ABSTRACT
Since its introduction in UNDP’s Human Development Report 1994, ‘human security’ has been a topic of lively debate. The purpose of this paper is to explore empirically how human security has been treated in National Human Development Reports (NHDRs), produced in 13 countries since 1997 with different definitions and points of focus. We use an inductive approach to examine how these stand up to the criticisms levelled in the literature against broader concepts of human security. The NHDRs of Afghanistan, Latvia, Macedonia and Bangladesh are of particular interest, both because of their rich analysis and because of the originality of the methodology they use. The paper concludes that broader definitions of human security are operational for both analysis and policy making. Limits to define a core of high-priority concerns with human security can be set after exploring the concerns of people in specific situations rather than before.
