How Can Human Security Contribute to More Effective Development?
Remarks by James Michel*Washington, D.C., Development Forum
Washington, February 5, 2005
I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss with you today how human security can contribute tomore effective development. I am sure that most of this audience is aware that Japan hasemphasized human security in its foreign policy, including as a basic tenet in its recently revised
ODA Charter. JICA, likewise, is giving increased prominence to a human security perspective.
Our discussion today provides an opportunity for identifying ways to facilitate that process. I
look forward to an active dialogue.
Development and human security are different, but related and overlapping concepts. The
existence of a relationship between them can be readily inferred from the fact that the countries
suffering from ongoing or recent conflict, where people are least secure, tend to be those with thehighest indicators of underdevelopment, such as high levels of poverty, illiteracy and childmortality. However, acknowledging the fact of a relationship between development and humansecurity is one thing; understanding the relationship and seeing how the two concepts can bemade to be mutually reinforcing is another matter.
As a starting point, we can describe the two concepts separately. I do not presume to suggest asingle definition of either development or human security. There are so many definitions thatnone can be singled out as authoritative. However, I think we can propose descriptions that mostcan accept.
Let’s begin with development:
Development can be described as the holistic process by which societies become stable,
prosperous, safe and just, with shared basic values and interests grounded in human freedom andopportunity. Such societies are foundations of human well being and fulfillment, and they form
the base of a peaceful and productive global community.
Over the last half-century we have learned a lot about development. There is a broadinternational consensus about basic principles:
Development comes from within a society. It must be based upon local responsibility forand commitment to integrated policies and strategies that are results-oriented over the*James Michel is an independent consultant in international development cooperation. In his career in the UnitedStates Government he held senior positions in the Department of State and the Agency for International
Development and also as a U.S. Ambassador. From 1994 until 1999 he served as Chair of the Development
Assistance Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

long term. These policies and strategies have economic, social, political, environmental
and security dimensions, all of which must be heeded.
International support for locally led efforts can be effective in accelerating and increasing
positive development outcomes. Such support should be provided in a spirit ofpartnership, based on shared goals, an agreed division of labor, adequate resources andeffective coordination.
Development cooperation is more than aid. It needs to be integrated into a broader
framework of coherent policies to facilitate greater participation by poor countries in the
global community and greater participation by poor and disadvantaged people in theeconomic, political and cultural life of their societies.
The United Nations Development Programme’s annual Human Development reports, together
with a series of UN conferences – on education, children, human rights, population, women,social development, food and habitat – had an important influence in the 1990s by emphasizingthat development is ultimately about people. Growth, inflation, trade, investment, fiscal andmonetary policies, and physical infrastructure are all important. But they are important becauseof their impact on the quality of life for people.
Beginning with this emphasis on people, the Development Assistance Committee of the OECDsuggested in 1996 a limited number of specific inter-related goals to measure the progress ofdevelopment. Those goals, drawn from the various UN conferences, have now been refined andexpanded at the Millennium Summit of the United Nations as the Millennium Development
Goals. When we speak today of shared goals, the MDGs are the agreed benchmark.
The locally led, people-centered, results-oriented partnership model has become the preferredapproach to development cooperation. It is endorsed in policy statements by multilateralorganizations and by developed and developing countries. It finds expression in the Poverty
Reduction Strategy Papers prepared by more than 50 developing countries and also in ongoinginternational efforts to harmonize donor practices so as to better support local capacity and local
ownership.
Let’s turn now to human security:“Human security” has a more brief history than “development.” It has persisted over the past
decade as a powerful idea. At the same time, it is an elusive concept that has attracted muchdebate but little consensus.
The renowned development economist Mahbub ul Haq provided intellectual leadership to thehuman development movement. He initiated the Human Development Report, in which heintroduced many innovative ideas. In the 1994 report, he included an entire chapter on “newdimensions of human security.” This was the first in-depth analysis of the notion that humansecurity is an essential aspect of sustainable human development.

