|
|
||
|
ISSUE 8 MARCH 2015
|
||
|
IDENTIFICATION SYSTEMS
DON’T ALWAYS SERVE THE
BOTTOM 40%
By Megan Brewer, Nicholas Menzies and Jared Schott1 INTRODUCTION Over 150 countries maintain mandatory civil registration systems. The number and variety of registration and identification systems has increased with the rise of the Internet (World Bank 2015). The functionality of these systems has also expanded over this time period, with delivery mechanisms for services and benefits increasingly tied to registration. Attracted by the promise of new technology, countries and development partners alike have invested heavily in identification systems, in terms of both development dollars2 and strategy. Regarding strategy, identification systems have found their way onto no less preeminent a platform than the Post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals, which include the proposed target, “[b]y 2030, provide legal identity for all, including birth registration,” under the broader goal of peaceful and inclusive societies. This article will explore the prospects, challenges and risks of pinning inclusive development outcomes on identification systems. Much of the current discourse 1 Megan Brewer is Second Secretary at the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Nicholas Menzies is Senior Counsel and Jared Schott is Governance and Justice Specialist in the Governance Global Practice of the World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed herein are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the World Bank, its Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. 2 The World Bank is providing technical and financial support across the globe to the development and sectoral application of registry systems. The Bank has financed more than 142 “Identification For Development” (“ID4D”) related investment projects (63 active, 23 pipeline, 56 closed) in 70 countries worldwide (World Bank 2015, 1).
on identification- and registry- related issues3 is
framed from a state-centered perspective; that is,
improving the functioning of government agencies
and enhancing the collection of data for planning
and policy. We suggest complementing this with
a stronger focus on the impacts of identification
systems on the poorest and most marginalized. In
many circumstances, identification systems risk not
serving the development needs of such people. In
developing global and country-specific identification
strategies, there is a need to more clearly and
critically articulate the implied benefits, costs and
risks of alternative approaches.
To this end, identification systems dialogue and practice can be enhanced by: i. Being clearer about the difference between the terms ‘identity’, ‘registration’ and ‘documentation’;
And practice, including support to civil registration
3
and vital statistics systems, digital IDs and authentication to support improved financial access.
worldbank.org/j4p
|
Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized
|
|
|
ISSUE 8 MARCH 2015
|
The policy and operational dialogue around identification systems regularly conflates several important concepts, including ‘identity’, ‘registration’ and ‘documentation’/‘certification’. Legal Identity is a status that people and organizations (e.g. corporations, NGOs, etc.)4 have based on their characteristics. Legal identity ascribes to them rights and duties. Legal identity emerges from different legal sources including international and national law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes that all people are born with rights (Article 1) and goes on to catalogue many aspects that comprise a person’s legal identity. Often overlooked in identification5 discussions (but critical from a rights perspective) is that legal identity exists whether or not it is registered (or further, documentation exists for such registration). A legal identity, when recognized by the state, can enhance a person’s ability to enjoy the state’s protection, to enforce his or her rights and to demand redress within the state by accessing courts and other law enforcement organizations (Vandenabeele as cited in Bhabha 2011).6 But, many aspects of one’s legal identity don’t require registration. For example, in many jurisdictions a person who is arrested on suspicion of committing a crime has rights that attach to their identity as a criminal suspect (for example, the right to remain
6 It is, in this sense, very different than system- and function-oriented uses of the term identity (e.g., “biometric identity”).
silent). These rights are inherent to them being
a person (and a suspect) and are not contingent
upon any formal registration (or documentation).
