Children's rights implementation as a lived practice
2025, Critical Children's Rights Studies: A Research Companion
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003510284-19Abstract
An ‘implementation gap’ between law and practice has long been noticed by scholars and practitioners of children’s rights. This chapter goes beyond critiquing such a gap by unpacking and deconstructing the very notion of ‘implementation.’ It empirically studies how India’s national child helpline, and thereby children’s protection rights, are implemented in the state of Madhya Pradesh in North India. Instead of assuming that ‘rights implementation’ simply equals a technical application of law by the state, the chapter conceptualizes implementation as a ‘lived practice’ consisting of the interactive social meeting between children’s rights law, its official and unofficial implementers, its beneficiaries (children), and their immediate relations (most often families). If we take seriously this ‘lived practice’ of implementation, we can begin to understand both why some laws seem ‘unimplementable’ (due to, for instance, discrepancies between legal and social ages), and also which actors (such as nongovernmental organizations) are key for implementation even if they are only cursorily, if at all, mentioned in children’s rights law. By showcasing how such a conceptualization came to be through ethnographic fieldwork, the chapter also demonstrates how other critical children’s rights researchers methodologically can use ethnography for critical theoretical development.
References (31)
- Alcoff, L. (1991). The problem of speaking for others. Cultural Critique, 20, 5-32. https://doi.org/10.2307/1354221
- Balagopalan, S. (2014). Inhabiting 'childhood': Children, labour and schooling in postco- lonial India. Palgrave Macmillian.
- Balagopalan, S. (2019). Why historicize rights-subjectivities? Children's rights, com- pulsory schooling, and the deregulation of child labor in India. Childhood, 26(3), 304-320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568219856077
- Bernal, V., & Grewal, I. (2014). Theorizing NGOs: States, feminisms, and neoliberalism. Duke University Press.
- Cerwonka, A., & Malkki, L. H. (2007). Improvising theory: Process and temporality in ethnographic fieldwork. University of Chicago Press.
- Clark-Kazak, C. R. (2009). Towards a working definition and application of social age in international development studies. Journal of Development Studies, 45(8), 1307- 1324. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220380902862952
- Corbridge, S., Williams, G., Srivastava, M., & Véron, R. (2005). Seeing the state: Gov- ernance and governmentality in India. Cambridge University Press.
- De Feyter, K. (2007). Localising human rights. In W. Benedek, K. De Feyter & F. Marella (eds.) Economic globalisation and human rights (pp. 67-92). Cambridge University Press.
- Ferguson, J., & Gupta, A. (2002). Spatializing states: Toward an ethnography of neo- liberal governmentality. American Ethnologist, 29(4), 981-1002.
- Hanson, K., & Nieuwenhuys, O. (2013). Living rights, social justice, translations. In K. Hanson & O. Nieuwenhuys (eds.) Reconceptualizing children's rights: Living rights, social justice, translations (pp. 3-26). Cambridge University Press. https:// doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139381796
- Lemons, K. (2017). the ethics and politics of NGO-dependent anthropology. In A. Lashaw, C. Vannier & S. Sampson (Eds.) Cultures of doing good: Anthropologists and NGOs (pp. 194-211). University of Alabama Press.
- Levitt, P., & Merry, S. E. (2009). Vernacularization on the ground: Local uses of global women's rights in Peru, China, India and the United States. Global Networks, 4, 441-461. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0374.2009.00263.x
- Liebel, M. (2012). with contributions by K. Hanson, I. Saadi, & W. Vandenhole. Chil- dren's rights from below: Cross-cultural perspectives. Palgrave Macmillan.
- Mangla, A. (2022). Making bureaucracy work: Norms, education and public service delivery in rural India. Cambridge University Press.
- Mathur, N. (2016). Paper tiger: Law, bureaucracy and the developmental state in Hima- layan India. Cambridge University Press.
- Merry, S. E. (2017). The potential of ethnographic methods for human rights research. In B. A. Andreassen, H.-O. Sano & S. McInerney-Lankford (eds.) Research methods in human rights (pp. 141-158). Edward Elgar Publishers.
- Mortensen, T. B. (2023). NGOs as child rights implementers in India: How NGO work- ers negotiate human rights responsibility in 'partnership' with a neoliberal and restric- tive state. PhD dissertation, Lund University.
- Mortensen, T. B. (2024). Human rights as social service: Vernacular rights cultures and overlapping ethical discourses at an Indian child rights NGO. Nordic Journal of Human Rights, 42(2), 234-251. https://doi.org.ludwig.lub.lu.se/10.1080/18918 131.2024.2326784
- Mosse, D. (2004). Is good policy unimplementable? Reflections on the ethnography of aid policy and practice. Development & Change, 35(4), 639-671. https://doi. org/0.1111/j.0012-155X.2004.00374.x
- Pradhan, S., Norman-Tichawangana, V., & Kamat, S. (2023). NGOs in international development: Ongoing trends and new architectures. In International Encyclo- pedia of Education (4th ed., pp. 565-573). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/ B978-0-12-818630-5.010629
- Randeria, S. (2007). The state of globalization: Legal plurality, overlapping sovereignties and ambiguous alliances between civil society and the cunning state in India. Theory, Culture & Society, 24(1), 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276407071559
- Reynaert, D. (2025). The social construction of children's rights: Origins of, and devel- opments in, the children's rights movement in Flanders. In V. Llobet, D. Reynaert, A. Twum-Danso Imoh & W. Vandenhole (eds.) Critical Children's Rights Studies: A research companion. Routledge.
- Reynaert, D., Bie, M. B.-D., & Vandevelde, S. (2012). Between 'believers' and 'oppo- nents': Critical discussions on children's rights. International Journal of Children's Rights, 20(1), 155-168.
- Sen, S. (1992). Non-profit organisations in India: Historical development and com- mon patterns. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organiza- tions, 3(2), 175-193.
- Sharma, A. (2006). Crossbreeding institutions, breeding struggle: Women's empower- ment, neoliberal governmentality, and state (re)formation in India. Cultural Anthro- pology, 21(1), 60-95.
- Srivatsan, R. (2015). Seva, saviour and state: Caste politics, tribal welfare and capitalist development. Routledge.
- Stammers, N. (2009). Human rights and social movements. Pluto Press.
- Traianou, A. (2020). The centrality of ethics in qualitative practice. In P. Leavy (ed.) The Oxford handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 86-110). Oxford Univer- sity Press.
- Trouillot, M.-R. (2001). The anthropology of the state in the age of globalization. Current Anthropology, 42(1), 125-138. https://doi.org/10.1086/318437
- Vandenhole, W., Desmet, E., Reynaert, D., & Lembrechts, S. (Eds.). (2015). Rout- ledge international handbook of children's rights studies. Routledge.
- Wall, J. (2025). Children's rights from a childist perspective: Theorizing social empow- erment. In V. Llobet, D. Reynaert, A. Twum-Danso Imoh & W. Vandenhole (eds.) Critical Children's Rights Studies: A research companion. Routledge.