Content uploaded by Nora Groce
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nora Groce on Mar 27, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
ALTER, European Journal of Disability Research 5 (2011) 206–220
et également disponible sur www.em-consulte.com
Research paper
Implementing the United Nations Convention on the rights
of persons with disabilities: principles, implications,
practice and limitations
La mise en œuvre de la Convention des Nations Unies relative aux
droits des personnes handicapées: principes, implications, pratiques
et limites
Raymond Lang, Maria Kett, Nora Groce, Jean-Francois Trani∗
Leonard Cheshire Disability and Inclusive Development Centre, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health,
University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London WC1 E6BT, United Kingdom
article info
Article history:
Received 19 July 2010
Accepted 15 December 2010
Available online23 March 2011
Keywords:
Disability
Human rights
Convention on the rights of persons with
disabilities (CRPD)
Development
Capabilities approach
abstract
The present paper examines the theories and principles upon which
the Convention of the rights of people with disabilities (CRPD) are
premised. It therefore demonstrates the potential value and util-
ity that these have in extending the inherent human rights that
people with disabilities, are endowed. The implementation of the
CRPD is a challenge considering the complex ‘rights based’ issues
involved and because disabled people have to generate the commit-
ment from civil society and government. It is argued that there is a
need to move from policy to implementation, and that this needs
to be adequately monitored and evaluated. Sustainable and effec-
tive interventions will benefit by being informed, monitored and
evaluated based upon the broader human rights paradigm and the
capabilities approach.
© 2011 Published by Elsevier Masson SAS on behalf of
Association ALTER.
∗Corresponding author.
E-mail address: j.trani@ucl.ac.uk (J.-F. Trani).
1875-0672/$ – see front matter © 2011 Published by Elsevier Masson SAS on behalf of Association ALTER.
doi:10.1016/j.alter.2011.02.004
R. Lang et al. / ALTER, European Journal of Disability Research 5 (2011) 206–220 207
Mots clés :
Handicap
Droits humains
Convention sur les droits des personnes
handicapées
Développement
Approche par les capabilités
résumé
Le présent article examine les théories et les principes qui fondent
la Convention sur les droits des personnes handicapées, montrant
ainsi leur valeur et utilité potentielles dans l’extension des droits
humains dont les personnes handicapées doivent pouvoir béné-
ficier. La mise en œuvre de la Convention constitue un challenge
dans la mesure où des problèmes complexes de droit sont impliqués
et en raison du nécessaire engagement de la société civile et des
gouvernements que doivent susciter les organisations de person-
nes handicapées pour ce faire. Nous considérons qu’il est nécessaire
de passer du principe politique à son application ce qui suppose
que celle-ci soit correctement suivie et évaluée. Des interventions
durables et effectives gagneront à s’appuyer dans leur conception,
leur mise en œuvre et leur évaluation sur le paradigme des droits
humains au sens large ainsi que sur l’approche par les capabilités.
© 2011 Publi ´
e par Elsevier Masson SAS pour l’Association ALTER.
Introduction
It is undisputed that disabled people constitute one of the most marginalised and socially excluded
groups in any society, both in the global North and South. There is increasing research showing that
there is a positive correlation between disability and poverty, with each being a cause and a conse-
quence of the other (Beresford, 1996; Braithwaite & Mont, 2009; Elwan, 1999; Filmer, 2008; Mitra,
2006; Trani & Loeb, 2010; Yeo & Moore, 2003;). Hence, if an individual has a disability, then he or
she is statistically more likely: not to have completed primary education, to have fewer formal edu-
cation qualifications, to be unemployed; and if employed to be paid less, and to have less access to
public services than their non-disabled peers (Mitra & Sambamoorthi, 2008; Mitra & Sambamoorthi,
2009; Trani & Loeb, 2010). Conversely, those who are poor are more likely to be disabled as they are
more susceptible to chronic illness and disease, they tend to live in substandard and insanitary hous-
ing conditions, work at more dangerous jobs and have less access to safe water and good nutrition.
At a prima facie level, it would appear that the lived experience of disabled people in developing
countries, demonstrated by the scenario described above, constitute a significant challenge to the
promotion and enforcement of human rights, notwithstanding the passage of the UN Convention on
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).
Since its entry into force in May 2008, the CRPD has generated a great deal of discussion glob-
ally about the long-term impacts it will have on the lives of disabled people. As yet there has been
little engagement by the disability sector with the mainstream human rights discourse, with scant
discussion about the challenges of implementing a genuinely rights-based approach to disability
policy and programming. However, in the contemporary development studies literature debate has
focused on converting human rights into rights-based approaches (RBAs) in development program-
ming, (Cornwall & Nyamu-Musembi, 2004; Gready & Ensor, 2005; Grugel & Piper, 2009). A comparable
discussion is needed on how the CRPD can be expanded and linked to already established discourses
in human rights to ensure practical application and effective enforcement of such rights. Governments
and bilateral and multilateral donor agencies, as well as mainstream and disability-specific NGOs claim
that they strive to base all their activities on the principle of the universal human rights. However,
it is apparent that there remains a major gulf between these laudable statements, and what actually
happens in practice.
It will be argued here that this growing gulf is, at least in part, the result of a lack of agreed indica-
tors on what constitutes effective human rights measures and achievements; but also because these
debates are complex, it follows that some rights, by their very nature, are difficult to monitor. As
with other human rights, there is the possibility that attainment of rights in one area jeopardises or
contradicts the achievement of rights in another area. This has been traditionally characterised as
208 R. Lang et al. / ALTER, European Journal of Disability Research 5 (2011) 206–220
a debate between ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ rights: those of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR) and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)
respectively.
The article begins by outlining the potential that CRPD has, at least in principle, to promote and
enforce disability rights. It will also discuss the ideological foundations on which it has been premised,
in order to demonstrate the challenges and difficulties that exist with regard to its implementation,
as well as providing a critique of some of its ideology. The article will go on to question the extent to
which it is possible to implement a universal approach to disability rights, particularly in developing
countries.
Three key areas of concern will be central to this discussion:
•the lack of effective national disability policies that would provide a mechanism for the practical
implementation of the Convention in many of the countries that have ratified the Convention;
•the dissonance that exists between policy and practice that will arise where inadequate governance
arrangements exist in many developing countries even when adequate national laws are in place
and;
•the potential lack of will for implementation that may continue to exist on the part of governments
and civil society.