People also have multiple legal identities. Depending on the factual circumstances, an individual person can have the identity of ‘citizen’; ‘resident’; ‘spouse’; ‘voter’; ‘driver’; ‘eligible claimant for services/benefits’, amongst many others. Each of these identities can be used to further different development outcomes. In supporting the development of legal identity systems the Bank and other development partners will most likely be choosing to further some identities and not others and the trade-offs involved in these choices need to be carefully weighed. An understanding that legal identity exists in many forms encourages us to first ask which legal identity/ies we are seeking to further and for what developmental ends. If the most pressing development problem is lack of access to education, then one must first ask what contributes to this? If the identification of proper students is part of the problem of education access (which may not be the case in many circumstances) then what type of identification would best serve the students’ needs? Registration (including “civil registration”) refers to the systems and processes by which a state (or other authority) recognizes and records certain aspects of an individual or organization’s identity. Registration systems may be broad-based (“foundational”), such a national ID cards in some countries, or deployed for particular purposes (“functional”), for instance taxpaying or social security. As there are multiple legal identities, one register (and associated document) will likely not cover all dimensions, and indeed, in almost all countries multiple registration systems exist. This is even the case in countries that have a ‘primary’ legal identity (such as a national ID card). It follows that a single registry system is not necessarily a prerequisite to development, and some developed countries (such as the United States, United Kingdom and Australia) have made conscious choices not to have a national ID system. Documentation (or certification) refers to the mobile proof of registration which traditionally has taken a paper form (a certificate) but in some circumstances may now be electronic. This proof of registration facilitates the holder in asserting their legal identity/ ies in different locations. The documentation may also be a requirement for a person to access essential services, gain employment, vote, transfer property, drive a car or open a bank account (World Bank 2014). It is important to keep conceptually
2
|
|
|
|
ISSUE 8 MARCH 2015
|
|
distinct documentation and registration. The two
may be processed differently, or be utilized differently
legally or programmatically. The distinction and its
implications are highlighted in global birth data: as
recently as 2012, the births of 230 million children
under five went unregistered. In that same cohort,
70 million registered births went undocumented
(Dunning, Gelb and Raghavan 2014).
The differences between identity (as a rights-based concept), registration (an instrumental system for recognizing such rights) and documentation (proof as a system instrument) become more pronounced when considering how identity and registration serve cross-cutting development objectives. Legal Identity is the source of an individual’s standing, and their claim for inclusion and access. Registration, on the other hand, can improve a system’s ability to deliver services to identified claimants, but is not always premised on inclusion. This conceptual clarity has important programmatic and welfare consequences, but is frequently overlooked.7 2. IDENTIFICATION SYSTEMS CAN INCREASE EXCLUSION AND DISCRIMINATION In China, migrant workers, registered in their place of birth, are unable to register in their place of employment and therefore are unable to access health care and other rights.8 Nubian children born in Kenya are less likely to have their births registered (and enjoy associated educational rights) owing to stringent requirements and discretionary implementation.9 7 In this regard, contemporary institutional definitions fall short. The formulation of proposed SDG target 16.9, as previously noted, suggests that legal identity “include[s]” birth registration. The Inter-American Development Bank’s Civil Registration and Identification Glossary (2010) defines legal identity as “legal civil status obtained through birth registration and civil identification that recognizes the individual as a subject of law and protection of the state.” In fact, the rights and status bound up in legal identity are not inherently conditioned on registration (and not birth registration in particular). 8 In Shenzhen and other large Chinese cities at the height of the AIDS pandemic, rural to urban migrants unable to secure urban hukous were treated as “biological non-citizens” (Mason 2011) and ineligible for health care, contributing to the transmission and spread of the virus both within and outside of migrant communities (Todrys and Amon 2009). 9 See,e.g., NAMATI, Implementation of Nubian Minors v. Kenya, http://www.namati.org/tools/briefing-paper- implementation-of-nubian-minors-v-kenya/ (2014).
Strengthening identification systems can lead to a
number of perverse consequences that undermine
development gains. Registry systems may result in
exclusion when underlying systems refuse, or pose
inequitable burdens on, the recognition of certain
identities. Exclusion can also come from refusing
rights to those who legally might be entitled but
haven’t surmounted the bureaucratic steps to get
registered. Lastly, it may arise from information
disclosure in documents and systems.
2.1 EXCLUSION FROM REGISTRATION SYSTEMS AND DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF LAW Rights and statuses comprising legal identity are to a large degree determined by underlying law, which may be exclusionary or discriminatory prima facie, or may interact with registry systems to produce such a result. Minimizing the risks posed by registration and documentation requires going beyond the immediate systems to understand the broader legal framework and how it operates in the existing social and political context. The promotion of identification systems cannot be discussed without also interrogating the laws that convey or deny rights. One of the most basic rights is citizenship.
