img1 img2
logo
img3 img4
 
 
Social development, Social Protection and Poverty Reduction
In this article, I want to analyze a number of recent proposals for social protection policies submitted by international organizations. The list of the analyzed documents can be found in the annex. What I want to find out is the way in which these new proposals break away from and go beyond the poverty reduction strategies of the recent past – MDGs and PRSPs – and if they can fundamentally change the current social paradigm.

Social Protection is back on the international agenda. In the past decades, poverty reduction became a priority for development policies and development cooperation. It should be reminded that the early development discourse of the 1950s and 1960s never was about ‘poverty’ but in the very first instance about economic development. As for social development, the UN Declaration on social progress of 1969 clearly shows that the ultimate goal of development thinkers was a kind of welfare state similar to the ones of rich countries[1].

In the 1970s and after the ILO discovered the ‘informal sector’, the World Bank proposed to introduced the poverty issue, though the proposed policy changes were limited to a stronger focus on rural development and basic needs. In 1980, the World Bank invented the ‘human development’ concept, which later became the hallmark of UNDP. In 1990 however, after a short decade of ‘structural adjustment programs’ which were heavily criticized by Unicef and an emerging global civil society, the World Bank proposed to shift development policies towards poverty reduction strategies[2]. All other international organizations followed. In 1995 a global consensus was reached on the priority to be given to poverty reduction, and in 1999 the IMF changed its ‘Enhanced Facility for Structural Adjustment – ESAF’ into a ‘Facility for Growth and Poverty reduction - FGPR’. From then on, borrowing countries were obliged to submit a ‘Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper’, to be adopted by the Board of both IMF and WB. In 2000, the ‘UN Millennium Summit’ adopted its ‘Millennium Declaration’ out of which the ‘millennium development goals – MDGs’ were distilled.

After the turn of the century, a growing discontent about the lack of tangible results of the poverty reduction policies in and towards poor countries began to emerge. The ‘Millennium Development Goals’ created high expectations, though it is now clear that most countries are not ‘on track’[3]. Extreme poverty was sharply reduced in China and India, two countries which did not follow the Bretton Woods recipes. In Latin America poverty only slowly receded, whereas in Africa, the number of extremely poor people almost doubled between 1981 and 2005[4]. The first decade of the 21st century did show considerable growth rates for African countries, though a serious caveat has to be put against some of the causes and consequences of this growth for Africa and African people. First, growth was mainly the result of the rising prices of commodity exports and not of an economic development process with modernization and higher productive capacities; secondly, the growth rates did not lead to better social policies and redistribution of incomes; thirdly, the ascending national income was stopped by the financial and economic crisis of 2008. Growth is only now rising again, which is evidence of the dependent character of African economies.

Most of all, it has to be stressed that the focus on poverty reduction did not imply a change of macroeconomic policies. The poverty strategies of the Bretton Woods institutions are totally compatible with the policies they have now been imposing for thirty years on poor countries. A growing consensus admits the importance of fiscal discipline and macroeconomic stability, but privatizations, deregulations, free movement of capital and free trade remain very controversial[5]. Moreover, in spite of the many promises of more development aid by rich countries, the crisis has put a brake on the slowly rising amounts of aid[6].

This is the background against which new proposals for development and social protection are being flagged. Today, more than half of the world population lack any type of social protection, whereas in sub-Saharan Africa, less than 10 % of the population has access to a rudimentary social protection.[7] At the international level, ECLAC was the first organization to publish alternative policy proposals[8]. UNCTAD noted the ‘poverty trap’ of the global trade system for the poorest countries in 2002[9]. The UNDP worryingly took note, in 2004, of the result of a continent wide opinion poll in Latin America in which a majority of people said to be disappointed in the democratization process because they lacked social and economic improvements[10]. UNRISD started a research program about ‘social policy for development’. Under the chairmanship of James Wolfensohn the WB created the impression of also wanting to change its policies, but apparently the links with the IMF were too strong[11]. It did however re-launch the ideas of ‘social protection’ and ‘social development’[12], though it gave a new meaning to these old concepts[13].

