Cash Transfers and Basic Social Protection

Towards a Development Revolution?

Moritz von Gliszczynski

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN: 9781137505682
• eBook ISBN: 9781137505699
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Development Economics
• Index: Social Sciences

Cash Transfers and Basic Social Protection offers a ground-breaking analysis of the discourses that facilitated the rise of cash transfers as instruments of development policy since the 1990s. The author gives a detailed overview of the history of social protection and identifies the factors that made cash transfers legitimate policy.

1

Theory: A Multi-level Analysis of Global Policy Ideas

In this introductory chapter, I attempt to delineate a tentative theoretical framework for the analysis of the discursive background of global policies, based on three eminent strands of research: ideational approaches to policy analysis, the sociology of knowledge approach to discourse (SKAD) and world society theory. These three strands of research will not only serve as the basis of my analytical approach, but also provide hypotheses and guiding questions regarding the career of cash transfers that will guide my empirical analysis.

Why have I chosen to combine ideational approaches, SKAD and world society theory specifically to guide my analysis? An adequate analysis of the career of cash transfers requires a theoretical approach that is equally sensitive to the emergence of new policy solutions, the role of ideas and discourses in this process and offers concepts that facilitate an analysis of policy at the global level.

In this respect, current theories of policy analysis and discourse analysis have a significant gap: there is no single theory that covers policies, discourses and the global level at the same time and gives equal weight to each. However, there are single theories or approaches that cover one or two of the three mentioned fields in depth.

Ideational approaches to policy analysis focus on the way in which new policies emerge and offer a range of concepts that describe the roles that ideas can play in policy. The sociology of knowledge approach to discourse offers a modern variant of discourse analysis with a firm focus on the impact of discourse on social action, including policies. While none of these two approaches covers the global level, world society theory proposes that all social actors and their actions worldwide are influenced by a global culture and specifies concepts that facilitate the analysis of social action at the global level.

Because ideational approaches to policy and SKAD are theoretically open at the global level – without covering it explicitly – and world society theory is compatible with the in-depth analysis of policies and discourses – without offering own concepts for doing so – I assert that a combination of these three complementary strands of research into a single analytical framework can greatly facilitate the analysis of policies like cash transfers in so far as they emerged at the global level.

In the following, I review in short each of the three approaches in order to derive the most significant concepts and theoretical assumptions that can be of use in an analysis of global policy and discourses. I then combine these concepts and assumptions into a coherent multi-level approach to the analysis of global policy and the impact of global discourses. Finally, I derive more specific research questions that guide my empirical analysis later on.

1.1 Ideational approaches in political science

There is a wide variety of approaches in political science which attempt to explain policy by recurring to the influence of knowledge and ideas. For the most part, these approaches belong to the institutionalist tradition, which was amongst the first strands of political science to introduce ideas as an explanatory factor (Peters 2005). Thus, in the following, I will concentrate on the most eminent institutionalist approaches in order to derive central concepts of ideational policy analysis (Béland 2009; Blyth 2001; Campbell 2002; Hall 1993; Schmidt 2008), complemented by a critical perspective on such approaches, as proposed by Nullmeier (2006).

Ideational approaches in general are portrayed as an attempt to balance out the shortcomings of older theories such as rational choice which used causal models that treated ideas as peripheral besides the factors of interests and institutions (Campbell 2002:21–22). The major innovation of ideational approaches is that they grant ‘ideas’ independent causal influence, in order to better explain policy change and the content of policy programmes (Béland 2005b:29; Blyth 2002:8; Schmidt 2008:304). However, they retain a causal mode of explanation and introduce ideas as a further explanatory factor besides institutions and the interests of policy actor. A central point of inquiry is how an interaction between these three factors influences the political process and which relative weight each factor should be given (Béland 2005b:35; Blyth 2002:44; Schmidt and Radaelli 2004:184).

However, most ideational scholars do not conceptualise this interaction as a balanced concurrence of ideas, interests and institutions. Even though ideas are attributed with potential influence, the other factors are thought to have stronger causal effect, except under very specific circumstances.

Blyth (2001:3; 2002:8–11) gives a characteristic example with his conception of ‘uncertainty’. The gist of this position is that ideas will mirror social structures as long as institutional stability is maintained. Under a stable institutional order, institutional rules and the interests of actors determine policy choices. As soon as a crisis de-stabilises the given order, the situation changes: actors become ‘uncertain’ of their own interests and employ new ideas to re-interpret their situation, de-legitimise the old order and construct a new set of stable institutions (Blyth 2002:37–41). In short, ideas only have an independent causal effect in a phase of ‘uncertainty’ in between two stable institutional equilibria. The new equilibrium is achieved as soon as a new set of ideas has gained social acceptance and has been stabilised in the form of new institutions – then, the influence of ideas is again superseded by the other factors.