In Myanmar, authorities view Islamic Rohing-
ya as illegal immigrants despite many having
lived in the Buddhist-majority country for gen-
erations. Around 800,000 stateless Rohing-
ya living in Myanmar are denied citizenship
rights and face severe restrictions on mar-
riage, employment, health care and educa-
tion. The Malaysian government also refuses
to give legal status to Rohingya people.
In China, Heihaizi (black children) born in violation of the one child policy are not allowed a legal identity and are denied access to education, health and even legal standing to be heard in court. In The Dominican Republic, many Domin- icans of Haitian descent face deportation if not able to provide proof of birth registration in support of an application for normalized status, newly required under a 2014 law. Out of an estimated 110,000 such people who would qualify for citizenship under the law’s terms, just one month prior to the deadline, only 5,345 people had applied (Amnesty In- ternational 2015).
3
|
|
|
|
ISSUE 8 MARCH 2015
|
|
Whether or not a person is considered a citizen is
determined by law. In some countries, as a matter
of law, a child can only be registered by their father.
In these countries, a woman who is not married, or
is married to a non-national (or if the father refuses
to acknowledge paternity) may be unable to
register her child as a citizen. Identification systems
can concretize the underlying legal (and social)
frameworks. Development partners supporting
the strengthening of identification systems need
to rigorously assess these underlying frameworks,
or risk inadvertently undermining the development
prospects of certain populations.
2.2 EXCLUSION FROM SERVICES AND DISCRIMINATION IN THE ABSENCE OF DOCUMENTATION The push for enhanced identification systems is often accompanied by new rules mandating registration to access basic entitlements (including health and education). This risks excluding vulnerable populations from essential services. One motivation for tying services to registration is to make large-scale service delivery more manageable, and less subject to abuse; another is to incentivize people to get registered. For example, in Kenya, a policy was introduced requiring students to provide birth certificates in order to sit exams, as a means of increasing the number of children with documentation. The result was reports of children being prevented from accessing education.10 Furthermore, those that can’t register or obtain documents are likely to be the same people who currently have trouble accessing basic rights and essential services: the impoverished and marginalized populations that make up a central focus of the World Bank’s mission. There are any number of reasons why citizens may not possess documentation. Citizen distrust 10 Plan International (2014). By contrast, in Indonesia, despite policies mandating presentation of a birth certificate for school enrolment, most schools will accept students who can submit an alternative form of identification. Research found that 74 per cent of children who have never attended school do not have a birth certificate, but very few respondents reported the lack of a birth certificate as the reason for the child not attending school (0.8 per cent), or having been enrolled previously but not currently (2 per cent) (AIPJ 2014). In Bangladesh, although birth certificates are required for access to health and education, health workers are trained not to deny services to unregistered children, but instead to link them to the local registrar (UNICEF 2010).
is one. Exclusion from registry systems – whether
due to discrimination or otherwise – is another.
Administration and informal fees can pose a
prohibitive financial barrier to participation.
Residents of remote rural areas may have
difficulty physically accessing or contacting intake
centers. Complex procedures, or inconsistent
information, may also preclude participation.
Mundanereasons,suchasaninabilitytoreplace
lost, stolen or damaged documents, contribute as
well. There is also the practical question of supply:
in some instances where governments and/or
NGOs have advocated to increase the number of
people with identity documents, under-resourced
government departments have been unable to
sufficiently respond to increased demand, resulting
in significant backlogs (UNCIEF 2010; EU/Miller
2007). Elsewhere, poorly kept and/or inaccessible
records can preclude registration, and in particular
frustrate digitizing a system.
In Indonesia, possession of birth certificates
varies considerably with household income:
46% of children in the poorest quintile of fam-
ilies do not have a birth certificate, compared
to 10.6% in the richest quintile (AIPJ 2014).
There is no significant difference between
girls and boys, but the percentage of children
without certificates in rural areas is double
that in urban areas, and children are less like-
ly to have a certificate if they are disabled or
if their parents and grandparents did not have
a birth certificate.
In Vietnam, parents who have children in vio- lation of the two-child policy often will not reg- ister those children with authorities because they fear being questioned or discriminated against.