The changing social paradigm of poverty reduction

The underlying idea of the poverty reduction policies promoted by the Bretton Woods Institutions is their neoliberal philosophy on the role of states and of markets. Whereas in the beginning most analysis of structural adjustment policies pointed on the weakening of state institutions, in the 1990s it became clear that what was wanted was a ‘strong state’ with little scope and much strength[14]. The ideas on social policies were based on von Hayek, Friedman and Murray[15]. This implies that social security is not a state responsibility. States do have to protect the poorest, by offering them opportunities for entering the labor market (with non-discrimination, education and health care) and possibly a small allowance for those who cannot work (aged people and those who are ill or disabled). Insurances are a matter for private markets. Labor markets have to be flexible and deregulated, without minimum wages, in order to allow for poor people integrating them and in order to promote the competitiveness of poor countries. One of the major roles of states is to allow for good functioning markets. This is supposed to be in the interest of poor people.

In this way, the philosophy of the western welfare state was totally ignored. In Keynesian policies, social and economic policies are supposed to mutually strengthen each other and are therefore equally important. They are also based on the idea of social citizenship[16] in order to give meaning to civil and political citizenship and to bridge the economic inequality that makes the exercise of these rights impossible. Hence, one of the objectives of these welfare states is to protect citizens from the vagaries of the market place. The current poverty reduction policies however are meant to make people participate in the market. Poverty reduction policies are not complementing the welfare states, but replacing them, since according to neoliberal policies, the money should go ‘to those who really need it’. Social policies become residual policies, depending on the success of the growth strategies. In this way, one can speak of a new social paradigm which was introduced with the poverty reduction strategies.

The Bretton Woods promise linked to these policy changes included more growth, more income and hence less poverty. This did not materialize[17] however and the subsequent financial crises further undermined the credibility of neoliberal policies[18]. Academic research also contributed to this[19].

Moreover, it has repeatedly been stated that rich countries with a high level of social protection and high taxes are also the countries with the highest competitiveness in global markets. In western Europe the existing social protection, social security and social assistance programs have been rather resilient, thanks, inter alia, to the presence of strong trade unions. The privatization of public services meets strong resistance. The current financial crisis with its subsequent high debt levels in most countries could create a ‘shock’ that will change the status quo. It is all the more important therefore to see what new proposals for social protection are being introduced. Do they change the ‘poverty philosophy’ and are they useful for western countries as well?

Concepts, definitions and methodology

Five different concepts have been used so far in this contribution: social citizenship, social protection, social security, social assistance and poverty reduction. A sixth one should be added to this: social development.

By no means is there a global consensus on the exact meaning of these different concepts. Often, this divergence is linked to the different philosophical backgrounds of social policies[20] but it is also a consequence of the different historical, social and political processes by which social policies came about. The UN organized a world summit on ‘social development’ in 1995 but never succeeded in reaching agreement on its definition. The World Bank also published several documents on ‘social development’[21] with its own meaning.

For the aim of this contribution, I will start from a Keynesian and rights perspective as it exists in Western Europe and therefore adopt the following definitions[22]:

- Social assistance is meant to help the poor who are not present on the formal labor market and have no labor income. Assistance is mostly paid out of public expenditure, that is from tax income. It is a direct form of poverty reduction, though it may include an obligation to be available for the labor market and/or vocational (re-)training programs.

- Social security is a kind of insurance system, meant for active members on the labor market. It is linked to market labor income, though it can be contributory or non-contributory. Its usual branches are unemployment, sickness and labor accidents insurance, pensions, and family allowances. Its formal aims were income guarantee and social and economic integration. These aims however, are now changing.[23]

- Social protection covers both preceding concepts and adds public services ( education, health, public transport, housing, postal services …) to them. It is therefore the broader concept which covers the whole of social policies.

- Social development goes even further and is directly linked to labor market policies and economic policies, assuming that economic and social development should go hand in hand. It concerns the whole of society and is transformative, aiming at planned social change in conjunction with a dynamic process of economic development[24].

- The concept of social citizenship stresses the fact that social policies are based on rights for equal citizens and are meant to give civil and political citizenship a concrete meaning and to bridge the economic inequality[25].

One could say that all these concepts and policies are meant, in the end, to reduce poverty, though there are also good arguments to say that in fact they are meant to prevent poverty and thus stop the impoverishment processes. In the European Union, the at-risk-of-poverty rate is 26 %, but it falls to 17 % after different social allowances[26]. The best anti-poverty strategy does indeed include good insurances, linked to good public services for all and efficient labor market policies, all based on the concept of human rights in general and economic and social rights in particular.

