation in Greece

 an article by George Labrinidis, Thanasis Maniatis, Aris Oikonomou and Marianna Papadopoulou (affiliation(s) not provided) published in International Journal of Management Concepts and Philosophy Volume 6 Number 2/1 (2012)

This paper aims at showing that the approach of defining and measuring absolute poverty on the basis of “basic and social needs’ is feasible.

The categories of nutrition, clothing and footwear, and transportation are examined under this light, a basket of use values is formed and subsequently it is priced to provide three corresponding sub-indexes for those constituents of the threshold of absolute poverty for Greece in 2011.

Hazel’s comment:
I have said before, and will no doubt go to my grave still saying, that defining poverty in relative terms is simply wrong. I'm no economist nor am I a statistician (I left the latter behind when I finished my A-levels) but it must be obvious that if you define poverty in relation to average or rich then you will always have poverty. Rich are the people at the top of the tree, average are those around the middle, poor are at the base. People may climb up, people may slide down but the tree will still have people at the top, people at the bottom and at all points in between.
Sorry if that seems too simplistic but I have a very visual style!