Whatever the reason, for the foreseeable future,
registration and documentation systems are
unlikely to achieve universal population coverage.
A push for universalization focusing on registering
new births alone will exclude children and adults
who have not had their births registered – there are
currently 750 million people under sixteen years of
age without birth registration (Dunning, Gelb and
Raghavan 2014). Under these conditions, a push
for universal birth registration, when coupled with
conditioning access to services on documentation,
is likely to intensify exclusion from basic rights and
essential services. Where governments tie more
and more basic functions and responsibilities to
4
|
|
|
|
ISSUE 8 MARCH 2015
|
|
such systems (including with development partner
support) they risk entrenching an underclass.
to a potential employer, or service provider, can
affect the person’s treatment. Owing to such risks,
there is a need to consider whether the collection
and disclosure of personal information inherent
in registration and documentation systems such
as these is narrowly tailored to a clearly defined
development end.
3. SURVEILLANCE AND DATA INTRUSION Another risk of expanding registration systems is that governments, authorized third parties or unauthorized individuals may use them for surveillance, private data harvesting or other functions (illicit and licit alike) violating individual rights. Increased collection of personal data also risks implicit or explicit “function creep,” where data collected for one purpose is gradually used for others to which the individual has not consented (World Bank, 2014).11 Whereas the U.S. once assured citizens in the 1930s that social security numbers would only be used to track eligibility and contributions, these numbers are now used for a wide range of purposes by public and private entities. Just as concerning are security breaches and unauthorized intrusions on private data. These concerns, and the potential for harm, are heightened by the so-called “aggregation effect.” In combination, otherwise innocuous information may paint a portrait of personalities, activities and individual attributes, greatly increasing an individual’s vulnerability to dangers such as targeted discrimination (both public and private), intrusive surveillance, identity fraud, stalking or harassment.12 The private aggregation of a range of public and private data has been used to deny or limit the provision of health services to the most needy in private insurance-based systems. Elsewhere, police and civil liberties groups debate the constitutionality of facial recognition programs, relying on passport and driver’s license photos, used in non-consensual public video surveillance. Particularly where trust between citizens and the state is weak, this may seriously curtail the ability of 11 During interviews, respondents from government and the broader population spoke of how civil registration is used by the government to manage and control the population, sometimes in restrictive ways (Plan International 2014). 12 To the extent that online digital data may be easier to manipulate, or is stored in cloud platform data centers outside of the reach of legal enforcement, digitization may create additional vulnerabilities.
In Vietnam, access to social services is
closely linked to civil registration. This has ex-
posed non-registered individuals, particularly
from migrant families, to “multiple institution-
alised vulnerabilities and risks” (CSP 2011).
Seventy percent of spontaneous migrants
who approached employers in the formal sec-
tor were rejected because they did not have
hokhau (household registration) in the city,
leaving the vast majority of migrant workers in
precarious and temporary jobs (CSP 2011).
In the United States, courts up to and in- cluding the Supreme Court have found that a number of state laws requiring individuals to show voter identification documents be- fore voting had the effect of disenfranchising low-income and ethnic minority voters and contravened both the 1965 Voting Rights Act and Constitution.
2.3 DOCUMENTATION ITSELF AS
GROUNDS FOR EXCLUSION
Even once registered and in possession of documentation, individuals face the risk that information contained in documents (or underlying registries) may be used for discriminatory ends (WHO, 2014). Registers and accompanying documentation may designate nationality, ethnicity, race, religion, place of birth and other special statuses (Fussell, 2001). Going back in time, ethnic classification on identity cards in Rwanda (first instituted by the Belgian Colonial Government) and the introduction of the “J stamp” on identity cards of Jewish Germans are some of the most notorious reminders of how documentation may expose individuals to discrimination – and worse. Today, identity documents continue (however less insidiously) to contain information that may be used for discriminatory purposes. Identification cards highlighting non-indigenous origin may facilitate employment discrimination, such as in the case of Ethiopian identity cards highlighting the Eritrean “previous nationality” of Ethiopian citizens (Refugees International, 2008). Even more innocuous cases in which a person must provide documentation revealing his or her age
5
|
|
|
|
ISSUE 8 MARCH 2015
|
|
the government to promote the use of civil registers.
