Children's Rights and Children's Wellbeing: Equivalent Policy Concepts?

Abstract

Children's rights and children's wellbeing are often casually paired together in both academic literature and policy discussions, but they differ conceptually, methodologically and politically. This has become particularly evident in Scotland, where ‘landmark’ children's legislation in 2014 has set up a clash between statutory requirements for children's rights and children's wellbeing. This article utilises the Scottish example to wrestle with the advantages and disadvantages of each concept as a framework for policy and practice. The article concludes that children's wellbeing benefits from being aspirational and maximising, easily incorporating children's relationships and collective needs, and having advanced quantitative methods of measurement. But children's wellbeing also risks being apolitical, utilitarian and professionally led in both measurement and practice. Children's rights, in contrast, emphasise minimum standards, do not easily include important matters for children, such as love and friendship, and have limited quantitative investment to date. Yet they are politically powerful, backed by law, and hold duty bearers accountable. Decisions need to be made about the relationship between children's rights and children's wellbeing – and which is the primary framing for policy and practice – because they are not equivalent concepts.

Childhoods in Policy: A Critical Analysis of National Child Protection Policy in the Philippines

“…The policies acknowledge children's rights and wellbeing, reflecting an attentiveness to international agendas. This is expected, given the UNCRC is an international agreement for which national governments are responsible (Peters, 2012;Tisdall, 2015). Core to the UNCRC are children's right to be heard and to participate in decisions that concern them, which views children as competent actors who have their own distinct rights (Heimer and Palme, 2016).…”

Getting It Right for Every Child: A National Policy Framework to Promote Children's Well-being in Scotland, United Kingdom

“…Not only in Scotland but across the United Kingdom, a new language has emerged to express the changing aspirations of policymakers; while previously the emphasis was on “child welfare” and “child care,” the shift to framing policy in terms of “child well‐being” and its associated outcomes represents a new holistic, child‐centered ecological approach, which acknowledges the systems around the child and family . Despite the policy intentions for GIRFEC, some critics argue that its well‐being model is not fully defined; instead, well‐being is “described” by the SHANARRI indicators in relation to assessment, which presents a “particular vision” of well‐being, leaving some scope for interpretation . Notwithstanding this criticism, the interpretation of well‐being embedded in GIRFEC appears to fit with definitions of child well‐being that are intrinsically linked to the notion of realizing children's rights .…”

“…Notwithstanding this criticism, the interpretation of well‐being embedded in GIRFEC appears to fit with definitions of child well‐being that are intrinsically linked to the notion of realizing children's rights . However, Tisdall argues that although often paired together, children's well‐being and children's rights are vastly different concepts, both methodologically and politically, and as such, the relationship between the two within the Scottish legislation is confusing and problematic. The focus on well‐being appears to have been at the expense of the wider concept of children's rights .…”

“…These provisions can be viewed as a dilution of existing obligations under the UNCRC as part of its UK ratification . Public authorities who are responsible for GIRFEC implementation have been given little meaningful obligation relative to children's rights, other than the requirement to report on what steps they have taken with regard to UNCRC responsibilities; however, in relation to well‐being, their duties are stronger, affording well‐being the more dominant position in the legislation …”

The biggest extension of rights in Europe? Needs, rights and children with additional support needs in Scotland

“…Subsequently, the provisions of the legislation with regard to the Named Person have proved particularly controversial, and as a result, at the time of writing (November 2018), the legislation has not been fully implemented. Tisdall (2015b) argues that evidence and debates on the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill tended to emphasise problems with allowing children access to litigation to enforce their rights, regarded as being at variance with the Scottish social welfare tradition of collectivism and consensual decision-making. It was argued that the UNCRC was an aspirational document which did not need to be underpinned by legal routes to redress.…”