Women’s rights INGO shaming and the government respect for women’s rights

Abstract

How effective are women's rights international non-governmental organizations (WROs) in improving government respect for women's rights? In this paper, we argue that WROs can be powerful actors in advancing women's status, especially when they adopt a specific advocacy strategy: "naming and shaming" of governments or non-governmental agents. We assert that a targeted "naming and shaming" publicity strategy is necessary to exert pressure on the government to enforce women's internationally recognized rights. Using a new dataset on the advocacy activities of over 1,595 WROs, we test the implications of our argument in a global statistical model from 1991 to 2005. The results indicate that WRO shaming is likely to improve women's economic and social rights while having no discernible impact on women's political rights. We also find that the mere presence of WROs is unlikely to have a significant impact on women's rights. One major implication of the findings is that any significant improvement in respect for women's rights partly requires a strong voice in advocacy. The findings also suggest that governments that face pressure from advocacy groups are more inclined to promote and enforce only the rights that do not threaten their own political power and status, such as women's social and economic rights.

Dying for Globalization? The Impact of Economic Globalization on Industrial Accidents

“…Taken as a whole, our findings thus suggest the need for active involvement at multiple levels to better address this governance failure, which can include an increased role for international organizations connected to labor (such as the ILO), increased prominence for worker safety in the global human rights regime (Hilgert, ), and pressure from NGOs in “shaming” recalcitrant employers and states (Murdie and Peksen, ; Murdie and Davis, ). Indeed, we did find the ratification of ILO conventions to have a negative impact upon the probability of major industrial accidents, which does connote that an examination of the specific roles of IGOs, and potentially NGOs, in this process may be a fruitful area for further inquiry.…”

Making Human Rights Emotional: A Research Agenda to Recover Shame in “Naming and Shaming”

“…A rich IR literature examines the use and efficacy of a variety of naming and shaming instruments, ranging from formal resolutions, blacklists, and targeted sanctions to discursive representations that impose reputational costs such as social opprobrium on targets. While states are adept users of naming and shaming as documented in this literature (Ausderan, ; Biersteker, ; de Goede, ; Lebovic & Voeten, ), a robust scholarship centers on its use by nonstate actors (NSAs), particularly nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), in the arena of human rights (Bell & Carens, ; Bob, ; Hill, Moore, & Mukherjee, ; Keck & Sikkink, ; Meernik, Aloisi, Sowell, & Nichols, ; Murdie & Peksen, ; Ron, Ramos, & Rodgers, ). Despite the centrality accorded to NGOs in promulgating human rights norms through naming and shaming, the literature provides a rudimentary understanding of their underlying motivations, assessment, and conceptualization of this tool.…”

“…Indeed, a central preoccupation of the naming and shaming literature is the efficacy of naming and shaming tactics (whether by states or NSAs) on targets' human rights violations. These studies examine how naming and shaming works in affecting outcomes in varied areas such as the environment (Epstein & Barclay, ), loss of FDI and foreign aid (Esarey & DeMeritt, ; Lebovic & Voeten, ), trade (Peterson, Murdie, & Asal, ), the severity of genocides (Krain, ), the use of armed force and intervention (Murdie & Peksen, ) and women's rights (Heathcote, ; Murdie & Peksen, ) to name a few. While some make definitive claims about whether NGO shaming campaigns reduce human rights abuses (DeMeritt, ; Hafner‐Burton, ; Krain, ; Murdie & Peksen, ) and determine why some issues rise to international consciousness (Bob, ; Keck & Sikkink, ), others argue that these results are tempered by factors such as region, target state, the status and influence of NGOs, regime type, or the nature and degree of their ties (Franklin, ; Hendrix & Wong, ; Terman & Voeten, ; Wachman, ).…”

“…Shaming may be more effective in some issue areas than in others. For instance, Murdie and Peksen () find that HROs naming and shaming strategy improves respect for women's economic rights but is less effective for political rights. The agent of shaming also matters; while some point to NGOs as particularly effective shamers (Meernik et al, ), others argue that IOs or the media wield more leverage (Lebovic & Voeten, ; Vadlamannati, Janz, & Berntsen, ).…”

Women's Rights Organizations and Human Trafficking

“…Similar to Neumayer, Cole () shows that the combination of signing the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), and having a large number of WROs within your state, leads to higher levels of respect for women's rights. Murdie and Peksen () show that WROs, through naming and shaming, can influence improvements in women's rights. Overall, the literature on HROs and WROs illustrates that there is a place for transnational advocacy networks to improve outcomes across different types of human rights.…”