Citizens “opting out” – withholding information
or intentionally misrepresenting information –
may further undermine the ability of the registry
systems to deliver on their development promise.
More broadly, citizen fears and suspicions when
confronted with the unchecked expansion of such
systems may undermine a country’s social and
governance compacts.
In designing and supporting the strengthening of such systems, steps must be taken to mitigate these risks and to safeguard personal information. Due diligence is an essential process for understanding and addressing the interaction of an identification scheme with a country’s broader legal-regulatory framework. Can police resort to biometric registry data in lieu of observing due process in criminal investigations? Might registration unintentionally entrench and/or amplify discriminatory effects of previously-unconsidered statutes, regulation or jurisprudence? 4. EVIDENCE OF THE DEVELOPMENT BENEFITS OF IDENTIFICATION IS INCONCLUSIVE Identification systems are costly in the financial sense (with some budgets in the hundreds of millions of dollars), but also in terms of foregone investments and, as discussed above, significant risks. These opportunity costs stress the importance of understanding, for balancing purposes, the nature and likelihood of realizing identification’s benefits. Limited robust evidence of the development impacts of identification systems makes this balancing more difficult, and the justification for investment more tenuous. Proponents of identification systems often ascribe two main instrumental benefits: Registration as a means of targeting public and private sector benefits. This is the core argument underpinning many identification activities: that registration enhances access by (i) allowing governments to expand the reach and efficiency of their programs; and (ii) providing documentary proof of the validity of a claimant for an entitlement or service. Registration, for example, enables the Pakistani Government to institute a cash-for- recovery transfer system in response to flooding and provides eligible citizens with proof of right to their payment, overcoming the myriad factors that would otherwise hinder their ability to collect.
The benefits of identification systems are perhaps
most clearly established in the realm of anti-
povertycash-transfers.Forinstance,alarge-scale
randomized control trial on the use of “smartcards”
in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh found that
smartcards delivered faster, more predictable and
less corrupt payment processes for beneficiaries
without adversely affecting program access
(Muralidharan et al, 2014). Outside of social
protection programming, the evidence is limited
and even proponents of identification systems
acknowledge the need for more rigorous empirical
evaluation (e.g. Gelb and Clark, 2013). Several
pieces of research present a more mixed
perspective about registration and documentation’s
overall effect. Research undertaken in Bangladesh,
Cambodia, and Nepal (Asian Development Bank,
2007) examined the impact of documentation
programs by comparing the quality of life of people
with formal identity documents to others in similar
circumstances without them. The research found
that the impact of increasing the number of people
with legal identity documents was often speculative
and remote. Further research in India, Kenya,
Sierra Leone and Vietnam (Plan International,
2014) also found that the relationship between birth
registration and access to services was complex
and context specific.
Augmenting and enhancing statistical data for policy and planning purposes. Civil registration can generate valuable demographic statistics to inform policy, planning and delivery processes (Asian Development Bank 2007). These systems can provide information on anything from where people live to important health and vital statistics, but the benefit of such data is linked to the completeness and functionality of the underlying registration system. Birth registration is the most common process through which states record (key aspects of people’s) legal identity, yet only 54 percent of countries report complete coverage for births and 52 percent for deaths for the period 1995-2004 (Wallman and Evinger 2006). Current data highlights the coverage gap further. The total population of the 152 countries using mandatory birth and civil registration systems is 5.9 billion people, yet almost 1.5 billion people (about 25% of the population) are unregistered (World Bank, forthcoming).13 It is fair to say that in most developing countries, registration has not yet reached a level of universality, accuracy 13 The data is particularly striking in low income countries: in Ethiopia and Somalia, birth registration systems capture only 6.6% and 3% of births, respectively.
6
|
|
|
|
ISSUE 8 MARCH 2015
|
|
and reliability to be used for planning purposes
(Plan International, 2014).14 As registration among
certain populations such as minority ethnic groups,
the rural poor and the LGBT community can be
significantly lower than national averages (Ladner
et al, 2014), using registration data for development
planning may lead to further exclusion of already
vulnerable groups.
