The Other Side of the Coin: NGOs,Rights‐Based Approaches,and Public Administration

The majority of the world's population resides in low‐ and middle‐income countries, where the problem of sustainable development is among the most pressing public administration challenges. As principal actors within the international development community, transnational nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) play a leading role in piloting a wide variety of development‐focused strategies. During the past decade, many of these transnational NGOs, along with the United Nations, have embraced a rights‐based approach (RBA) to development as an alternative to traditional service delivery. Despite the growing popularity of RBA among NGOs and other development actors, surprisingly little attention has been paid to understanding the significance of RBA for public administration and for public managers—the “other side of the coin.” Drawing on current research in NGO studies and international development, this article describes several varieties of contemporary rights‐based approaches, analyzes their impact on development practices, and examines the intersection of RBA and public administration.     

Being tough versus being fair

Among his books are The Social Psychology of Social Movements; Violent Men; Reforming Human Services; Living in Prison;and, with Kenneth Adams and J. Douglas Grant, Coping: Maladaptation in Prisons.     

Responses to corporate versus individual wrongdoing

For many years, researchers assumed that the public was indifferent to corporate wrongdoing, but recent surveys have discovered evidence to the contrary. Taking insights from these data a step further, this study employed an experimental design to examine whether people responded differently to corporate versus individual wrongdoers. We varied the identity of the central actor in a scenario involving harm to workers. Half the respondents were informed that a corporation caused the harm; the remainder were told that an individual did so. Respondents applied a higher standard of responsibility to the corporate actor. For identical actions, the corporation was judged as more reckless and more morally wrong than the individual. Respondents' judgments of the greater recklessness of the corporation led them to recommend higher civil and criminal penalties against the corporation.Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the annual meetings of the Law and Society Association (1986), the Society for the Study of Social Problems (1986), and the American Psychological Association (1987). Writing was facilitated by a NIMH Fellowship in Psychology and Law at Stanford University to Valerie Hans. The authors wish to thank Jeffrey Davidson, Sam Gaertner, Michael Levi, Nancy Pennington, David Sciulli, Wes Skogan, and Robert Wood for their contributions to the work.