It will be argued that there is a need to better understand and more critically evaluate the barri-
ers that exist for the effective implementation of the CRPD, and a need for improved monitoring of
implementation efforts in order to build a robust evidence base on which policy and programming
can regularly be reviewed. It will also be argued that various approaches, including the capabilities
approach, provide an important theoretical construct in taking this debate forward. Finally, potential
areas for further research will be identified.
The underlying principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
The CRPD is the first legally binding international treaty that provides a comprehensive portfolio
of disability rights, and has the potential to create a paradigm shift in the manner in which disability
policy and practice is formulated and implemented. The intellectual underpinning of the CRPD are the
principles of the social model of disability. However, it is important to note that the CRPD is based on
already existing human rights principles, primarily the fundamental right of non-discrimination. This
principle ensures that disabled people are not discriminated against on the basis of their impairment
and enjoy the rights and responsibilities commensurate with all other citizens within the society in
which they live.
This established body of human rights instruments has already encountered a number of chal-
lenges related to progressive human rights-based legislation in the developing world that, it can be
anticipated, will also have to be addressed by the CRPD. Many of these challenges relate to under-
standing what constitutes the derogation of rights; how rights abuses are monitored and reported;
how complaints and judicial processes are implemented; the human and financial resources avail-
able for the protection and promotion of human rights; how policies and development programmes
that purport to be based on human rights values are evaluated; and against what norms and stan-
dards rights are measured. This includes the ways in which development programmes themselves
implement rights-based approaches (UNDP:2006).
The UN has identified six Human Rights principles to guide rights-based approaches1. These are:
•universality and inalienability;
•indivisibility;
•interdependence and interrelatedness;
•equality and non-discrimination;
1UN Common Understanding on the Human Rights Based Approach to Development (2003).
R. Lang et al. / ALTER, European Journal of Disability Research 5 (2011) 206–220 209
•participation and inclusion;
•accountability and the rule of law
Interestingly, despite these principles, there is not one universally agreed set of indicators to assess
human rights-based approaches to aid and development, although there is currently much debate
around these issues, particularly within the UN (Green, 2001; Kalantry, Getgen & Koh, 2010). Several
UN organisations have taken the lead on this work, in particular the Office of the High Commissioner
for Human Rights (OHCHR)2. The secretariat of the CRPD is housed jointly between the UN Department
of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) and OHCHR.
There has been some debate by bilateral and multilateral donor agencies and governments, partic-
ularly in relation to Article 32 of the CRPD, which relates to international cooperation (Katsui, 2009).
The nature of the debate has centred on whether it is more effective to provide targeted services to
disabled people, or whether it is better to explicitly ensure that disabled people are mainstreamed in
generic development initiatives. Furthermore, disability-focused and mainstream international NGOs
working in the disability sector maintain that all their activities are underpinned by a universal and
indivisible philosophical approach to human rights – the rights-based approach (RBA). Whether this
is indeed the case it is matter of conjecture.
But simply claiming to implement a ‘human rights’ approach in policy and programming does
not automatically ensure that all activities undertaken by governments, donors and civil society
institutions guarantee those rights. For example, a ‘human rights’ approach is often invoked when
issues of who is the most deserving, or the most ‘vulnerable’ arise. Recent work on needs assess-
ment – particularly in emergency contexts – has focused more on analysis of the context or situation
instead of evaluating people’s needs as a premise to program implementation (Allan, 2003; Donini,
2007; ALNAP, 2009). From a rights-based perspective, being an older adult, woman or a person with a
disability does not make you vulnerable per se; rather it is the lack of access, information and support,
which exacerbates vulnerability. From a rights-based perspective, everyone has the equal opportu-
nity to access the same services, facilities etc.; however in reality, some will require more support
and assistance to attain these and more protection when they are unable to do so. This idea has been
developed by Sen using the example of disability. Sen argues that in order to achieve the same level
of functionings, such vulnerable people will need more resources (Sen, 1985, 2009).
The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the extension of human rights
There is considerable debate regarding whether the CRPD has created a new portfolio of rights,
or whether it has just codified hitherto existing rights established by the UN human rights treaties
into one legally binding international instrument. The United Nations maintain that no new rights
have been created, given the comprehensive nature of the Declaration on Human Rights (1948), the
ICCPR (1966); ICESR (1966), and the six other existing human rights treaties, as well as their optional
protocols.
However, since the enactment of the CRPD in May 2008, several scholars have argued it has indeed
changed the broader framework in which human rights are conceptualised. Furthermore, the con-
vention has the ability to provide a model for the negotiation and implementation of any further UN
human rights treaties. One of the unique attributes of the negotiation process of the CRPD was the
active involvement of civil society institutions, especially disabled people’s organisations (DPOs). The
negotiation of previous human rights treaties did not engage with civil society institutions in the same
systematic manner.
Some authors have described the extent to which human rights instruments can, at a very practical
level, enhance the enjoyment of human rights by disabled people. For example, in 2002, Quinn and
Degener produced a seminal report on how the then UN human rights framework could be utilised
to promote and enhance the rights of disabled people (Quinn & Degener, 2002). This influential paper
laid the intellectual foundations for the CRPD. Given the relatively recent enactment of the CRPD, legal
2The work of all UN agencies work is of course, underpinned by international human rights legislation.
210 R. Lang et al. / ALTER, European Journal of Disability Research 5 (2011) 206–220
scholars are only now beginning to research the long-term implications of its implemention. This
will become of increasing importance as the UN CRPD begins to assess the first country reports with
regards to its implementation. Hence, to date has been very little written on this subject, although
on-going innovative research is currently being undertaken at the Centre for Disability Policy and Law
at the University of Galway3and the Harvard Law School Project on Disability4. Some innovative stud-
ies are beginning to be published regarding the implementation of the CRPD in specific countries: for
instance, Vaughn’s study regarding the implementation of the CRPD in the USA, which makes specific
reference to the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (Vaughn, 2008); Hernandez’s comparative anal-
ysis of India and China particularly focuses on education (Hernandez, 2008); and Quinn has studied
the implications of implementing the CRPD in Ireland (Quinn, 2009).
Notwithstanding this caveat, some research has been published that discusses the broader ramifi-
cations of implementing the CRPD. For example, despite the United Nation’s argument that the CRPD
has not established new rights, Kayess and French (2008) have argued that the CRPD has changed the
framework of human rights in a fundamental way, by extending disability rights. This has been man-
ifested in a number of ways: new rights have been created in relation to the right to having research
commissioned to generate robust data (for robust monitoring and evaluation frameworks), and the
right to development, awareness raising, social protection and poverty reduction for persons with
disabilities to be included in international development programming (Kayess & French, 2008: 32).