Proponents also raise non-instrumental arguments related to empowerment, which warrant mention, but also raise their own type of evidentiary challenges. Perception surveys highlight the intrinsic value of having one’s legal identity recognized and affirmed by tangible documentation, especially in those populations historically marginalized by the state (Commission on Legal Empowerment, 2008). This is complemented by the value of empowering individuals to assert and protect their rights. The challenge here is how to measure impacts other than through perception surveys and capture impacts more comprehensively. It is difficult, for example, to untangle the countervailing effects of presenting documentation to protect rights versus effective implementation and enforcement of applicable law versus the risks of individual rights being deprived on the basis of one’s failure to present documentation (Plan International, 2014). In sum, the existing evidence interrogating the link between registration, documentation and inclusive development reveals both complexity and uncertainty. While new evidence is emerging, there is an overarching need to invest in filling continuing evidentiary gaps. There is a real risk, reputational and substantive, in “over-selling” the development benefits of identification systems (especially the ones related to service delivery) until such time as the evidence speaks more clearly. 14 The World Bank and WHO have developed a Global Civil Registration and Vital Statistics Scaling Up Investment Plan with the goal of universal civil registration of births, deaths, marriages, and other vital events, including reporting cause of death, and access to legal proof of registration for all individuals by 2030. The cost of bridging the gap in the 73 low and middle income countries plan countries is estimated at US$2.3bn (2014). This is an important initiative, but until it is more fully realized, pragmatism is in order in tempering expectations as to the value of registry-generated data. In the absence of reliable registry data, alternative data sources including household/ population surveys have proven effective tools for monitoring certain demographic indicators and trends (including birth registration, UNICEF 2005), without the additional costs attendant to instituting comprehensive civil registries.
CONCLUSION: MAXIMIZING DEVELOP-
MENT BENEFITS FROM IDENTIFICATION
Whilst identification systems can be an important contributor to development, they can also increase exclusion for certain populations, especially those already most vulnerable and marginalized. These concerns highlight the need for greater diligence in assessing the benefits and costs of identification alternatives in any given context. The functionality and impact of identification systems rest on the functioning of a series of other institutions – law, agencies, and archives, just to name a few. Having a more thorough understanding of the interplay between these institutions can yield as much if not more than spending on cutting-edge technology. This is especially true in fragile and low-income states where tech literacy is low and access to power and internet connectivity are unreliable. Beyond this initial diligence, the analysis suggests several other principles to enhance the development impacts of identification programs:
7
|
|
|
|
ISSUE 8 MARCH 2015
|
|
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Amnesty International. 2015. “Urgent Action: Mass Statelessness Crisis Continues.” http://www. amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR27/003/2015/en/84009b16-1ea3-4d6b-96f1-4444a4de647d/ amr270032015en.pdf Asian Development Bank. 2007. “Legal Identity for Inclusive Development.” Law and Policy Reform at the Asian Development Bank, Asian Development Bank. Australian Indonesia Partnership for Justice (AIPJ). 2014. “AIPJ Baseline Study on Legal Identity: Indonesia’s Missing Millions.” http://www.aipj.or.id/uploads/reports_publication/8_f_20140227-011003_FA_ baseline_report_english.pdf. Bhabha, J., ed. 2011. Children Without a State: A Global Human Rights Challenge. Cambridge: MIT Press. Bhabha, J. 2011. “From Citizen to Migrant: The Scope of Child Statelessness in the Twenty-First Century.” In Children Without a State: A Global Human Rights Challenge. Centre for Women and Gender Studies (CWGS). 2011. “Assessing justice and global migration: Indonesian women domestic migrant workers in the United Arab Emirates.” University of Indonesia, Jakarta. Cody, C. 2009. “Count Every Child: the right to birth registration.” Woking, Plan Ltd. Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor and UNDP. 2008. “Making the Law Work for Everyone (Volume 1: Report of the Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor.” New York. Corbacho, A., Brito, S. and Osorio-Rivas, R. 2012. “Birth Registration and the Impact on Educational Attainment.” Inter-American Development Bank, Washington. Corbacho, A. and Osario-Rivas, R. 2012. “Travelling the Distance: A GPS-Based study of the Access to Birth Registration Services Latin America and the Caribbean.” Inter-American Development Bank, Washington. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 2011. “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2011.” Population Estimates, March 2012. https://www.dhs. gov/sites/default/files/publications/ois_ill_pe_2011.pdf. Dunning, C., Gelb, A. and Raghavan, S. 2014. “Birth Registration, Legal Identity and the Post-2015 Agenda.” Center for Global Development Policy Paper. http://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/ birth-registration-legal-identity.pdf. Duong, L., Linh, T. and Thao, N. 2011. “Social Protection for Rural-Urban Migrants in Vietnam: Current situation, Challenges and Opportunities.” CSP Research Report 08. http://www.ids.ac.uk/publication/ social-protection-for-rural-urban-migrants-in-vietnam-current-situation-challenges-and-opportunities. The Economist. 2014. “Fighting for Identity.” May 17 2014, Beijing. http://www.economist.com/news/ china/21602257-people-born-outside-family-planning-regulations-are-fighting-obtain-legal- documents-prove. The Economist. 2014. “Nowhere to call home; statelessness.” May 17 2014, London. Fussell, J. 2001. “Group Classification on National ID Cards as a Factor in Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing.” http://www.genocidewatch.org/images/AboutGen_Group_Classification_on_National_ID_Cards.pdf. Gelb, A. and Clark, J. 2013. “Identification for Development: The Biometrics Revolution.” Center for Global Development Working Paper, Washington DC. Haki Network. 2012. “Promoting Development through Legal Identity.” White Paper May 2012. http://www. hakinetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Haki-Legal-Identity-and-Development-White-Paper.pdf.
8
|
|
|
|
ISSUE 8 MARCH 2015
|
|
Harbitz, M. and del Carmen Tamargo, M. 2009. “The Significance of Legal Identity in Situations of Poverty
and Social Exclusion: The Link between Gender, Ethnicity, and Legal Identity.” Inter-American
Development Bank Technical Note, Washington DC.
Harbitz, M. and Boekle, B. 2009. “Democratic Governance, Citizenship, and Legal Identity: Linking Theoretical Discussion and Operational Reality.” Inter-American Development Bank Working Paper, Washington DC. Ladner, D., Jensen E., and Saunders, S. 2014. “A Critical Assessment of Legal Identity: What it Promises and What it Delivers.” Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 6, pp 47-74. Marshall, T. 1950. “Citizenship and Social Class and Other Essays.” Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Mason, K. 2011. “Mobile Migrants, Mobile Germs: Migration, Contagion and Boundary-Building in Shenzhen, China after SARS.” Medical Anthropology: Cross-Cultural Studies in Health and Illness, Vol. 31 No. 2 2011. McMaster, D. 2003. “Asylum Seekers and the Politics of Citizenship.” Borderlands Volume 2 Number 1, 2003. Miller, J. 2007. “Birth Registration and the Rights of the Child.” European Parliament Directorate-General for External Policies of the Union Policy Department, Brussels. Muralidharan, K., Niehaus, P. and Sukhtankar, S. 2014. “Building State capacity: Evidence from Biometric Smartcards in India.” http://www.povertyactionlab.org/publication/building-state-capacity-evidence- biometric-smartcards-india. Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI). 2006. “Human Rights and Legal Identity: Approaches to Combating Statelessness and Arbitrary Deprivation of Nationality.” Thematic Conference Paper, May 2006. http://www.soros.org/initiatives/justice/articles_publications/publications/identity_20060501. Orenstein, J. 2008. “The Difficulties Faced by Aboriginal Victorians in Obtaining Identification.” Indigenous Law Bulletin. http://www.orenstein.com.au/IBL%20Article.pdf. Orenstein, J. 2009. “Being Nobody - The Difficulties Faced by Aboriginal Victorians in Obtaining Identification.” Conference Paper, NACLC Conference Perth, 18 September 2009. Passel, J and Cohn, D. 2009. “A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States.” Pew Research Center, Washington. http://www.pewhispanic.org/2009/04/14/a-portrait-of-unauthorized-immigrants- in-the-united-states/. Plan International. 2012. “Mother to Child. How Discrimination Prevents Women Registering the Birth of their Child.” Plan International, United Kingdom. https://plan-international.org/files/global/publications/ campaigns/mother-to-child-how-discrimination-english. Plan International. 2014. “Birth Registration and Children’s Rights: A Complex Story.” Plan International, United Kingdom. http://plan-international.org/about-plan/resources/publications/campaigns/birth- registration-research. Refugees International. 2008. “Ethiopia-Eritrea: Stalemate Takes Toll on Eritreans and Ethiopians of Eritrean Origin.” http://www.refugeesinternational.org/sites/default/files/Ethiopia_stateless0530.pdf. Refugees International. 2009. “Nationality Rights for All: A Progress Report and Global Survey on Statelessness.” 11 March 2009. http://www.refworld.org/docid/49be193f2.html. Setel, P. 2007. “A Scandal of Invisibility: Making Everyone Count by Counting Everyone,” The Lancet, Volume 370, Issue 9598 (November 3, 2007). Todrys, K.W. and Amon, J. “Within but Without: Human Rights and Access to HIV Prevention and Treatment 9 |
|
|
|
ISSUE 8 MARCH 2015
|
|
for Internal Migrants.” Globalization and Health, Vol. 5 Issues 17 (Nov. 19, 2009).
