State and Civil Society in Social Policy Discourse

A Paper to be delivered by Greg Mac Master at

Southern Africa’s Development Agenda in the 21st Century Colloquium

School of Public Management & Development

University of Fort Hare

Bhisho Campus

14 –15May 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page Number

  1. Introduction2
  1. Defining ‘social policy’ and the role of the ‘welfare state’

and ‘civil society’4

  1. The Concept ‘State’9
  1. The Construct ‘Civil Society’13
  1. An Overview of Development and Socio-Economic

Conditions in Africa18

  1. The Role of the State in Development25
  1. Social Policy in Southern Africa32
  1. Concluding Remarks35
  1. Notes38
  1. Bibliography39

1.Introduction

This paper argues for “rethinking social policy away from its conception as a residual category of ‘safety nets’ that merely counteract policy failures or development disasters” (Mkandawire, 2001, 1), as an integral part of a systems thinking and long-term strategic approach to public policy, together with economic policy, so that one engages in a substantively meaningful discourse of the role of the state and civil society in social policy within the context of Southern Africa. Whilst social policy is generally viewed as asubset of public policy – the other is economic policy– some authors argue that all public policy is essentially social policy.Public policy needs to be viewed as a package of various policy offerings by a government or state, which directs the basket of public goods and services delivered to its citizens and regulate various aspects of society. I concur with the sentiment that “the ‘handmaiden model’ of social policy (that) relegates social services to an adjunct of economic policies inhibited study of the contribution of social policy to economic development” (Mkandawire, 2001, 3). Therefore, social policy has to “serve as both means and ends” (Mkandawire, 2001, 4) and be “embedded in development policy” (Deyo, 1992 cited in Mkandawire, 2001, 17) for it to realise its full potential in Sub-Saharan Africa in general and Southern Africa in particular.

The backdrop of this paper is that “Sub-Saharan Africa is the poorest region of the world and, in comparative and absolute terms, it may well have become poorer in the 1990s (World bank, 2002)” and it is “the region of the world in which industrialization and policies for the attainment of real social security seem to have the furthest to travel” (Pierson, 2004, 16). Sub-Saharan Africa is also “characterized by some unique land tenure regimes and systems of social organization for production. This has profound conceptual implications and raises intriguing questions with regard to agrarian transformation in the sub-region. … [M]ost of these were lost in the welter of Eurocentric theories and universalizing tendencies. Yet a careful study of African agrarian systems could easily show that there is more than one way to agricultural and rural social development. This is particularly important in the wake of mono-economics from the West and the drive toward globalization and homogenization in a unipolar world order” (Mafeje, 2003, 1).

The fifteen countries[1] in Southern Africa formed the Southern African Development Community (SADC) to strengthen regional cooperation. However, “SADC is a weak organisation; it is under-resourced, and the member states are not happy to give it the powers that they agreed to give it when they launched the overhaul of the organisationin 2001”. These “countries face many social, development, economic, trade, education, health, diplomatic, defence, security and political challenges. Some of these challenges cannot be tackled effectively by individual members. Cattle diseases and organised-crime gangs know no boundaries. War in one country can suck in its neighbours and damage their economies. The sustainable development that trade could bring is threatened by the existence of different product standards and tariff regimes, weak customs infrastructure and bad roads. One significant challenge is that member states also participate in other regional economic cooperation schemes and regional political and security cooperation schemes that may compete with or undermine SADC's aims.”[2]

Contrary to Mafeje’s (2003, 1) contention, Yeates says that a “global perspective emphasizes that social policy must be studied from both a national and a transnational perspective. Globalization shapes the possibility of realizing an inclusive, democratic and developmental social policy”, while theremay be “fixed constraints on the nature of policy reforms, or that answers lie in simple policy transplantation, or that social convergence is desirable” (Yeates, 2005, 1 & 2).Mkandawire offers another perspective on how globalization impacts social policy:

“A central preoccupation in both developed and developing countries is the impact of globalization on social policy. Globalization affects social policy both at a normative level and in a more practical way, by setting constraints (fiscal and trade) that social policy must be attentive to. Related to this is the growing provision of social services by transnational actors – aid donors, non-governmental organisations and transnational corporations. Under this new policy thrust the role of the state is to provide “an enabling environment” for private provision while reducing its own expenditures and activities in the social sector” (Mkandawire, 2001, iii & 19).