Nevertheless, it will be clear from the following analysis that the conceptual lines are often blurred and that different concepts are used arbitrarily in different documents[27].

This analysis is not based on research into ongoing processes of change, since in most countries the dismantling of social protection and the introduction of poverty reduction strategies is still going on. It does look however at the emerging new international discourse on social development and social protection. This discourse analysis is important in order to understand the underlying philosophy of the new proposals and to grasp the direction of proposed reforms. Identical factual changes can indeed be related to divergent philosophies and do not always shed light on the global context of reforms. Knowing the underlying philosophy of a reform makes it easier to assess its constitutive elements. Secondly, a discourse analysis also allows for revealing the potential of possible resistance to each proposal, if deemed necessary by social actors. Each reform will have to contain some promises in order to make it acceptable. These promises are the elements that can possibly be used in order to demand adjustments. Discourses are not only sites of power, but also sites of resistance[28]. Reforms that are needed because of economic and social changes can be based on divergent ideological stances.

Diverging philosophies

The questions that I will try to answer in this analysis concern four major characteristics of social protection.

The first one concerns the aim of social protection: Is there a link with economic policies and does it point to a comprehensive social development? Is social protection seen as an element of production and/or of competitiveness? Does it imply redistribution of incomes and, in this way, a social and economic integration oriented towards nation-building? This first question will determine whether social protection retains its ‘old’ Keynesian meaning or whether it is a possibly slightly broadened version of what was the neoliberal ‘poverty reduction’.

The second question concerns the scope of the proposed social protection: social assistance, social security, public services? This question will determine whether the proposed reforms are meant to fight poverty or to prevent poverty.

The third question concerns the coverage of social protection: is it based on targeted policies, possibly means-tested or is it based on a framework of universal rights, which would mean there is scope for broadening the policies and base them on national cohesion and solidarity.

The final question concerns the funding and implementation of the proposed social protection: is it based on the contribution of workers or is it tax-based? Is there only public funding and organization? Does development cooperation play a role and is international solidarity – with global taxes e.g. – envisaged? The question about funding will tell us something on the measure of solidarity that is involved in the global age.

The different documents that were analyzed are mentioned in the annex and will be referred to with their acronyms. Most of them are not official viewpoints of the organization which published them, but were written by their research departments or by external experts. But because of their publication by these official organizations, they acquire a moral authority and become automatically the subject of the international debate on social protection.

What is the aim of social protection?

Economic efficiency is an important topic in almost all documents, and is mentioned as the aim of social protection. It can have a positive impact on economic growth (WB1, 27). The WB stresses however that people should be encouraged to take risks and that social policies should not endanger growth (WB1, 25, 28). ECLAC and ILO mention the virtuous circle made by social justice and growth, the two faces of development (ILO, 17; ECLAC 32,38) .The UNDP also admits that social transfers can promote welfare as well as growth (UNDP, 29). Social security benefits have major economic impacts through stabilizing aggregate demand, and it has no negative effect on growth, on the contrary, stresses the ILO (ILOSS, 4). It is a pivotal component of a sustainable and resilient growth strategy (SPF; UNRISD4, 15).

An equally important element concerns political stability, especially in the context of more fragile and failing states. Social protection can enhance the legitimacy of the reforming state (ILO, 25). UNRISD (UNRISD3,9,15) points to the fact that in the past African states tried to build trans-ethnic elites as an element of stability and used the education system for it. It was also a virtuous circle, but the structural adjustment programs have undermined state legitimacy (UNRISD3, 40). ECLAC (ECLAC, 22) equally stresses that social citizenship is an important element for the legitimization of political regimes.

The WB, OECD and ILO see poverty reduction and poverty prevention as an important objective of all social protection, but, according to the WB, traditional social protection does not do it. This is why a program of risk management is necessary (WB1, 2).

Most organizations also stress the integral part of social protection for a holistic development process. They can help to reach the MDGs. But the emphasis should be, according to WSS (WSS, 115) on the need to provide economic security for all.