Megret (2008) has further argued that the enactment of the CRPD significantly challenges the
foundations of existing human rights discourse, in particular the many traditional dichotomies that
exist within human rights discourse. Megret identifies four principal dichotomies: positive versus
negative rights; those rights enforced by the state versus those enforced by alternative rights actors;
those rights that require immediate implementation versus those with progressive realisation; and
the dichotomies that exist between adopting legislation and adopting policies regarding human rights
(Megret, 2008:262-263). Due to the very nature of their impairments, people with disabilities “typi-
cally require a much more complex social, political, economic and institutional set-up to enjoy rights
on an equal basis than their able-bodied counterparts” (Megret, 2008:263). Thus, his primary thesis
is that the lives of disabled people and the principles enshrined in the CRPD are so inherently com-
plex in their nature, that when these hitherto simpler dichotomies are confronted, it may result in a
redefinition of the foundational axioms of human rights.
Moreover, some of the assumptions upon which the CRPD, and other international human rights
treaties are premised, are much debated. Ever since the writings of the political philosophers of the
17th century, such as John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, there has been a fictional notion that all people,
irrespective of their particular social and economic context, at least in theory, have the same inherent
capacities, and these provide a basis for “self-sufficiency in adult life” (Petman, 2009: 22). For Locke, all
men are born in a state of freedom, endowed with the inherent human rights. Moreover, governments
derive their mandate to govern on the basis of the will of the ‘people’, and citizens have the right
to revolt against the government if it was abusing its power by usurping inherent human rights.
These theories of the ‘social contract’ form the basis of Western liberal democracies, and are still
very influential today. More recently, Richard Dworkin in his book, Taking rights seriously, has argued
that the protection, promotion and enforcement of human rights are the “trump card” within the
political lexicon, which takes precedence over other political ideals (Dworkin, 1977). If this is indeed
the case, then poor and marginalised groups, including people with disabilities, have an inherent right
to challenge their respective governments to ensure that their rights are upheld, thereby ensuring that
they are not de facto disenfranchised.
Grugel and Piper, in their very insightful article, Do rights promote development?, provide a very
interesting analysis regarding the extent to which human rights discourses actually promote sustain-
able development, including delineating some of the principal obstacles to achieving the impact that
they warrant (Grugel & Piper, 2009). Firstly, they make the important point that the nexus between
rights and development is a comparatively recent phenomenon, which only really began to have
3http://www.nuigalway.ie/cdlp/.
4http://www.nuigalway.ie/cdlp/.
R. Lang et al. / ALTER, European Journal of Disability Research 5 (2011) 206–220 211
credence after the end of the Cold War. Moreover, Amartya Sen, in his seminal book, Development as
freedom, pioneered the specific linkages between rights and development (Sen, 1999).
Grugel and Piper go on to maintain that the potency of claims to human rights provide a strong
operational foundation for development. However this, to a considerable extent, is contingent upon
whether a particular issue catches the public imagination and is believed to have higher moral claims.
These additional variables help to explain why some issues – such as child abuse – are more likely to
receive more attention than others, such as, for example, addressing systemic poverty. Furthermore,
they argue that international human rights treaties, backed up by international law, place demands
for state compliance with international standards, rather than providing robust mechanisms by which
individuals can hold their respective governments to account. Over-emphasis upon receiving rights
in terms of legal frameworks (rights-in-theory) may result in less attention to actual implementation
(rights-in-practice). Moreover, those who are traditionally the most marginalised and excluded within
society do not have the innate ability and social capital to effectively challenge governments with
regards to human rights commitments. It could be legitimately argued that, by their very nature,
the political, economic and social spaces inhabited by those who are the most socially excluded are
effectively disenfranchised from exercising their rights as citizens. Thus, Grugel and Piper are of the
opinion that:
... [T]here are considerable practical difficulties in the way vulnerable people claiming rights, espe-
cially when they experience multiple deprivations – which rights come first and why should we expect
such people to agree on a rational articulation and prioritisation of their rights?... Is it reasonable to
expect ‘rights-deprived’ individuals and communities to exist in a state of permanent claims-making?
(Grugel & Piper, 2009: 84-85).
Grugel and Piper also assert that campaigns to eradicate poverty have not made any significant
impact evidenced by the fact that Western governments, with few notable exceptions, have not taken
their commitments in relation to achieving the Millennium Development Goals seriously. Once again,
this has serious implications for disabled people living in the global South, particularly if under the
Convention their ‘rights’ are linked to reaching international development objectives.
In other words, the established body of scholarship, which already exists on implementation of
human right issues, increasingly acknowledges that legal rights do not alone create movement or
progress. If the implementation of human rights is to be effective, particularly in conjunction with an
international development agenda, such rights need to be proposed, accepted, implemented and then
monitored and evaluated closely and with due rigour. This is far more likely to happen – indeed, it is
crucial for this to happen – if there is a committed core group working with an engaged public that
take ownership of the issue, becomes informed, proactive in civil society and demands action from
government. Having rights-based legislation and international treaties will achieve very little, unless
these are closely aligned with strong advocacy initiatives.
Furthermore, international human rights treaties generally share the common objective of ensur-
ing that the rights of individuals within sovereign states are protected. However, notwithstanding
their moral and ethical impetus, there are no or negligible enforceable legal sanctions against States
Parties that do not uphold their human rights commitments (Hathaway, 2007). Furthermore, countries
whose political institutions do not respect the rule of law, the principle of democratic government,
and transparency in public affairs are unlikely to positively promote human rights law. As Hathaway
poignantly states:
Because there is almost no international enforcement of most human rights treaties, some scholars
have treated these treaties as dead letters – as mere cheap talk with virtually no impact on state
practice (Hathaway, 2007:592-593).
Therefore, it is likely that governments with a strong commitment to, and history of, the principle
of democratic government, combined with strong civil society institutions, are more likely to adhere
to human rights obligations than those countries that do not have such an intellectual heritage. Sadly,
as will be illustrated below, many developing countries lack the governance regimes that foster the
promotion of human rights. Notwithstanding the ratification and enforcement of the CRPD, serious
212 R. Lang et al. / ALTER, European Journal of Disability Research 5 (2011) 206–220
questions remain as to whether it will indeed result in positive systemic changes in many developing
countries.
Challenges to implementing the CRPD in developing countries
Disability rights and the challenges of global governance
The previous section of this paper outlined the theories and principles upon which international
human rights treaties, including the CRPD are premised. This has demonstrated the potential value
and utility that these have in extending the inherent human rights with which marginalised and
socially excluded groups, including those with disabilities, are endowed. This section moves on to
outline some of the significant practical challenges that exist in implementing all human rights
instruments –including and in particular the CRPD.