Nullmeier (2006:290) asserts that approaches which employ such a strict causal model are unsatisfactory, since research indicates that ideas, that is, socially constructed knowledge, play a role at all stages of the policy process, irrespective of institutional equilibria. Therefore, concepts which account for the constructed character of social reality and the basal role of ideas in policy are necessary. Nullmeier suggests that ‘knowledge’ is an appropriate general term for the constructs that constitute social reality, while more specific concepts may designate structures within the general pool of socially shared knowledge (292–297). Such structures can be conceptualised at different levels of abstraction (296–297). At a ‘micro’ level, one would look for specific policy ideas and arguments that apply to particular issues – which is concurrent with Blyth’s usage of the term ‘ideas’. The ‘meso’ and ‘macro’ levels would be characterised by more overarching structures that constitute and influence entire policy fields or political cultures.

Since the object of this book is the ideational background of social cash transfers in the field of development policy, concepts at the ‘meso’ and ‘macro’ level are necessary.

Indeed, some approaches to policy analysis employ such concepts, most notably Schmidt’s (2008) ‘discursive institutionalism’. Schmidt (2002:210) defines the guiding concept of ‘discourse’ as ‘both a set of policy ideas and values and an interactive process of policy construction and communication’. In contrast to ‘idea’, this more abstract meso- to macro-level concept of ‘a set of ideas’ allows Schmidt to examine the relations between different ideas, including contradictions (227–230), or the embedding of ideas into the wider context of knowledge (215). Besides, Schmidt’s approach emphasises processes of construction and communication, which are a primary object of this book.

However, Schmidt also agrees with many of the fundamental assumptions of ideational approaches regarding the role of ideas in policy. First and foremost, discourse is conceptualised as one possible causal factor besides interests and institutions (Schmidt 2002:212; 2011:62; Schmidt and Radaelli 2004:184). Second, discourse is only thought to have an independent causal effect on policy under specific conditions of crisis and ‘uncertainty’, as proposed by Blyth (Schmidt 2002:225, 251).

To summarise, ideational approaches in political science do not seem sufficiently sensitive to the fundamental role of knowledge in policy to ensure an adequate analysis of the discursive background behind social cash transfers. Nevertheless, ideational scholars have developed a number of useful concepts which serve to describe different types of ideas on the three levels of abstraction suggested by Nullmeier. What is more, policy analysis provides useful concepts that describe structures on the level of policy actors. I propose that these basic theoretical elements can be picked up without following the associated causal model of explanation.

In the following, I will shortly review those concepts which appear most useful to my analysis, in order to incorporate them into my own analytical framework.

The placement of ideas on different levels of abstraction can be traced back to Hall’s (1993) classic work on policy paradigms. Hall distinguishes between policy change on three levels: the parameters of policy instruments, the instruments themselves and the overarching political ‘paradigms’ – roughly corresponding to the micro, meso and macro levels of knowledge. In general, these levels of abstraction are present in most typologies of ideas, and there is some agreement on their specific qualities and impact on policy, even though the terminology may differ.

The difference between the levels of abstraction is the way in which policy change takes place. Hall asserted that change on the lower two levels is a routine part of the policy process and happens nearly constantly. In contrast, paradigms remain stable over long periods of time and paradigm change is a disruptive process which is most likely to occur when policy fails unexpectedly (Hall 1993:278–280). In other words, the likelihood of shifts in policy-relevant knowledge decreases with the level of abstraction (Nullmeier 2006:295–297).

A multitude of concepts and terms has been developed to describe the types of ideas which can be found at the three levels. The lowest level in Hall’s schematic, the operational parameters of policy instruments, is of limited interest within the scope of this book, which focuses on the middle level of abstraction.

Ideas on the middle level are conceptualised as ‘blueprints’ (Blyth 2001:3), ‘programmatic ideas’ (Campbell 1998:386) or ‘policy solutions’ (Mehta 2011:28), that is, specific programmes of action to solve a political problem – or, simply put, policy ideas. I alternatively suggest the term ‘policy model’ in reference to world society theory (see later). Social cash transfers can be understood as such a programme of action, as analysed in Chapter 2.

At that highest level of abstraction, scholars usually conceptualise broad sets of general ideas, causal assumptions and norms such as a ‘discourse’ (Schmidt 2002:210), a ‘zeitgeist’ (Mehta 2011:40–42) or a ‘paradigm’ (Hall 1993). In the following, I will employ the terms ‘paradigm’ or ‘policy paradigm’, as they are most widely used. These abstract structures of knowledge function as fundamental conceptions of social structures, shaping the goals and strategies of actors within specific fields of policy – including which programmes of action are advocated and implemented and how they are legitimised. Thus, its seems feasible to explore whether a policy paradigm exists in the case of social cash transfers and in how far it may have contributed to their increased usage.

