WHY DO POOR COUNTRIES CHOOSE LOW HUMAN RIGHTS ? Some Lessons from Burma

Theoretical explanations about human rights or democracy and economic development have long been dominated by the so-called Lipset-hypothesis, in whichwhereby the levels of democracy and human rights is are a function of prosperity. However, cross-country evidence seems to indicate that multiple equilibria are more probable than a simple linear relationship. The This paper explains the occurrence of low human rights equilibria as the result of a collective choice, where individual's take into account (conform to, or weigh?) the prevailing consensus in society. This This consensus is based on specific cognitive models and the related conceptions of justice. Modern societies are structured by debtor-creditor relationships in a monetary economy, while traditional societies are dominated by a safety-first principle rooted in the subsistence economy. Modern society requires a system of rights, including human rights, to ensure protection of the individual against interference by the collective. By contrast, the subsistence ethics of traditional societies privilege a holistic approach in which the collective guarantees the survival of the individual. {{* In this context, the validity of human rights rights (which are distinct from human dignity) is less apparent. A collective choice of low human rights can be seen as an adverse selection by risk-averse agents, or as an insurance premium against individual precarity. }} *Stefan: I would either take out “which are distinct from human dignity” or define the difference between rights and dignity. Traditional societies are dominated by a safety-first principle rooted in the subsistence economy, while modern societies are structured by debtor-creditor relationships in a monetary economy. As a consequence, modern society requires a system of rights, including human 3 Human Rights and Economic DevelopmentWhy Do Poor Countries Choose Low Human Rights? 3 rights as the protection of the individual against interference by the collective. By contrast, the subsistence ethics of traditional societies privileges a holistic approach where the collective guarantees the survival of the individual. In this context, the validity of human rights (which are distinct from human dignity) is less apparent. A collective choice of low human rights can be seen as an adverse selection by risk-avers agents or as an insurance premium against individual precarity. These conclusions were derived from an analysis of Burma's society and economy. A In general, the transition to a sustainable democratic regime with better respect for human rights would require a profound restructuring of the economy with a properly functioning monetary economy. Are these global conclusions? The second sentence makes it sound like you’re only talking about Burma. Maybe you could say, “Globally, the transition of traditional societies into sustainable democratic regimes..... JEL Classification: K10, K19, O11, O12, O16, Z13