Notwithstanding the historic importance of the enactment of the CRPD, there are significant chal-
lenges to its effective implementation, some of which have been discussed previously (Lang, 2009;
Quinn, 2008). It is important to revisit this critique, looking at it through the lens of human rights
discourse. Many of these challenges and difficulties are by no means unique to the disability sector,
but have been encountered in the implementation and monitoring of other UN human rights treaties.
While a number of challenges are encountered when undertaking such an enterprise, it is neverthe-
less vitally important that these issues are addressed. Without robust governance frameworks for
implementing human rights obligations, both at a national and international level, it is likely that no
substantial progress will be made.
Central to these concerns is the issue that, despite the fact that in many developing countries
progressive human rights-based disability policies exist, and disability rights are often explicitly
mentioned in the written national constitutions, it still remains the case that these rights are most fre-
quently honoured in the breach. This results in an “implementation gap” between policy formulation
and implementation. Uganda, by way of example, passed the Persons with Disabilities Act in 2006 but,
to date, there has been no regulations passed for its subsequent implementation. During key infor-
mant interviews undertaken by one of the authors in February 2009 (Lang, 2009), with representatives
from the Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development (responsible for the implementation of
disability policy in Uganda), they stated that these regulations are only now in the process of being
finalised.
This situation reflects a much broader issue regarding governance structures and processes. Even
when the need for good governance is acknowledged, there are few incentives either in Government
Ministries or in the private sector for such procedures to be upheld. This is evidenced by the fact
that the processes of policy formulation and implementation are totally divorced from each other. For
example, there is a lack of coordination between different Government Ministries on cross-cutting
issues such as disability; and there is a lack of robust statistical data to highlight disability issues. This
situation is further compounded by a highly decentralised form of government in Uganda, whereby
the central government does not easily engage with its counterparts at the District level or below
(Lang, 2009). This scenario is often replicated in other developing countries, for example, Zimbabwe
(Lang and Chadowa, 2007).
Here the disability movement, at both the national and international level, could potentially play
a strong, catalytic role in linking disability issues with the international development agenda. As pre-
viously stated, a unique aspect of the negotiation process of the CRPD was the active involvement
of civil society institutions, especially DPOs. Previous human rights treaties were primarily negoti-
ated between sovereign states with relatively low involvement of civil society, except possibly at the
margins of the debate. However, the successful enactment of the rapidly negotiated CRPD, negotiated
over a unprecedented five-year period, has shown the value of having a core constituency working at
all levels of the process – from grassroots, to discussion and political pressure on senior government
officials. This has particular relevance as to whether the CRPD will make any significant improvement
in the lives of disabled people, particularly those living in developing countries.
This also highlights the capacity at country level, of DPOs to first raise and then consistently par-
ticipate in advocating around the implementation of the CRPD. It is here that the local capacity of
R. Lang et al. / ALTER, European Journal of Disability Research 5 (2011) 206–220 213
DPOs and disability-focused NGOs is particularly important. Of concern, however, is the fact that at
national level the officials of all too many DPOs are already overworked, under-resourced and often
marginalised from mainstream development discussions and policy-making. To make the picture even
more complicated, DPOs often do not themselves fully understand the principles and procedures of the
due process to the fulfilment of rights and obligations. They are therefore hampered and less effective
in holding their governments and other international agencies to account. Compounding this, many
civil society organisations, including many NGOs, work in isolation from each other, thus diluting their
strength and ability to be an effective catalyst for progressive political change. This is further com-
pounded by divisions that exist among DPOs present in many countries, thereby diluting a potentially
powerful political voice.
There is also evidence that the effectiveness of DPOs to lobby their respective governments is
mixed (Lang, 2008). This can be partly ascribed to the fact that many do not have a nuanced under-
standing of the policy-making process. Conversely, we have observed that, in some notable cases,
politicians and senior civil servants did not understand disability from a human rights perspective,
despite making rhetorical statements to the contrary. Moreover, there are also a number of other
constraints, including lack of human and financial resources and organisational capacity. What is
urgently needed is more constructive dialogue between policy-makers on the one hand, and DPOs
and other civil society institutions on the other, in order that they begin to understand each other’s
worldview.
The Nigerian experience is a good case in point. There are a plethora of disabled peoples’ organi-
sations that exist in Nigeria, operating at national, state and local levels. However, with a few notable
exceptions, the vast majority of DPOs have themselves adopted a charity/welfare approach to dis-
ability issues, and have little understanding of a rights-based agenda or indeed, the principles of the
social model of disability (Lang, 2007). This has resulted in the adoption of inappropriate advocacy
and campaigning strategies (Lang, 2008). A further challenge is that with many representative DPOs
operating at a national level, there is some confusion regarding who in fact speaks with the authentic
‘voice’ of persons with disabilities.
It is often stated that disability is a “cross-cutting issue”, intersecting with many areas of social
and economic policy, including education, employment, social protection and universal design. It is
also important to explicitly acknowledge that disabled people constitute a heterogeneous group in
which differences in gender, socio-economic status and geographical location (such as the rural/urban
divide), are all important in implementing disability policy. These complexities also have ramifications
with regard to the political representation of disabled people, for it is apparent that some impairment
groups have more “political clout” than others. An example of this is war victims in Afghanistan (Trani,
Bahkshi, Noor & Mashkoor, 2009).
The disunity within the disability movement, and the detrimental effect that this has upon advocacy
and lobbying, is well illustrated in the case of Nigeria, where there are two national DPOs, both of which
claim to represent all people with disabilities in the country (Lang & Upah, 2008). The competition
between the groups has been one of the reasons why many Nigerian DPOs have tended to focus
on tackling simpler issues – such as environmental barriers – rather than dealing with deep-seated
institutional and attitudinal barriers. As a result, to date, the Nigerian disability movement has not
made any significant progress in taking forward a rights-based approach to disability. DPOs are indeed
aware of the importance of the CRPD, but given that there is neither effective disability legislation,
nor an adequate administrative infrastructure for its implementation, it is unlikely that the political
ramifications of the CRPD will have any impact within Nigeria for the foreseeable future.
One of the most striking findings emanating from a Disability Policy Audit undertaken by SAFOD in
2008, was that in none of the four countries studied (Namibia, Swaziland, Malawi and Mozambique),
was there an effective and efficient administrative infrastructure for the provision of disability services.
For example, in none of the countries included in this study were there any disaggregated statistical
data, particularly at local government level, regarding the number of children with disabilities who
would potentially benefit from attending and completing primary education in mainstream schools.