In order to facilitate understanding of the two constructs (public and social policy) definitions will be offered. There is no universally accepted definition of (public) policy (De Coning and Fick, 1995, 18 – 21). Rather a multiplicity of theories, models and definitions[3]exist all of which emphasise different aspects of the construct, different philosophical approaches (Parsons, 1995, 13) and political values (De Coning, 2000, 16). Despite this complexity, there are common threads from which it is possible to construct a working definition of (public) policy (Anderson, 1997, 9 and De Coning, 2000, 11). Most researchers and practitioners, however, attempt to derive working definitions and models from literature for practical purposes (Dobson, 2002, 17).“Policy is both a noun and a verb: policy is something that governments produce and something that governments do. It can be argued that policy is the core activity and output of governments” (Dobson, 2002, 18). “The business of government is to make choices and to strategically manage resources towards achieving the goals those choices imply with policy being the product thereof” (Heymans, 1996, 29). Therefore, it is imperative to make the point at this juncture thatthe nature of governments’ core business requires a systems thinking and long-term strategic approach since development needs can only be addressed effectively and meaningfully in the long-term.

This essay briefly explores the concepts ‘state’ and ‘civil society’, an overview of development in Africa, the role of the state in development (both economic and social) within the African context in general and the Southern Africa in particular, an overview of social policy in Southern Africa, and concluding remarks are made as to the critical need for a holistic and integrative approach to public policy in general and an inclusive, democratic and developmental social policy in particular to address the socio-economic challenges in Southern Africa. Further research and interrogation of merging ideas and insights are suggested for social policy development for Southern African countries.

2.Defining ‘social policy’ and the role of the ‘welfare state’ and ‘civil society’

A brief examination of some definitions in respect of social policyand the role of the welfare state and civil society in social policy will now follow. The concepts ‘state’ and ‘developmental state’ will be considered in later sections. The reason why the welfare state is previewed in this section is that the concept captures the role of the state in social policy so much clearer. However, a discussion of the welfare state may have more relevance for South Africa, which is currently regarded as the biggest welfare state in the developing world. Barbone and Sanchez (1999, 1 cited in Pierson, 2002004, 16)) “are extremely uncertain that most Sub-Saharan states have the governing capacity (let alone the resources) to administer complex social security systems”.

But Pierson appears somewhat more cautious since he found that “when contrasting the experience of member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, with that of Sub-Saharan Africa, economic development emerges as a very powerful indicator of welfare state growth”. He concludes that as

“we think about the ways in which presently industrializing and yet-to-industrialize states address their development needs, it seems right to emphasize the positive role that an active social policy has played in the past. In particular, it is important to see that investment in public services, such as education and primary health care, may do more for equity than premature attempts to build social insurance institutions” (Pierson, 2004, 1 & 17).

Social policy is defined as “measures that affect people’s well-being, whether through the provision of welfare services or by means of policies that impact upon their livelihoods more generally” (Hall and Midgley, 2004, glossary). Mkandawire (2001, 1) defines

“social policy as collective interventions directly affecting transformation[4] in social welfare, social institutions and social relations. Social welfare encompasses access to adequate and secure livelihoods and income. Social relations range from the micro to the global levels, encompassing intra-household relations of class, community, ethnicity, gender, etc. Social institutions are the ‘humanly devised constraints that shape human interaction’ or the rules of the game’ in a society” (North, 1990).

Van Niekerk’s(2008) definition particularly for South Africa is somewhat more elaborate and includes the role of government, the private sector and civil society in social policy:

“social policies at the national level are collective state-lead measures, implemented by the central and local governments and other stakeholders such as organized employers and workers, the broader private sector and civil society, as well as international development partners. Social policies are interventions which are about promoting the well being of all citizens and which address structural inequalities in wealth, ensure greater equity and equality for all, correct market shortcomings, reduce poverty and promote social inclusion.The term ‘social policy’ also used to refer to the social actions taken by policy-makers in the world. Social policy thus refers both to the activity of policy-making to promote well-being and to the academic study of such actions.”