2The 1994 report described human security as having two main aspects: “safety from such
chronic threats as hunger, disease and repression” and “protection from sudden and hurtful
disruptions in the patterns of daily life.” It suggested that those aspects of human security arerelated to economic, food, health, environmental, personal and political security.
The idea of a link between human security and human development was attractive. The end of
the cold war, while hardly the end of history, had improved the climate for thinking about
security as something broader than a military issue. At the same time, globalization was creating
uncertainties that undermined confidence about the future. Human security evoked the historic
aspirations of people everywhere for freedom from want and freedom from fear. I was among
the early enthusiasts. I provided comments on the draft 1994 Human Development Report andendorsed the concept of human security in the 1994 Development Cooperation Report of theOECD Development Assistance Committee.
Some countries have shown a continuing interest in human security and have given it
prominence in their policies. Japan, Canada and Norway are the foremost among them. Our
study describes the policies, program and activities of Japan and Canada, in particular. For most,
however, the appeal of the concept was not enough. From the beginning, the questions havepersisted: What do you do differently in order to integrate human security considerations intodevelopment efforts, and how does this improve development outcomes? In the absence ofanswers to those questions we do not find references to human security in the programming
guidance of the United Nations agencies, the World Bank, or donor agencies like USAID,
Canada’s CIDA and JICA.
I would describe human security as a special concern to protect and empower people so that they
will be able to cope with situations that significantly threaten their survival, livelihoods ordignity. It is not a separate approach to development. Rather, it is an important factor in thatpeople must have a minimal sense of security so that they can engage in development activities
and development should contribute to their increased freedom and security.
The idea of an independent Commission on Human Security was discussed at the UN
Millennium Summit in 2000. The following year, with financing from Japan, the Commission
became a reality. Under the leadership of co-chairs Sadako Ogata, former UN HighCommissioner for Refugees, and Amartya Sen, distinguished economist and Nobel Laureate, theCommission produced a comprehensive report and presented it to the Secretary General of theUnited Nations in 2003. That report has again brought to the fore the question of how totransform the concept of human security into a practical instrument for advancing sustainableeconomic and social development around the world.
A principal limitation on making human security an operational concept has been the breadth andvagueness of definitions that have been suggested for it. Various descriptions of human security
have employed very broad terms. Often, these descriptions seem to be just another way ofdescribing human development. One author went so far as to ask whether human security
represented “paradigm shift or hot air.”3

Like others, the Commission adopted a very broad definition: “to protect the vital core of all
human lives in ways that enhance human freedoms and human fulfillment.” If human security is
about human rights, good governance, and access to education and health care, as Kofi Annan
has suggested, and if it also embraces fair trade and patent rights, as the Commission proposed, it
his hard to see what distinguishes this concept from human development and how it might
operate to modify the widely accepted partnership model for development cooperation.
The Commission’s analysis offers two ideas that provide a basis for strategic thinking:First, the report speaks of “systems that together give people the building blocks ofsurvival, livelihood and dignity” and suggests strategies of protection and empowerment
to create such systems.
Second, it makes the important distinction that, while human development “is concernedwith progress and augmentation,” human security “fruitfully supplements theexpansionist perspective of human development by directly paying attention to what are
sometimes called ‘downside risks’.”
The study team has identified these ideas in the Commission’s report as offering a way forward,
toward making human security an operational, not just a theoretical concept. Our recommended
approach would be to defer the debate about broad definitions and universal application. Instead,
we propose that the international community begin by trying to demonstrate the value of a focus
on human security – coping with downside risks – in a few countries where the risks to survival,
livelihoods and dignity are most evident and local capacity to respond adequately is most lacking– countries in conflict or emerging from conflict and other fragile states. These are the countries
that the World Bank calls “low income countries under stress” and the DAC calls “difficultpartnerships.”
In such countries, the team is recommending concentration on core issues of survival, livelihoods
and dignity. While specifics need to be determined on a country-by-country basis to reflect local
circumstances, we have developed a chart to illustrate core issues. I have included that chart in
the written text of my remarks.

4

Categories of Human Security
Aspects
Challenges toof human human security
security
PhysicalViolence,
hunger, health,displacement,
crime

Nature ofhuman security
interests
Survival

Time frameofinterventionsImmediate
and medium
term

Economic Unemployment,inequality,
povertyLivelihood

Medium andlong term

Political

DignityLong term

Arbitrary
government
action,corruption,
impunity

Activities to protect andempower
Access to food, shelter, basic
health services; protection
from conflict, violent crime,
environmental hazards, naturaldisasters
Access to education andtraining; employment
opportunities, access to credit;
access to markets
Accountable governance, ruleof law; access to information;
opportunities for democratic
participation

We believe there are good reasons for recommending a selective approach. Much of theinternational doubt about the operational value of a human security orientation relates to thebroad nature of the concept, and the uncertainty as to where human security ends and otherconcepts begin. Also, while the partnership approach is widely accepted as the preferredapproach to development cooperation, experience has shown that the partnership approach is notwell suited to situations where political will and institutional capacity are in short supply. Theinternational community is considering new approaches for dealing with the low income
countries under stress, and especially with the implications of conflict for development. In
particular, an ongoing learning and advisory process has been established that brings together theOECD Development Assistance Committee, World Bank, United Nations Development
Programme, European Union and a number of bilateral donors. An initiative to build up humansecurity as a basis for sustained development in the low income countries under stress is likely tobe welcomed as a timely contribution.
Certainly, human security is needed everywhere. We see an initial focus on low incomecountries under stress and core issues as a starting point. As experience is gained, lessons
learned can be applied to consider a broader range of countries and a broader range of issues.
However, if the initial effort were to make human security an operational concept immediately
and simultaneously in all its potential aspects and in all developing countries, the result would
likely be frustration and disappointment.
The essence of our recommendations to JICA is that it should develop a strategic plan toincorporate several elements:

5

capacity building within the organization,
engagement with interested members of the international community,
dissemination of information, andselected pilot programs in collaboration with others.
In this way, we believe it will be possible to build a broad international consensus to embracehuman security as a valued concept and make it an effective operational discipline in the practiceof development cooperation.

6