In addition, ideational scholars have conceptualised further types of ideas which appear in Hall’s original schematic and do not fit the differentiation between levels of abstraction as neatly.

Firstly, ‘problem definitions’ are often regarded as an important part of the policy process. It is pointed out that the social problems which policies are meant to solve are not to be taken as given, but are socially constructed by policy actors (see, e.g., Blyth 2002:37–38; Béland 2009:701–702; Mehta 2011:32). Such definitions are clearly more abstract than programmatic ideas and determine the range of policy solutions that is perceived as acceptable (Mehta 2011:32–40). Nevertheless, it is implausible to place them on the highest level of abstraction, since they do not constitute fundamental conceptions of social structures by themselves. Therefore, I define problem definitions as a type of idea which bridges between the high and middle levels of abstraction. I argue that definitions of social problems are a specific element of paradigms that translates them into policy by identifying issues which conflict with the underlying conception of social structures. Accordingly, policy actors should only accept specific policy ideas as feasible if they can be constructed as the solution to a pre-defined problem.

Secondly, ‘frames’ have been identified as a crucial type of idea (Campbell 2002:26–28; Béland 2005a:12). Frames are defined as ideas which actors use to legitimise their policy ideas to the general public or other actors within policy debates. To this end, political actors creatively and strategically put their policies into the context of socially recognised knowledge, for example, by showing how they help to achieve shared norms and values (Béland 2005a:10–11; Campbell 1998:394).

Again, I propose that frames can be defined as a type of idea which bridges the middle and high levels of abstraction. Specific elements of a paradigm become frames as soon as they are utilised to legitimise or de-legitimise a policy idea. In so far as both problem definitions and frames are part of paradigms and serve to construct the range of feasible and legitimate policies, they may have played a role in the career of cash transfers.

Ideational approaches and policy analysis in general also employ concepts which describe structures on the level of actors. Since extant research points out that such structures play a significant role in the construction and dissemination of ideas on the national and global level, they are of interest to this book.

The most basic concept is certainly that of a ‘policy community’. It circumscribes a dense and stable network of actors that are involved in a certain policy field like development policy, that is, who co-ordinate to construct, advocate and implement problem definitions and programmatic ideas (Kingdon 2003; Béland 2005a:8). The term ‘policy community’ implies that the interaction between different actors has been institutionalised to a certain extent, for example, via fixed channels of communication (Berner 2009:189–191). Such communities may potentially contain smaller sub-networks in the shape of ‘issue communities’, which form around specific subjects in the wider policy field. The policy actors in such an issue community co-ordinate to make policy regarding the specific subject and thus gain more influence on it than policy actors outside the sub-network (ibid.). In addition, established policy communities may contain a fixed ‘inner circle’ of the most well-connected and knowledgeable actors in the field. These powerful actors exercise the most significant influence on policy-making because they closely co-ordinate to make policy over long spans of time and share basic ideas (ibid.).

In respect to cash transfers, these concepts raise an interesting question: because social cash transfers are a relatively recent addition to development policy, it is not clear whether a specific policy community with distinct issue communities or an inner circle has already emerged (see Leisering 2009; 2010). The existence of an inner circle would mean that specific policy actors have come to dominate the new policy field of cash transfers and can strongly influence the way in which SCT policy is made, to the exclusion of other actors. To a lesser extent, the same applies to the existence of issue communities. The incidence of such sub-networks would imply that specific sets of actors are particularly influential regarding particular issues of SCT policy.

1.2 Sociological discourse analysis

While ideational approaches to policy analysis offer a range of concepts that facilitate the analysis of single types of ideas, they lack an adequate concept of overarching structures of knowledge and concepts to examine processes of social construction, such as found in discourse analysis. Because of this, discourse analysis well complements ideational policy analysis and can serve to extend the scope of my analysis.

The concept of discourse has become widely used in the social sciences and other disciplines since it was popularised by Foucault. More traditional variants of discourse analysis rather focus on broad historical processes on the level of knowledge and treat social action and policies as their determined outcome (e.g., Foucault 1974). Because I am interested in the construction of cash transfers as policies and intend to emphasise the active role of global organisations, I choose to incorporate the sociology of knowledge approach to discourse, as developed by Keller (2008; 2012), which explicitly focuses on the interaction between discourse and social action.

Crucially Keller defines discourses as a...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Introduction
• 1  Theory: A Multi-Level Analysis of Global Policy Ideas
• 2  Constructing Global Models of Cash Transfers (20002012)
• 3  Social Protection as a Paradigm of Development Policy (19902000)
• 4  Global Discourses: The Ideas behind Cash Transfers
• Conclusion
• List of Sources
• Index