UNRISD (UNRISD4, 5,17) states that social policy, at its best, is transformative. It can have no residual role but should address the broader economic, social and political goals (UNRISD4, 15). Universal social services are a key component of transformative social policy, meaning that social dualism can be overcome and a middle class can emerge. The transformative social policies WSS thinks of are those of China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Sri Lanka and others (WSS,10).

This also seems to be the aim of ECLAC2 (ECLAC2, 189) which states that ‘reforms have to be reformed’ in order to bridge the inequality gap. One has to shift from a minimalist social state to a protection network and a universal basic social promotion. Social protection cannot be residual, but is a key element of the development model. UNRISD (UNRISD4, 15) also stresses that social protection cannot be residual, and that narrow preoccupations with poverty can work against broad and long term efforts.

Redistribution of incomes is an element in many documents (ILO, 22; ECLAC, 18, 25, 41). For the World Bank however, redistribution is not an objective, though it can be a consequence (WB2, 27). This is why the Bank prefers to speak of ‘equity’ instead of ‘equality’.

The scope of social protection

The analyzed documents do not say so much about the social services that would have to be offered, nor do they say much on public services. The concept is rarely used by the different organizations. In its World Social Security Report (ILOSS), the ILO does mention all different existing branches and where they exist or do not exist.

The social protection floor, introduced by CEB (CEB, 20, SPF) and contained in the ILO’s Global Jobs Pact consists of essential public services, such as water and sanitation, health and education as well as of a basic set of essential social transfers, in cash and in kind, paid to the poor and vulnerable to provide a minimum income security for the elderly, persons with disabilities and child benefits with public employment guarantee schemes for the unemployed and working poor.

Pensions receive most attention from the international organizations. OECD (OECD, 167) and WB (WB1, 20; WB2, 7) stress the importance of urgent and necessary reforms. UNDP (UNDP, 16) notes that more and more countries have non-contributive pension systems, a system ECLAC equally prefers (ECLAC, 114). The capitalization systems in Latin America undermined solidarity and strengthened the already very high inequality (ECLAC, 130). Workers should have more possibilities to pay contributions and a dual system based on taxes and contributions can help to enhance solidarity.

The UN notes that from a point of view of social justice, a public pension system should be preferred. If higher income groups want to receive more, they can pay for it themselves (UN, 54).

Social justice is only possible, according to the ILO, if all people have equal access to basic social and economic security. It means income security, health care, primary education and lifelong learning, care for older people and in poor countries food, shelter and clothing as well (ILO, 33-34).

Who should be covered by social protection?

The question about the targeted or the universal character of social policies is most important for its ultimate assessment.

WB and OECD do not work on a rights based social protection and have little to say on citizenship. They prefer social policies targeted on the poor.

The UNDP points to the fact that an effective implementation of rights can be restrained by lack of resources and thus choices may have to be made (UNDP, 23). However, this cannot be the case for the fundamental basic rules of social protection that have to apply to all and that can be considered as being an investment (UNDP, 28).

The ILO repeatedly refers to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and to the International Covenant of economic, social and cultural rights. This implies a duty to solidarity (ILO, 18). However, its concrete proposals (ILO, SPF) point to policies targeted on the poor. The ILO admits that universality is not easy to achieve, though it should cover the formal and informal sectors. Social protection for limited groups is not useful (ILO, 8, 29, 30, 31).

UNRISD is very much in favor of stopping the targeted programs in Africa and of introducing universal social policies (UNRISD3, 43). When poverty is widespread, it says, targeting is unlikely to make significant inroads (UNRISD4, 3). Targeted social assistance can be used as a complement to universal schemes (UNRISD4, 5, 16).

WSS (WSS, 141) and WESS (WESS, 76) want to promote unconditional transfers and state that universal social security can facilitate achieving a global social floor.

ECLAC calls for a new social pact including the economic, social and cultural rights, even if budgetary limits may constrain its full implementation (ECLAC, 12). Full-fledged citizenship strengthens democracy and is the basis for a more inclusive society (ECLAC, 12). It is not incompatible with economic growth (ECLAC, 22). Social protection is not only a right, it is evidence that one belongs to a community (ECLAC, 18). It is the core of the link that binds people to each other and to their government. In a framework of universal citizenship rights, child care or a minimal pension have a totally different meaning. One does not get them because one is poor, but because one is a citizen with equal rights. Universal systems avoid the stigmatization and give positive incentives to exercise one’s basic human rights. This clearly is a political program. Even if its scope can depend on economic growth, it is not subordinated to it. Citizenship, equality and human rights are the basis of an emancipatory redistributive system. Individuals can have rights independent from their market position. For ECLAC targeted programs have only sense in the framework of universal citizenship rights (ECLAC, 5, 20, 36).

