The rights-based approach to development targets progress towards the realization of 30 articles set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In current practice, progress is frequently measured using the multidimensional poverty index. While elegant and useful, the multidimensional poverty index is inconsistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights principles of indivisibility, inalienability, and equality. We argue that a first-order dominance (FOD) methodology maintains basic consistency with these principles. Specifically, FOD comparisons are independent of any applied weighting schemes and hence are free from assumptions regarding substitutability between included welfare indicators (indivisibility). FOD cannot be established when welfare in any indicator is deteriorating, no matter how great the advancement is in other indicators (inalienability). Finally, FOD requires that domination occurs throughout the population (equality), implying that welfare gains among better-off groups never offset welfare losses among worse-off groups. We discuss and compare the properties of the multidimensional poverty index and first-order dominance approach and apply both measures to 26 African countries using data near 2002 and 2012. Results across the two measures are broadly similar but not the same. For example, while the multidimensional poverty index suggests that all countries are advancing, FOD indicates that 14 countries experience broad-based progress, two countries show more moderate likelihoods of progress, and the remaining 10 countries neither improve nor deteriorate in terms of attainment of rights for the dimensions considered. We conclude that the multidimensional poverty index and first-order dominance approaches are useful complements that should be employed in tandem.

The present study has aimed to determine how factors beyond the control of youths (15–29 years) have determined their chance to find employment opportunities in six Sub-Saharan Africa countries (The Democratic Republic of the Congo (Congo), Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Uganda, and Zambia). Data from the school-to-work transition surveys from 2014 and 2015, carried out by the International Labor Office, was utilised. For each country, the Human Opportunity Index, as developed by the World Bank, was calculated. Second, the contribution of each factor to that index was calculated. The results showed that while the Congo had relatively high employment dissimilarity, originating from given circumstances, Madagascar, Malawi, and Uganda had comparatively low employment dissimilarity indices. Likewise, the study detected that among factors beyond the control of youths that determined their chance to find employment, particularly parental occupation, was found to be a fundamental driver of creating a difference in employment chances for their offspring. Overall, the results implied that effort-based inequalities and not inequality caused by factors beyond individual control played a significant role in explaining the status of youths in the labour market.

Purpose: The current study empirically examines the influence of state capacity on entrepreneurship.Design/methodology/approach: This research draws upon the national measures of 118 countries and employs a more robust measure of state capacity.Findings: The findings show a positive correlation between state capacity and entrepreneurship. However, the results reveal that the effect of state capacity on entrepreneurship is stronger in developing low-technology nations compared to developed high-technology nations.Research limitations/implications: When available, future research could employ more recent data to estimate the effects of state capacity on entrepreneurship. In addition to developmental and technological levels, various other factors can also be explored such as national culture and welfare regime type.Practical implications: The current study enables policymakers to identify factors critical in developing state capacity. Policymakers can also have better-tailored approaches for developing targeted initiatives and establishing entrepreneurship-supportive regulative institutional arrangements.Originality/value: Available literature lacks in empirically examining the influence of state capacity on entrepreneurship. The current study attempts to fill this gap.