Social Development

Manohar S. Pawar, David R. Cox, Manohar S. Pawar, David R. Cox

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2010
• ISBN:
  9781136938313
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Ciencias sociales
• Subtopic: Estudios de desarrollo global

This edited collection demonstrates that the ideas inherent in social development are practical and not utopian. By discussing and delineating a social development approach, the book argues the need for practicing it at local or grassroots-level communities to promote universal social justice and wellbeing. Towards this end, several leading scholars have presented critical and inspiring thoughts on the significance and usefulness in development of genuine participation of people, bottom-up strategies, self-reliance, capacity building, and egalitarian and empowering partnerships. They also delve into hitherto neglected aspects of social development related to preparing personnel for social development work, ethical imperatives and a new social development paradigm. The world's contemporary problems persist in part because the social development approach in its comprehensive form has not been planned and implemented at local, national and global levels. Social Development presents the optimistic argument that the application of social development ideas can help create a world in which almost all people's wellbeing can be significantly enhanced.

1
Introduction

Why a Focus on Social Development in the Twenty-First Century?

Manohar S. Pawar and David R. Cox

The main objective of this book is to discuss some critical themes and perspectives pertaining to social development and to demonstrate that a social development approach is both practical and in some ways more required in contemporary times than ever before. Indeed, we would argue that a major reason why we are today confronted with major problems at international, national and local levels is because the ideas and ideals behind comprehensive social development, as presented in this text, have never been sufficiently widely accepted and implemented.

This is why, at the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century, we see it as necessary to bring out a text on social development with an emphasis on the local level. Essentially, it is because not only have the hopes that many of us had for social development in the 1980s not been realized, but even the vision in many quarters appears to have faded. In the 1980s, we were part of a tremendously exciting and challenging enthusiasm for social development, were aware of a plethora of ideas and plans, and felt that the whole enterprise had the support of the international community, many nation-states and a flourishing non-governmental organization (NGO) sector. We were almost convinced that the goals of social development, well-being and quality of life, as commonly presented and seemingly widely espoused, would be largely met as the century drew to a close.

In many ways, this social development impetus climaxed in the World Summit for Social Development held in Copenhagen in March 1995. Much work at many levels went into preparation for this summit and into dissemination of its ten commitments (United Nations [UN] 1995, 1996). Already, of course, there had been many small-scale development projects and some notable larger-scale schemes dedicated to bringing many of these commitments closer to achievement. Yet somehow significant sustainable changes at the macro level were difficult to identify. By the end of the century, the world seemed not to have moved all that far in areas such as global poverty reduction or the provision of adequate health and education services for all. The nation-states, led by the UN, therefore seized on this change of century to enunciate and commit themselves to a set of Millennium Development Goals, most of them to be achieved if possible by 2015 (United Nations Development Programme [UNDP] 2003). While not infrequently still referred to, another decade has passed with few indications that most of these goals will be met in global terms, despite some significant national success stories.

Two decades after the optimistic 1980s, the annual figures pertaining to poverty, infant and maternal mortality, morbidity rates and access to a variety of essential services make for dismal reading when read in the light of 1980s’ expectations (see UNDP 1980–2010). Economic growth, heightened productivity and a range of technological developments have provided sections of the global population with a standard of living almost inconceivable half a century ago, yet have bypassed other sections almost completely. Inequalities within and between nations have reached staggering proportions, rightly regarded by some commentators as down-right obscene.

However, it is not only that the most basic goals of social development have failed to be met in global terms, but also that the commitment to such is seemingly no longer there, or certainly not as strong. Of course there is still widespread engagement in the development field, especially at the aid level and through technology projects, but it appears largely not to be buttressed by a belief in or commitment to the goal of social development for all, despite the fact that some ministries and departments use social development in their nomenclature. Today we seem to be much more focused, and understandably so, on such matters as the potentially devastating impact of climate change; the impact of massive and largely uncontrolled global financial markets; the need to maintain or increase economic growth rates to support employment and high standards of living; a failure in many societies to act in an inclusive manner; and the migration implications of significant inequalities and, to a lesser degree, of aging populations and static or decreasing workforce numbers—all of which, of course, render the already vulnerable populations of the world even more vulnerable.

Hence the concern today in many quarters is not so much the identification of and commitment to social development processes and goals, as it was in the 1980s and 1990s, but gaining recognition for the potentially highly significant implications of climate change, uncontrolled asylum flows, unregulated global financial markets, failed states and widespread social conflict. Does this change of focus mean that social development is no longer relevant, or that it requires a new paradigm? Are we simply harking back to a past era when we bring out a book on social development in 2010?