Furthermore, none of the countries had any form of social protection programmes for people with
disabilities, thereby compounding the negative dynamics that exist between poverty and disability
(Lang, 2008). These are fundamental concerns for the effective implementation of the CPRD, as there
214 R. Lang et al. / ALTER, European Journal of Disability Research 5 (2011) 206–220
are no a priori benchmarks by which civil society institutions can monitor and evaluate what has been
achieved.
Of course, this situation is not unique to the field of disability, but affects every area of public service
provision and the enforcement of human rights for all groups that must be monitored and assessed. For
this reason, public sector reform is high on the agenda of a number of developing countries in Africa,
many of which have a history of political patronage, nepotism and corruption. It is also on the agenda
of many of the international donors who fund these countries. Thus it is entirely feasible for countries
to have signed and ratified the UN Convention, and have the most advanced and forward-looking
disability legislation and policies on paper, but not have an effective administrative infrastructure to
implement such policies; rendering these all but worthless.
Sierra Leone is perhaps a good case in point. The government ratified the Convention in
2009 but as yet has not put in place any disability policy, and the national disability Act, which
would provide the requisite framework and benchmarks to demonstrate the policy effective-
ness, has not yet been adopted. However, it must be recognised that in many cases – given
the particular history of some countries – public sector reform will inevitably be a long process.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon those working within the disability sector to work with gov-
ernments in the long term to ensure that an effective administrative infrastructure is built and
maintained.
Statistics and monitoring frameworks for disability rights
Those concerned with the effective implementation of the CRPD are aware that a further range of
difficulties arises from the lack of robust monitoring frameworks to evaluate the implementation of
human rights treaties. The CRPD itself makes specific references to the lack of, and consequent need
for, robust statistical data on disability issues. A number of significant challenges are connected with
the need for disability data: choosing a suitable definition of disability, and the limited and varied
questions on disabilities in national censuses (Trani & Bakhshi, 2008). Without robust statistical data
on disability prevalence rate and the livelihoods of disabled people, government ministries with a
mandate for disability issues cannot be held responsible for budget allocation for disability-specific
obligations. This in turn creates a “democratic deficit” for disabled people and other civil society
institutions working in the disability sector, as they have no benchmarks or mechanisms by which to
hold their governments to account for disability rights commitments, even if these governments have
signed and ratified the CRPD.
It is crucial, therefore, that robust indicators and other monitoring and evaluation frameworks be
developed, so that the CRPD is utilised to its full potential. Some work on developing a conceptual
framework for monitoring indicators in relation to human rights has already been undertaken by the
UN Human Rights Council and UNDP, which will be an important starting point (Human Rights Council,
2008; UNDP, 2006). Of particular note is Article 31 of the CRPD on statistics and data collection. This
Article explicitly recognises the necessity for developing appropriate indices for evaluating the impact
of the CRPD. It states that “State parties undertake to collect appropriate information, including sta-
tistical and research data, to enable them to formulate and implement policies to give effect to the
present Convention” (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2008). It also makes a clear link-
age between the generation of robust statistical data and the ineffective and non-tokenistic realisation
of disability rights.
The link between rights and data raises another area of serious concern. Accuracy of the data on
disability collected by national governments, bilateral and multilateral donor agencies will continue
to be a very important issue that needs to be addressed if the enforcement of disability rights is
to become an effective reality. Recent literature suggests that it is highly likely that in a number of
countries, statistical data on disability currently available has significantly underestimated the number
of disabled people due to multiple issues including stigma, negative social attitudes regarding disabled
people, as well as issues related to measurement and the way survey and census questions are phrased
(Altman, Rasch & Madans, 2006; Loeb, Eide & Mont, 2008). This will need to be addressed if statistics
are going to be linked to rights.
R. Lang et al. / ALTER, European Journal of Disability Research 5 (2011) 206–220 215
The Washington Group on Disability Statistics has undertaken a great deal of work regarding these
complex methodological and ethical issues. Other work has also been undertaken to better identify
disability based on the ICF and the capability approach (Trani & Bakhshi, 2008).
Notwithstanding the complexities and difficulties outlined above, it is imperative to produce
robust and useful statistical data on disability so that countries that have ratified the CRPD will
be able to demonstrate the extent to which they have implemented specific articles, especially in
the fields of education, employment and rehabilitation. Furthermore, if governments are to provide
genuinely inclusive public services, then it is essential that statistical data regarding disability is
available at regional and local government levels. In the absence of such statistics, it is difficult to
foresee how governments will be able to effectively design, implement and monitor disability ser-
vices, or mainstream disabled people in every sphere of contemporary social, economic and political
life.
A further reason for the generation of disability statistics, is that as “disability” moves up the
development agenda, bilateral and multilateral donor agencies still need to be convinced of the
economic case for including disability within their core activities. It is often said that there is a
negative correlation between disability and poverty, and that disabled people are one of the most
socially excluded, marginalised and discriminated groups within any society (Yeo, 2006). How-
ever, to date, a great deal of the evidence regarding disability and poverty is of an anecdotal
nature, which does not hold much credence with economists working in development agencies
(Kett, Lang & Trani, 2008). Also interestingly, some research has begun to show that whilst dis-
abled people may not always experience vastly differencing levels of economic poverty, they do
however experience poverty on other areas, for example, in access to education, healthcare, and
participation in local community activities – indicators of multidimensional poverty (Trani & Loeb,
2010).
Yet another challenge arises from the fact that, notwithstanding the passage of ostensibly pro-
gressive rights-based disability policy and practice in many developing countries, the ideological
foundation for the formulation of social and economic policy is essentially based on notions of charity
and welfare. In many cases, civil society institutions have themselves inculcated the charity and wel-
fare approach to their activities. This reflects a wider challenge of implementing rights-based policies
and programmes in countries that have limited knowledge, understanding, and in some case support
for the fundamental principles and practices underpinning human rights. In these cases, in order for
the CRPD to make any significant improvement to the lives of disabled people, concerted effort will
be required from activists, human rights campaigners and other organisations.
There is some evidence of this beginning to happen. After the CRPD came into force UN agencies
have had to increase their focus on monitoring the implementation of the Convention. This is linked to a
growing focus on the development of human rights indicators at global and national levels. As yet there
are no global or national indicators on inclusion. However, there exists several human rights legislation
and monitoring bodies including National Human Rights Commissions, Disability Commissions and
other non-state actors such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, as well as other groups
focused on specific rights-derogations, such as Survivor Corps (formally Landmine Survivors Network).
