Government Budgets and Rights Implementation

Blyberg, Ann

doi:10.1017/cbo9781139030663.010

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many of these include efforts to engage in deliberation with a range of actors both inside and outside governments. In Brazil, for example, after a dialogue and the collection of extensive evidence the Movement to Defend Social Rights under Threat by the Tax Reform (MDSR), which comprised over 100 civil society organisations, succesfully persuaded the government to withdraw a tax reform proposal which MDSR argued was incompatible with human rights (Blyberg and Hofbauer, 2014). Guatemalan experiences provide examples of failed initiatives.…”

Section: Incompleteness Of the Accountmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards ‘Human Rights Compatible’ Public Budgets – an Account of Institutional Virtues

Kuosmanen

2015

Political Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the aftermath of the recent economic crisis, scholarly discussions on the relationship between human rights, budgeting and budgets have been re-energised. This article focuses on the design of governing institutions in the context of public budgeting. More specifically, it introduces three institutional virtues, each of which can serve a facilitative function in the drafting of 'human rights compatible budgets' (i.e. budgets that take human rights obligations adequately into consideration). These institutional virtues are: instrumental deliberation, interpretative deliberation and evaluative deliberation.In the aftermath of the recent economic crisis scholars and human rights activists have often reminded that human rights should be adequately taken into account in public budgets. This suggestion alone, while legitimate, does not take us very far in efforts to address possible tensions between budgets and the realisation of human rights. Instead, it only constitutes a beginning that is followed by a set of complex questions related to potential actions and omissions by various agents. In general terms the scholarly literature that has so far discussed the topic can be divided into two categories: framework inquiries and case studies. The former focus on developing analytical instruments that can be utilised in the scrutiny of revenue and expenditure and the process of drafting budgets. 1 In turn, the latter focus on examining whether actual budgeting processes and budgets are compatible with human rights obligations. 2 This article offers a contribution to framework inquiries. More specifically, it focuses on guidelines for institutional design. Three institutional virtues will be introduced, each of which can -if integrated into public discussions on human rightsserve a facilitative function in the drafting of 'human rights compatible public budgets' -i.e. public budgets that adequately take into consideration human rights obligations. These institutional virtues are: instrumental deliberation, interpretative deliberation and evaluative deliberation. The article will proceed in the following way. First, the link between human rights and public budgeting, and the general function of deliberation in the drafting of human rights compatible budgets, will be explored. Second, the three modes of deliberation will be introduced. Finally, limitations in the case that has been presented will be examined.

show abstract

Section: Incompleteness Of the Accountmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards ‘Human Rights Compatible’ Public Budgets – an Account of Institutional Virtues

Kuosmanen

2015

Political Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…L2 aims to be easy to use, attractable to new users and be constantly re‐evaluated and updated. L2 has provided a framework within which we are able to re‐evaluate virtually every aspect of classical librarianship with the end goal of usability and findability in mind (Blyberg, 2006). L2 is built upon the principles of and is a direct result of the term Web 2.0.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Taking the information to the public through Library 2.0

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeLibraries as they are known today can be defined by the term Library 1.0. This defines the way resources are kept on shelves or at a computer behind a login. These resources can be taken from a shelf, checked out to the librarian, taken home for a certain length of time and absorbed, and then taken back to the library for someone else to use. Library 1.0 is a one‐directional service that takes people to the information that they require. Library 2.0 – or L2 as it is now more commonly addressed as – aims to take the information to the people by bringing the library service to the internet and getting the users more involved by encouraging feedback participation. This paper seeks to present an overview of Library 2.0.Design/methodology/approachThis paper presents an overview of Web 2.0 including definitions, technologies involved and sites currently advocated as examples of Web 2.0.FindingsThe major difference between Library 1.0 and L2 is that Library 1.0 only allows for a one‐way flow of information while L2 is a read‐write library that gives library users the power to decide the service that they get. L2 reinforces the role libraries play in the community by building on today's best and continually improving the service. L2 can be summarized as being user‐driven and aiming to save each library user time in retrieving information.Originality/valueLibraries have been around for centuries and are considered places in which books, journals, CDs, etc. are kept for reference or for borrowing by the public. The term L2 was believed to have been first made by Michael Casey in his blog LibraryCrunch. Chad and Paul Miller describe Library 2.0 (L2) as a concept, very different from the service one knows today, that operates according to the expectations of today's users. They state that with this concept the library will make information available wherever and whenever the user requires it. One point to note here is that this concept is not about replacing the 1.0 technology already being used but rather about adding additional functionality.

show abstract

Government Budgets and Rights Implementation

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Towards ‘Human Rights Compatible’ Public Budgets – an Account of Institutional Virtues

Towards ‘Human Rights Compatible’ Public Budgets – an Account of Institutional Virtues

Taking the information to the public through Library 2.0

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About