For us, the answer to these questions is no. A social development that is truly multidimensional and multilevel is today more important than ever (see Chapter 2). We find it significant that, in the post–global financial crisis era, we hear commentators referring to the importance of resilience, self-reliance, meaningful partnerships, more inclusive societies, a better balance between market freedoms and government supervision, and a more cohesive and sustainable societal development process. There is a strong focus once again on identifying and addressing at least some of the root causes of the challenges confronting today’s world, such as excessive dependency on technology and outsiders to solve problems, and on the unlimited use of increasingly scarce natural resources to meet perceived needs. It is widely seen as possible to address such root causes, at least in part, by identifying and developing the resources already inherently available at all levels, from the individual and household to national and global structures—a basic belief of social development.

In the so-called developed countries, there is, once again, widespread concern about how to achieve an adequate quality of life for all, equitable and effective education and health care services, appropriate welfare systems, sustainable employment markets, ecologically sensitive and sustainable housing and transport systems, and supportive communities in the face of, for example, high depression, drug abuse and suicide rates, alongside growing numbers of comparatively isolated elderly persons. At the same time, in a large number of developing and least developed countries, the overall quality of life for many inhabitants remains abysmally low, often in conjunction with poorly functioning governance systems. To us, these realities suggest that an appropriate approach to social development remains highly necessary across the wide diversity of countries in terms of development levels achieved to date.

Yet change is endemic, and the situation today is different in many ways from that which existed in the 1980s. First, globalization trends have continued to broaden and strengthen as global trade, the global financial industry, global communication systems, corporate activities and increasing human mobility render the globe a more interactive and interconnected unity than ever before, albeit with both positive and negative outcomes. Moreover, many contemporary challenges have necessarily presented as having global dimensions and calling for global responses. This is particularly obvious in the fields of climate change, migration movements and humanitarian aid in the face of natural disasters and postconflict reconstruction. Despite these trends, in many ways we are still in the very early stages of devising and implementing effective global systems, and ones in which a large majority of states trust and a majority of peoples have confidence.

Second, trends within many nation-states continue to signify a problematic national development level. One can point to the significant number of failed states, the high levels of corruption in probably a majority of states, inadequate levels of people’s representation in governance and high levels of inequality in many states’ outreach to, concern for and support of their commonly pluralistic populations and diverse local conditions. Many states have also been plagued by internal conflict and high levels of violence, and often for decades. While a number of commentators have wondered whether the nation-state is able to survive as a viable entity, there are few signs of its demise any time soon. However, national level social development has become and remains an even more important and more difficult level for achieving people’s well-being than it was in the last century (see World Bank 1997).

A third difference from earlier times, at least in prevailing perceptions, concerns the local level within nation-states. Despite the fact that the local level has been, throughout post–World War II development activities, both commonly discussed and often the target level of mostly smallscale development intervention, there remained a widespread belief that the development of, and levels of well-being within, local levels were largely a consequence of developments at other levels. For example, it was assumed that adequate national economic growth levels and a reasonably effective system of governance would ensure that the local level would be at least reasonably well catered for. Increasingly, however, it has been realized that this is a false assumption. The fruits of even high levels of economic growth have often not been equitably distributed, while even relatively efficient governance systems have been frequently preoccupied with selected population groupings or geographical areas, and so engaged in a degree of biased development.

With time and after much experience, it became increasingly clear that the local level had to be seen as important in its own right, and deliberately brought into the overall social and economic development processes. Some referred to this need as localization (e.g., World Bank 2003), some as people-centered development, and many as grassroots, village/community or local development. This trend, however, occurred not only because it often seemed that many local levels were being neglected by the overall development process, but also and at least equally importantly because the local level usually contained the potential to make a significant contribution not only to its own development but also to national level development; moreover, it seemed that the national level often needed this contribution.