Who organizes and who pays?

The OECD and the WB agree that states have to play a role, though in a less predominant way than in the past (OECDE, 118, 143; WB2,iii). The responsibility of the market, communities and even individuals cannot be ignored. This is the focus of the risk based model of the WB (WB1).

ECLAC (ECLAC, 14) and the UN (UN, 24, 26) stress that the commodification of social services has worsened inequality. They want states to play a more important role which may require more tax revenues (ECLAC2, 199, 252)

At any rate, ECLAC (ECLAC2, 191) thinks one should go beyond the contributory logic because of the importance of the informal sector and the rising social expenditures of states.

Social protection is affordable, even at low levels of development, stresses UNRISD (UNRISD4,19). The more universal programs are, the easier it is to progressively fund them. A social protection floor should not cost more than 3,7 to 10,6 % of GDP (UNRISD4, 140). But it also notes that decisions about revenue policies and the allocation of public funds are the result of political processes (UNRISD4, 207). Taxation, however, is a social contract between citizens and the state (UNRISD4, 218).

UNDP agrees with the fact that basic social security is perfectly feasible (UNDP, 21, 24).

WESS (WESS, 16, 21, 158) and ECLAC (ECLAC2, 240) point to the importance of international cooperation and the role that can be played by development cooperation. Innovative forms of international levies, as well as SDRs have to be envisaged.

The UN also pleads for international redistribution and social justice and talks about ‘Global Public Goods’. Reference is made to the new mechanisms for development aid, more particularly budget support that can become an excellent instrument for global redistribution (UN, 64).

Conclusion

Different tentative conclusions can be drawn from this first analysis. There is not one unique model of social protection that is being proposed, but several ideas with some common characteristics.

The first one is that there seems to be a consensus on the importance of social protection and on its link with growth and economic development. The question however is if all organizations understand this link in the same way. Only ECLAC and UNRISD point to the mutual strengthening of economic and social protection, with the welfare of people as the major objective. With is constant focus on fiscal restraint and concerns about the consequences of social protection for economic growth, the World Bank and OECD seem to continue to put growth as the major priority. Social protection can – in the same way as the protection of the environment[29] - help to safeguard growth, but the financial problem is prevailing. Here, social protection is seen as an element contributing to growth. As has been stated already, the focus on the link between social and economic development is an old Keynesian idea, but it is far from sure that WB and OECD have really changed their minds on the priority of growth and fiscal restraint.

A second new ‘old’ element is the importance given today to social protection in order to defend democracy and the legitimacy of the state . Certainly, this is particularly clear for UNDP, UNRISD, ECLAC and ILO, whereas the WB initially only used moral arguments to promote its poverty reduction. In the light of the growing number of ‘fragile states’, this is particularly important.

A third idea that is making a come-back is redistribution and its link with taxes. This was not the case in poverty reduction, but now opens the door to broader policies for fighting inequality. This inequality is also back on the agenda, though clearly not in the same way for all organizations. The World Bank and the OECD do not consider it as being problematic, whereas organizations with political concerns do.

A common characteristic of all new proposals is the possibility for private sector involvement. No one excludes the privatization of some elements of social protection. However, differences clearly appear when looking at the way in which the private sector is called upon. For ECLAC and UNRISD, they can only intervene in the framework of a publicly defined universal context of equal rights, whereas for the WB and OECD they can play a more predominant role. Targeting is questioned by many organizations, though not by WB, OECD and ILO. Here, the ILO seems to play on the middle ground, focusing on human rights, but seeming to assume that middle classes’ and wealthy people’s rights are not threatened.