Many of these organisations have begun to monitor human rights abuses against disabled people, but
until recently have had no international mechanism of recourse. The CRPD provides an opportunity
to ensure that states – and other duty bearers – are held accountable for their actions. This in turn is
predicated on the rights-holders being aware of their rights, and having the necessary wherewithal
to access justice in the first place.
Monitoring interventions is central to the discussion regarding “mainstreaming” and the provision
of specifically hypothecated and targeted services for disabled people, particularly those living in the
global South. This is a complex issue as disabled people, as previously stated, constitute a heteroge-
neous entity, manifested in a wide range of impairment groups with differing needs and aspirations,
which in turn require a range of different policy responses. This is further compounded by the fact
that the economic, political, social and cultural characteristics of many developing countries are also
very diverse. For example, what is required in conflict-affected countries will be significantly different
from those countries with more stable governments. This raises the whole issue of who is deemed
“vulnerable”.
216 R. Lang et al. / ALTER, European Journal of Disability Research 5 (2011) 206–220
Implications for policy and implementation
The practical implications of implementing genuinely inclusive policies and programmes are com-
plex and profound. Space precludes this been dealt with in sufficient depth in this paper, but some
cursory observations can be made at this point. It can draw upon policy papers and guidelines pub-
lished by bilateral and multilateral donor agencies, as well as UN agencies with a specific mandate
for disability issues. DFID (Department for International Development – UK) in its issues paper, Dis-
ability, poverty and development, (DFID, 2000), advocated the adoption of the “twin track approach”
to disability programming. This entails providing overseas development assistance for specifically
hypothecated disability programmes (for example, community-based rehabilitation), as well as pro-
viding funding in order to “mainstream” disability issues in programmes that are targeted at the
entire population, such as inclusive education and ensuring that disabled people are able to access
credit from mainstream micro-finance institutions. Since the successful implementation of the CRPD,
much more emphasis has been given to the latter approach, which is philosophically underpinned
by the notion of inclusion. Indeed, the concept of “inclusive development” has become very much in
vogue in recent years, although it remains difficult to accurately define. The underlying assumption
of “inclusive development” however is that disabled people should be included into every aspect of
the development process, that encompasses involvement at the grassroots, national and international
levels.
This trajectory towards inclusive development is very well illustrated by considering the history
of community-based rehabilitation. In the early 1990s, for all intents and purposes, CBR is essentially
concerned with the provision of medical and paramedical services to disabled people in their local
communities, almost to the exclusion of all other potential activities. However, the recently published
CBR Guidelines by the World Health Organisation, 2010 in October, embrace a more holistic approach
to disability. The Guidelines explicitly adopts an inclusive development approach. They state:
Inclusive development is that which includes and involves everyone, especially those who are
marginalized and often discriminated against. People with disabilities and their family members,
particularly those living in rural or remote communities or urban slums, often do not benefit from
development initiatives and therefore disability inclusive development is essential to ensure that
they can participate meaningfully in development processes and policies. Mainstreaming (or includ-
ing) the rights of people with disabilities in the development agenda is a way to achieve equality for
people with disabilities. (World Health Organisation, 2010: 20).
Another practical example of inclusive development is the involvement of disabled people in the
planning and production of Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers. Handicap International and Christian
Blind Mission have produced a very helpful practical guide on how to include disabled people in the
PRSP process (CBM and Handicap International, 2006). These are in alignment with the general axioms
of participatory and community development, which has been part of the international development
lexicon for many years.
It is important to emphasize that it is necessary for disabled people and their allies to promote
the principles of inclusive development at the local, national and international levels. While it is
not possible to give this justice within the parameters of this article, the issue does warrant further
discussion in a subsequent paper.
The potential of the capabilities approach in addressing disability rights
It can be argued that the capability approach might make a substantial contribution to the evolving
discourse around implementation of development efforts as a specific pathway to the realization
of disability rights guaranteed through the CRPD. It goes beyond other theories of justice based on
incomes and commodities, social primary goods (Rawls, 1971) or basic needs (Stewart, 1985, 1995)
by also addressing issues such as discrimination, non-participation, social inequality, vulnerability and
agency.
R. Lang et al. / ALTER, European Journal of Disability Research 5 (2011) 206–220 217
First, the capability approach promotes the universal access to basic capabilities that are valued
by all because they are essential to survival, such as the ability to live long or to escape premature
death as an infant or a child, to be well nourished, well sheltered, educated, employed and healthy,
as well as the ability to unrestricted movements and to form and look after one’s family (Sen, 1985,
1999).
These basic capabilities are those promoted by the UNDP, particularly through the Human Devel-
opment Reports (from 1990) and also in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) initiative. Beyond
these fundamental functionings, Sen argues that any individual is entitled to a good life. Quality of
life, in a capability approach perspective, relies on each individual’s entitlement to choose doings and
beings that he or she values. These can be quite complex such, as achieving self-respect and being
socially included (Sen, 1993). Sen further argues that for disabled people to achieve a good life it will
require more resources (for instance income and assistance) to compensate for the disability (what he
called the “earning handicap”) (Sen, 2009). Sen also believes that people with disability face more dif-
ficulties in converting income and resources into a good life (what he calls the “conversion handicap”),
which can be overcome through “social help and imaginative intervention” (Sen, 2009:259).
In other words, the capability approach insists on the “equity and efficiency of the substantive
opportunities that people can enjoy” (Sen, 2005:156). As a consequence, existing barriers preventing
disabled people to effectively live a good life have to be removed and adequate opportunities have to
be offered. Public discussion is needed to decide which specific capabilities, beyond the basic ones,
are important to support in a given social context. But to ensure that rights against deprivation are
enforced, Nussbaum defined a list of ten central human capabilities to which each human being should
be entitled (Nussbaum, 2000).
The difficulty in practice is to find a way to give a voice to all groups and members of society,
removing or at least buffering the effect of systemic social and economic inequalities. This is a major
issue for people with disabilities in developing countries who have little opportunities to make their
voice heard, especially when the removal barriers that would ensure the subsequent enjoyment of a
flourishing life (Nussbaum, 2000) entails the dedication of scarce resources.
Furthermore, it can be argued that the possibility for disabled people to live a life they value also
relies on social solidarity within a given social context. Disabled people – as is true for all people –
belong to family, community and groups that influence their choices, thus potentially limiting their
freedom. However, such networks can also provide support and the opportunity to lead the life they
want with social capabilities, resulting from the interaction within their social groups and networks
(Deneulin & Stewart, 2001; Stewart, 2005; Trani & Dubois, 2009).