In addition to this change in perceptions regarding the local level, there seemed in practice to be an increased focus on the importance of specific types of activity at the local level. In many contexts, there has been significant reference to the caring community, or caring society manifested in large part at the community level and reflected, for example, by a seeming increase in local voluntary activity. There has been an increased interest in community organizing, with this activity being undertaken by a range of personnel, including the current President of the U.S., Barack Obama (Obama 2007). The community-garden movement has boomed in countries like the U.K., often using public land for shared community food production. Land care and other such movements have focused on local involvement in creating a healthy and sustainable local ecology. Community involvement in a range of service provision in areas like health, disability, education, local safety needs and accommodation has been increasingly apparent in many countries (see Stepney and Popple 2008). Self-help organizations in great variety have increased in number and coverage, and have been seemingly symptomatic of a perceived need to become more self-reliant as individuals, families, communities, and ethnic groups. Even in developed countries, but especially in developing countries, there are many good examples of local level social development, albeit often isolated ones (see Hazare 2003; Roy 1997; and Pawar 2010), suggesting the usefulness of their replication.

Do these changes at the international, national and local levels suggest that the focus today should be on issues other than social development? There are several levels to answering this question. At one level, the answer is that the focus today is, and possibly to at least some degree must be, on specific critical realities, rather than on general development trends or even root causes. For example, many saw it as necessary to take action against the realities prevailing in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and the Taliban-dominated Afghanistan, and lengthy, highly resource-intensive and very destructive wars have been undertaken. Similarly, the September 11, 2001, attack on New York’s Twin Towers and other events resulted in a major focus on terrorism and its perceived sources, with major implications across a wide range of areas of international and national activity. As a final example, the widely perceived and highly significant pending consequences of climate change have brought this issue to center stage on many agendas. With these being only some of the very specific and immediate challenges of the twenty-first century, all with far-reaching implications, it is hardly surprising that social development has been pushed to much lower down on the agenda.

At a second level, the answer to our question is that particular national agendas are driven much more by party politics, with their underlying ideologies, than by visionaries, humanitarians, groups or processes preoccupied with general levels of well-being, however much societies may seem to revere the odd champion of such an approach, such as a Nelson Mandela. Political struggles in many nations have revolved not only around the preceding three crucial issues (involvement in controversial foreign wars, terrorism and climate change) but also around other very specific and usually highly politicized issues. For example, asylum-seeker situations have, across the Western nations, generated tremendous party political and often politically opportunistic heat, with usually little attention given to what these asylum flows really signify, especially at their points of origin. A second key example is the welfare field. With neither the “individual as responsible” market approach of the U.S. nor the welfare-state approach of parts of Europe, or any other approach for that matter, being a demonstrable success in terms of desired welfare outcomes or sustainable costs, political agendas continue to revolve around health, education, housing and related issues. A third important, but less dominant, example revolves around issues of pluralism and social inclusion. The many indigenous minorities, recent immigrant groups, migrant worker populations and other significant socially excluded groupings are often prominent in political agendas, as many nations supposedly seek to establish a socially inclusive society. When such issues are highly politicized, in party politics and election terms, not only are they unlikely to be satisfactorily resolved, but they also will commonly be trivialized in terms of the level at which their true nature is understood and possible intervention models are explored. Yet the very nature of political life today seems to suggest that this situation will not change, at least in the near future.

At a third level to answering our question, it is necessary that we reexamine the very concept of social development as an overarching paradigm for undertaking activities at all levels—international through local. While an eminently logical concept, as we seek to show in Chapters 2 and 3, is it still plausible to suggest that the concept of social development can ever be the key approach to all development? While economic development has tended to dominate to date, the preceding discussion suggests that it will continue to be very difficult for comprehensive social development to achieve center stage, and for additional reasons. It is natural that systems will often be swamped by pressing issues, driven in part by the fact that most people are preoccupied with pressing needs and comparatively unable to focus on what might be in their long-term best interests. It also seems highly likely that party politics will continue to dominate political life, ensuring that its agendas and the level of debate will be largely determined by party political interests. In contrast to both these trends, a social development-driven approach seeks to weigh up both short-term and long-term impacts, the interests of all parties in an inclusive sense, and the need to integrate economic, social, cultural and ecological factors when examining any situation and devising an intervention strategy. Is it then not only an implausible approach but also almost a utopian one, being a luxury not available to many social structures and situations? After all, even the nongovernment not-for-profit sector has largely failed to stay true to this social development vision, despite the confidence that many of us placed in it.

It is clear, then, that there do exist valid reasons why international and national structures will often tend to focus on short-term and somewhat politicized responses to specific issues far more than on long-term and comprehensive social development goals. Yet we would argue that to do so is always a grave mistake. We must strongly resist any tendencies for international and national agendas that seek responses to present challenges—such as failed states, terrorism and climate change—to be limited in how they address these challenges because they largely ...