UIDAI Technology Center. 2014. “Aadhaar Technology Strategy: Ecosystem, Technology and Governance.” Uphadhya, R. 2013. “Identity Cards Adding Value for Development.” World Bank Blog, April 11, 2013. https:// blogs.worldbank.org/endpovertyinsouthasia/national-identity-cards-adding-value-development. United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). 2002. “Birth Registration: Right from the Start.” Innocenti Digest No. 9. UNICEF, New York. http://www.childinfo.org/files/birthregistration_Digestenglish.pdf. United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). 2005. “The ‘Rights’ Start to Life: A Statistical Analysis of Birth Registration.” United Nations Children’s Fund, New York. United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). 2010. “UNICEF Good Practices in Integrating Birth Registration into Health Systems (2000-2009).” United Nations Children’s Fund, New York. United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). 2010. “Birth Registration in Bangladesh.” United Nations Children’s Fund, New York. United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). 2013a. “Every Child’s Birth Right: Inequities and trends in birth registration.” UNICEF, New York. http://data.unicef.org/child-protection/birth-regis- tration#sthash.1ax7Ihk4.rIDlec31.dpuf. United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). 2013b. “A passport to protection: a guide to birth registration programming.” UNICEF, New York. UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, December 10, 1948, http://www.unhcr.org. United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. “Convention on the Rights of the Child,” Article 7(1). http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) et al. 2010. “Good Practices: Addressing Statelessness in South East Asia.” Report of the Regional Expert Roundtable on Good Practices for the Identification, Prevention and Reduction of Statelessness and the Protection of Stateless Persons in South East Asia, Bangkok, 28 to 29 October 2010. http://www.unhcr.org/4d7de47f9.html. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). 2013. “Birth registration, child protection.” Issue brief [online] Geneva, August 2013. Vandenabeele, C. and Lao, C. 2007. “Legal Identity for Inclusive Development.” Asian Development Bank, Philippines. Wallman, K. and Evinger, S. 2006. “International Standards for Compilation of Statistics: The Gap between Standards Adoption and Standards Implementation.” World Bank. 2014. “By Counting Every Life, Every Life Counts.” World Bank Blog June 23 2014. http://www. worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2014/06/23/by-counting-every-life-every-life-counts. World Bank. 2014. “Global Civil Registration and Vital Statistics Scaling up Investment Plan 2015–2024.” World Bank. 2015. “Identification for Development (ID4D) Global Indicators: Data Collection and Analysis (February 2015).” Forthcoming. |
|
WHY JUST DEVELOPMENT? BECAUSE UNJUST DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT ACHIEVE OUR CORE GOALS.
Just Development provides a curated series of brief, yet informative and thought provoking, case studies, lessons and essays to share knowledge and stimulate debate on how development practitioners can promote effective justice institutions to achieve the World Bank’s core goals of eliminating extreme poverty and boosting shared prosperity. Just Development is an initiative of the Justice for the Poor (J4P) program in the World Bank’s Governance Global Practice. Contact us at justdevelopment@worldbank.org and visit our website to access past issues http://go.worldbank.org/29US608RY0. 10 |