The answer to the major question of whether these new proposals can go beyond poverty reduction will be different for different organizations. The World Bank and OECD do not seem to defend it, though many of the member states of OECD have elaborate welfare states. ECLAC, UN and UNRISD clearly do want to go beyond and are more and more referring to the old Keynesian ideas of the West-European welfare state, ECLAC linking its proposals to social citizenship. As for the ILO and UNDP, they play on the middle ground, defending a rights perspective but with ideas for ‘social protection’ that were formally called ‘poverty reduction’. It is difficult to see the difference between the old poverty reduction strategy and the social protection floor. Maybe, the difference is the explicit reference to human rights, and not the scope the social protection.

This last point is particularly important to see whether social protection is only seen as a remedial action or also as a preventive action. Impoverishment processes can only be stopped if social protection includes universal policies in order to protect people from becoming poor, with access to social services, economic security and income guarantees. Ideas about income are clearly changing, even at the level of the World Bank, who now accepts – apart from micro credits – remittances and even conditional cash transfers. But we are far from income guarantees, the only real protection against income poverty.

As for ‘social development’ and its transformative potential, only UN, ECLAC and UNRISD seem to envisage it. They are clearly going back to the ‘old’ thinking, which is not strange since countries with successes in development are also countries which applied the old thinking, with an important role for the state, with market regulation and nation-building, aimed at social and economic integration.

A point which is stressed by different organizations is the fact that social protection is an integral part of the development process. This has to be seen in the context of the new ‘old’ thinking on development. A clear example of this can be seen in the recent reports of UNCTAD, where the organization pleads for a new development architecture and improved support mechanisms. As UNCTAD says: a paradigm shift is needed and poor countries need developmental states. This is the background against which we also have to consider the possibility of a more global solidarity mechanism with global taxes or other innovative ways of funding economic and social development processes, based on the concept of human rights and on the necessary ‘global public goods’.

The proposals that are being made and that may point to a way forward with solidarity do not come from the most powerful organizations. But the fact that they exist and that their authors point to the weaknesses, if not failures of neoliberal thinking, is a very positive signal that researchers all over the world can use to work in the same direction. They are also particularly important for the emerging debate in the European Union on the ‘modernization’ of social protection.


Annex

OECD :

OCDE, Pour un monde solidaire. Le nouvel agenda social, Paris, OCDE,

1999. OECD

World Bank :

Holzmann, R. & Jorgensen, S., Gestion du risque social : cadre théorique

de la protection sociale, Document de travail n° 0006 sur la protection sociale,

Banque mondiale, février 2000. WB1

World Bank Group, Social Protection Sector Strategy : From Safety Net to

Springboard, Washington, The World Bank, 2001. WB2

ILO:

Bonilla García, A. and Gruat, J.V., Social Protection. Social Justice,

Geneva, ILO, 2003. ILO

World Social Security Report, Geneva, ILO, 2010 ILOSS

Social Protection Floor, ILO, social protection floor website ILO SPF

UNDP:

UNDP, New Thinking on Aid and Social Security, Human Development

Report 2005, Occasional Paper, 2005/2. UNDP

CEPAL:

CEPAL, La protección social de cara al futuro, Santiago, CEPAL, 2006 ECLAC

CEPAL, La hora de la igualdad, CEPAL, 2010 ECLAC2

UNRISD:

Huck-ju Kwon, Transforming the developmental welfare-state in East-Asia,

Geneva, UNRISD, 2005. UNRISD1

DRAIBE, S. and RIESCO, M., “Latin America: A New Developmental

Welfare State in the Making?” in Riesco, M. (ed.), Latin America. A new

developmental welfare state in the making?, Geneva, UNRISD, 2007. UNRISD2

Adésíná, J.O., “In Search of Inclusive Development: Introduction” in

Adésíná, J.O. (ed.), Social Policy in sub-saharan African context, Geneva,

UNRISD, 2007. UNRISD3

UNRISD, Combating Poverty and inequality, Geneva, 2010 UNRISD4

UN:

United Nations, National Development Strategies, Social Policy Note,

http://esa.un.org/techcoop/documents/PN_SocialPolicyNote.pdf. UN

Report on the World Social Situation, Re-thinking poverty 2010, New York WSS

World Economic and Social Survey, Retooling Global Development, New York, 2010 WESS

Chief Executive Board for Coordination, UN, 2009 CEB



[1] UN, Declaration on Social Progress and Development, GA res. 2542 (XXIV) 11 December 1969.