Exclusion and marginalisation based on stigma and prejudice can be fought successfully if a given
society is organised legally and effectively to provide equal rights. A society can include everyone if it
is not only concerned with rights but also with reciprocal care from and concern for all its members
(Dean, 2009; Kittay, Jennings & Wasunna, 2005; Nussbaum, 2000). Otherwise, the most vulnerable
will keep struggling with social injustice and unequal power relations.
These concerns and values are raised time and again in light of the CRPD and the barriers that must
be confronted in relation to its implementation.
As is the case with the existing human rights literature, the large and growing discourse of the
capabilities approach has also been one that has been largely unexplored by the disability advocacy
and research community. It is a lost opportunity. Regardless of whether the capabilities approach
addresses or answers all the issues that will surface as implementation of the CRPD moves forward,
many of the issues raised, theoretical discussions undertaken and conclusions reached have relevance
for those working in disability rights and the international development arena.
Conclusion
In the present paper, we have explored the impact of the human rights paradigm for the advance-
ment of disability in developing countries. The CRPD is a major rights instrument, especially because
it links rights to development issues – Article 32 specifically addresses international cooperation. The
implementation of the CRPD is inevitably going to be a complex enterprise, where difficult issues will
need to be addressed. Therefore, it is vitally important that those working in the international disability
218 R. Lang et al. / ALTER, European Journal of Disability Research 5 (2011) 206–220
arena should make themselves conversant with existing mainstream human rights monitoring and
evaluation frameworks.
The implementation of the CRPD is going to be difficult not only because of complex ‘rights based’
issues being discussed by lawyers and scholars. To further progress from policy statements to effective
implementation, additional issues will need to be addressed. Prominent among these is the fact that
too often development practitioners and policy makers do not consider disability issues until these
issues become a significant impediment to achieving their core objectives, or when the disability
prevalence rates become so high that there is a moral imperative to take action. However, when such
agencies decide to address a disability issues, they often are still operating on a charity/medical model
with a thin veneer of ‘rights based language’ on top. Furthermore, development practitioners almost
invariably think another specialised agency will addressed disability issues, not appreciating the fact
that such agencies rarely exist, and when they do, they often lack the resources and political clout
needed to effectively make a difference. This is compounded by the fact that many non-disability
development agencies feel they lack the skills to deal with special needs of disabled people. They do
not appreciate that, although technical assistance might be needed in some cases to address some
specific issues, disabled people can frequently be included among the beneficiaries of mainstream
community development programmes that would necessitate very little adaptation. Indeed, a strong
case can be made for the fact that disabled individuals and groups can only be effectively reached
when they are included in broad, general development programmes. In addition, by linking the rights
of disabled people to the right to live free of poverty, the CRPD has drawn a link that necessitates
motoring and evaluation to avoid inefficiency and loss of resources. Finally, removing prejudice as a
barrier to inclusion requires enforcement of the rights of people with disabilities. Beliefs are the most
difficult factors to change and the human rights paradigm can be of great help to advocate against
prejudice.
Many approaches have been proposed over the years regarding the promotion and enforcement of
disability rights. One significant current approach that is not being discussed is the capability approach,
which has particular relevance to many of the complex issues being raised in the present paper.
Disability advocacy and scholarship should look beyond the usual narrow confines and draw from
largely untapped conceptual realms – such as those from the broader human rights literature and
from the capabilities approach. These are not the only discourses that should be resorted to, but have
been presented in this paper as two viable examples of how reaching beyond and enriching current
disability discourse.
References
Allan, N. J. R. (2003). Rethinking governance in Afghanistan. Journal of International Affairs,56(1), 193–202.
ALNAP. (2009). State of the humanitarian system report. Assessing performance and progress. A pilot study. London: Overseas
Development Institute. http://www.alnap.org/pool/files/alnap-sohs-final.pdf
Altman, B. M., Rasch, E. K., & Madans, J. H. (2006). Disability measurement matrix: a tool for the coordination of measurement
purpose and instrument development. In B. M. In Altman, & S. N. Barnartt (Eds.), International Views on Disability Measures:
Moving toward Comparative Measurement. Research in Social Science and Disability (pp. 263–284). Oxford: Elsevier Jai.
Beresford, P. (1996). Poverty and disabled people: challenging dominant debates and policy. Disability and Society,11, 553–567.
Braithwaite, J., & Mont, D. (2009). Disability and poverty: a Survey of World Bank Poverty Assessments and implications. Alter,
European Journal of Disability Research, 219–232.
CBM and Handicap International. (2006). Making PRSPs Inclusive. Bensheim: CBM and Handicap International.
Cornwall, A., & Nyamu-Musembi, C. (2004). Putting the “rights-based approach” into perspective. Third World Quarterly,25(8),
1415–1437.
Dean, H. (2009). Critiquing capabilities: the distractions of a beguiling concept. Critical social policy,29(2), 261–278.
Deneulin, S., & Stewart, F. (2001). A capability approach for people living together. Cambridge: Conference ‘Justice and poverty:
examining Sen’s capability approach’. St Edmunds College.
DFID. (2000). Disability, Poverty and Development. London: DFID.
Donini, A. (2007). Local perceptions of assistance to Afghanistan. International Peacekeeping,14(1), 158–172.
Dworkin, R. (1977). Taking Rights Seriously. London: Gerald Duckworth and Co.
Elwan, A. (1999). Poverty and Disability: A Survey of the Literature. Social Protection Discussion Paper.
Washington DC: The World Bank Social Protection Unit. Human Development Network, accessed at:
http://web.worldbank.org/external/default/main?menuPK=4062295&pagePK=224802&piPK=224813&q=elwan&theSitePK
=282637.
Filmer, D. (2008). Disability, poverty, and schooling in developing countries: results from 14 household surveys. World Bank
Economic Review,22, 41–163.
R. Lang et al. / ALTER, European Journal of Disability Research 5 (2011) 206–220 219
Gready, P., & Ensor, J. (2005). Reinventing Development? Translating Rights-based Approaches from Theory into Practice. London:
Zed Books.
Green, M. (2001). What we talk about when we talk about indicators: current approaches to human rights measurement. Human
Rights Quarterly,23(4), 1062–1097.
Grugel, J., & Piper, N. (2009). Do rights promote development? Global Social Policy,9(1), 79–98.
Hathaway, O. (2007). Why Do Countries Commit to Human Rights Treaties? Journal of Conflict Resolution,51(4), 588–621.
Hernandez, V. (2008). Making good the promise of International Law: the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
and Inclusive Education in China and India. Pacific Rim Law and Policy Journal,17(2), 497–528.
Human Rights Council. (2008). Report on Indicators for Promoting and Monitoring the Implementation of Human Rights.
HRI/MC/2008/3. Geneva 23-25 June: Seventh inter-committee meeting of human rights treaty bodies. Retrieved from
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/icm-mc/docs/HRI.MC.2008.3EN.pdf
Kalantry, S., Getgen, J., & Koh, S. (2010). Enhancing enforcement of economic, social and cultural rights using indicators: a focus
on the right to education in the ICESCR. Human Rights Quarterly,32(2), 253–310.
Katsui, H. (2009). Towards participation of persons with disabilities in the South: implications of Article 32 of the Convention.
In J. Kumpuvori, & M. Scheinin (Eds.), United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Helsinki: The Center
for Human Rights for Persons with Disabilities.
Kayess, R., & French, P. (2008). Out of darkness into light? introducing the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities.
Human Rights Law Review,8(1), 1–34.
Kett, M., Lang, R., & Trani, J. F. (2008). Disability, development and the dawning of a new convention: a cause for optimism?
Journal of International Development,21(5), 649–661.
Kittay, E., Jennings, B., & Wasunna, A. (2005). Dependency, difference and the global ethic of longterm care. Journal of Political
Philosophy,13(4), 443–469.
Lang, R. (2009). The United Nations Convention on the rights and dignities of persons with disability: a panacea for ending
disability discrimination? Alter-European Journal of Disability Research,3(3), 266–285.
Lang, R. (2008). Disability Policy Audit in Namibia, Swaziland, Malawi and Swaziland. Bulawayo: Southern African Federation of the
Disabled. Retreived from http://www.ucl.ac.uk/lcccr/downloads/DISABILITY POLICY AUDIT RESEARCH FINAL REPORT.pdf
Lang, R., & Upah, L. (2008). Disability Scoping Study in Nigeria. London: Department For International development. Retrieved
from http://www.ucl.ac.uk/lc-ccr/downloads/dfid nigeriareport
Lang, R., & Chadowa, G. (2007). Disability Scoping Study in Zimbabwe. Harare: Department for International Development
Zimbabwe Country Office. Retrieved from http://www.ucl.ac.uk/lc-ccr/downloads/dfid
Lang, R. (2007). The development and critique of the social model of disability. Leonard Cheshire: Disability
and Inclusive Development Centre Working Paper Number 3. Retrieved from http://www.ucl.ac.uk/lc-
ccr/centrepublications/workingpapers/WP03 Development Critique.pdf
Loeb, M. E., Eide, A. H., & Mont, D. (2008). Approaching the measurement of disability prevalence: the case of Zambia. Alter-
European Journal of Disability Research,2(1), 32–43.
Megret, F. (2008). The disabilities convention: towards a holistic concept of rights. International Journal of Human Rights,30(2),
261–277.
Mitra, S. (2006). The capability approach and disability. Journal of Disability Policy Studies,16(4), 236–247.
Mitra, S., & Sambamoorthi, U. (2008). Disability and the rural labor market in India: evidence for males in Tamil Nadu. World
Development,36(5), 943–952.
Mitra, S., & Sambamoorthi, U. (2009). Wage differential by disability status in an agrarian labor market in India. Applied Economics
Letters,16(14), 1393–1398.
Petman, J. (2009). The special reaching for the universal: why a special convention for persons with disabilities? In J. Kumpuvuori,
& M. Scheinin (Eds.), United Nations Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities: multidisciplinary perspectives. Helsinki:
The Center for Human Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Quinn, G. (2009). Bringing the UN Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities to life in Ireland. British Journal of Learning
Difficulties,37(4), 245–249.
Quinn, G. (2008). Implementing the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: The Institutional Architecture of Change.
New York: Keynote speech at the Conference of State Parties to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
UN Headquarters, 31st October.
Quinn, G., & Degener, T. (2002). Human Rights and Disability: the Current and Future Use of United Nations Human Rights
Instruments in the Context of Disability. New York: Geneva United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.evacuation-for-
all.eu/arch/UNHCHR2002Study disability.pdf
Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sen, A. K. (1985). Commodities and Capabilities. Amsterdam, New York: Elsevier Science.
Sen, A. K. (1993). In M. Nussbaum, & A. Sen (Eds.), Capability and Well-being. In The Quality of Life. New Delhi: Oxford University
Press.
Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sen, A. K. (2005). Human rights and capabilities. Journal of Human Development,6(2), 151–166.
Sen, A. K. (2009). The Idea of Justice. London: Penguin, Allen Lane.
Stewart, F. (1985). Planning to Meet Basic Needs. London: Macmillan.
Stewart, F. (1995). Basic needs, capabilities and human development. Greek Economic Review,17(2), 83–96.
Stewart, F. (2005). Groups and capabilities. Journal of Human Development,6, 185–204.
Trani, J. F., & Bakhshi, P. (2008). Challenges for assessing disability prevalence: the case of Afghanistan. Alter-European Journal
of Disability Research,2(1), 44–64.
Trani, J. F., & Dubois, J. L. (2009). Extending the capability paradigm to address the complexity of disability. Alter-European Journal
of Disability Research,3, 192–218.
Trani, J. F., Bakhshi, P., & Mashkoor, A. (2009). Building a disability strategy in Afghanistan: a capabilities
approach to research challenges and policy implications. Alter-European Journal of Development Research,21(2),
297–319.
220 R. Lang et al. / ALTER, European Journal of Disability Research 5 (2011) 206–220
Trani, J. F., & Loeb, M. (2010). Disability and poverty: a vicious circle? Journal of International Development,12
doi:10.1002/jid.1709. Published online: Jun 18 2010 12:23am
UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2008). The UN Convention on the rights of persons with Disabilities. New York: UN
DESA. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convoptprot-e.pdf.
UNDP. (2006). Indicators for the Human Rights-based Approaches to Development in UNDP Programming: a User’s Guide. New York:
UNDP.
Vaughn, J. (2008). Finding the Gaps: A Comparative Analysis of Disability Law in the United States to the United Nations
Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabities. Washington DC: National Council on Disabilities. Retrieved from
http://www.hpod.org/pdf/finding-the-gaps.pdf
Yeo, R. (2006). Disability, poverty and the new development agenda. In A. Albert (Ed.), In and Out of the Mainstream? Lessons
from Research on Disability and DevelopmentCcooperation. Leeds: The Disability Press.
World Health Organisation. (2010). Community-Based Rehabilitation: CBR Guidelines. Geneva: WHO.
Yeo, R., & Moore, K. (2003). Including disabled people in poverty reduction work: “nothing about us, without us”. World
Development,31(3), 1–9.