[2] World Bank, World Development Report 1990, Poverty, Washington, The World Bank, 1990.

[3] The Millennium Development Goals are 8 goals with targets and indicators for social achievements to be reached by 2015. The first one is halving extreme poverty and hunger, compared to the levels of 1990. The other goals concern child and maternal mortality, gender equality, primary education, biodiversity, aids, etc. The 8th goal concerns the tasks to be performed by developed countries.

[4] The number of extremely poor people (with less than 1.25$/day) rose from 202 million in 1981 to 384,2 million in 2005. Chen, S. & Ravallion, M., The developing world is poorer than we thought but no less successful in the fight against poverty,PRWP 4703, August 2008, World Bank.

[5] IMF, The IMF and Aid to Sub-Saharan Africa, Evaluation Report IEO, Washington, IMF, 2007.

[6] Concord, AidWatch, EU Aid in Jeopardy?, December 2009.

[7] ILOSS, p. 7

[8] Ocampo, J.A., Retomar la Agenda del Desarrollo, Cepal, 2001.

[9] UNCTAD, Least Developed Countries Report 2002, Escaping the Poverty Trap, Geneva, 2002.

[10] PNUD, La democracia en América latina, Taurus, Buenos Aires, 2004.

[11] World Bank, A proposal for a comprehensive Development framework (A discussion draft).

[12] World Bank, New Paths to Social Development. Community and Global Networks in Action, World Bank, Washington, 2000; World Bank, Issues for a World Bank Social Development Strategy, May 2002; WB1, WB2.

[13] For a detailed analysis of these proposals, see Mestrum, F., De Rattenvanger van Hameln, Berchem, EPO, 2005.

[14] Zie Fukuyama, F., State Building, Profile Books, 2004; World Bank, World Development Report 1997, Washington, 1997.

[15] Von Hayek, F.A., The Road to Serfdom, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1976 2nd ed. [1944]; Friedman, M., Capitalism and Freedom, Chicago and London, The University of Chicago Press, 1962; Murray, C., Losing Ground, Basic Books, 1984, s.l.

[16] Marshall, T.H., Class, Citizenship and Social Development, New York, Double Day & Company, Inc., 1964.

[17] GDP Growth in Subsaharan Africa was 5,1 % in the period 61-65; 4,8 % in 66-70, 4,2 % in 71-75; 3,05 % in 76-80, 1,05 % in 81-85; 2,5 % in 86-90, 1,06 % in 91-95; 3,3 % in 96-00 and 4,5 % in 00-05. UNCTAD, Export performance following trade liberalization: Somme patterns and Policy Perspectives, Geneva, United Nations, 2008.

[18] Mexico, Russia, South-East-Asia, Argentina, United States …

[19] Such as the works of Stiglitz, Krugman, Ha Joon Chang, Wade …

[20] Barrientos, A. et al. (ed), Social Protection for the poor and poorest, Palgrave Macmillan, 2008; the authors work with three perspectives: rights, basic needs and social risk.

[21] See note 13.

[22] Whereas formerly welfare states were categorized as following the ‘Beveridge’ model or the ‘Bismarck’ model, Esping Anderson introduced three different models according to the different arrangements between state, market and the family: a liberal welfare state, a corporatist-statist model and the universalist and decommodification model. Barrientos (op.cit.) makes a difference between rights based, basic needs based and risk based models.

[23] In the European Union the ‘main objective’ of social protection changed from ‘income guarantee’ to ‘making work pay’, see Mestrum, F., Sur l’importance des droits économiques et sociaux dans l’Union européenne, 2009, http://www.aedh.eu/Sur-l-importance-des-droits.html.

[24] Midgley,J., Social Development, London, Sage Publications, 1995.

[25] Marshall, T.H., op. cit.

[26] Eurostat, Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion : a statistical portrait of the European Union 2010, CCE, Brussels, 2010, p. 101.

[27] For an overview of different concepts and different meanings, see ILOSS, p. 13.

[28] Foucault, M., Les Mots et les Choses, Paris, Gallimard, 1966.

[29] Mestrum, F., Poverty Reduction and Sustainable Development, Environment, Development and Sustainability 5:41-61, 2003.

Last Updated on Sunday, 30 January 2011 16:50