Since the world has become a ‘global village’, Yeates’ view on globalization and social policy is appropriate and worth sharing:

“A global perspective emphasizes that social policy must be studied from both a national and a transnational perspective. Social welfare, social institutions and social relations are now entangled in material processes that extend beyond the bounds of the nation-state and their transformation can no longer be wholly understood within an exclusively national framework. Recognition of these transnational connections and the dynamics they engender must begin with an appreciation of the contemporary pluralistic global social governance structure which is ‘multi-tiered’, ‘multi-sphered’ and multi-actored’. Governments and representatives of capital, labour and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) all attempt to advance their interests and endeavour to influence how national territories, institutions and populations are governed by engaging in various types of political action in different spheres (institutional, economic) and at different levels (multilateral, regional, national, subnational). Multilateral and regional governmental organizations, agencies and formations are key institutional terrains on which ideological and political struggles over the desirable model of welfare and social development strategies are now fought, and are as necessary as national and subnational terrains to any understanding of the contemporary politics of social development” (Yeates, 2005, 2).

Since the state is central in public policy, including social policy, it is necessary to drill a tad deeper and briefly unpack the role of the state. It is indeed the concept ‘welfare state’ relative to social policy that warrants exploration. The Latin concept pro bono publico (for the benefit of the people) suggests that the role of the state (or public sector) must be to provide goods and services in the interest of the people or for the public good (Davids,et al.,2005, 52). The public sector primarily designs and implements policies and programmes that aim to fulfil the government’s broad social and economic development objectives (Schacter, 2000, 4 – 5, in Davids,et al.,2005, 53). However, the South African Constitution specifically stipulatesthat of the three spheres of government only local government has to promote social and economic development (Craythorne, 2003, 141).

But, there is a difference of opinion as to whether this developmental roleapplies to all African states. One school of thought argues that because most African countries are sparsely populated and lack the required capacity to govern effectively, these states are not able to control the territory defined by their borders, failed to consolidate their authority and gain the loyalty of their citizens. Therefore, some of these states can be considered either as not being viable, “failing, failedor weak” states (Herbst, 2000).Another school of thought says the majority of African countries are at peace and ethnic cooperation is far more prevalent than conflict. Democracy is prospering in some and promising for others. Most problems on the continent derive from the nature of Africa’s relationship to the international system and weak states it has fostered there (Leonard and Straus, 2003, ix).

In addition to the state, Hall and Midgley suggest three other:

“major institutional sets of players may be identified in the social policy field the State, civil society, the business sector and international development or financial agencies. Traditionally, the State has been seen as the major architect of social policy constructs and the main driving force behind social reform. The perception applies in particular to the narrower conception of social policy as providing either for residual needs associated with ‘curing’ pathologies such as crime and delinquency, or for government-funded incremental expansion of social services to meet the demands of growing urban populations. Yet this picture has become rather more complicated since the 1980s as social policy goals have broadened to encompass a wider range of human development concerns, including poverty alleviation and livelihood support” (Hall and Midgley, 2004, 11).

Definitions of the ‘welfare state’ appear to be intertwined with those of ‘social policy’, and Barrow’s exposition of the latter demonstrates this connection.

“There is agreement that since the Great Depression political development in the advanced capitalist societies is distinguished from previous periods by the rise of the welfare state. The concept of the welfare state has been defined theoretically in different ways and has been applied to many different types of democratic polities. Yet, one can identify the welfare state with two sets of activities that were absent from the liberal state of nineteenth-century laissez-faire capitalism e.g. redistributive and regulatory policies. Redistributive policies include “providing certain services, benefits, and assistance to its citizens who are unable to help themselves – the sick, the old, the young, the injured, and the unemployed” (Barrow, 1993, 5).

The welfare state is structured to generally redistribute “income among classes” and to even out “income throughout the lifetime of individuals within classes” – “between those with children and those without children, between the healthy and the sick, and between the employed and the unemployed” – in order “to provide a ‘social security net’ during periods of greatest need, such as unemployment, child rearing, sickness, and retirement”. The redistribution of wealth and income among classes has been left to private organizations like trade unions and employers’ associations that “explicitly negotiate the division of production between wages and profits (Barrow, 1993, 5 – 6).

The welfare state has confined itself mainly to codifying the rules of collective bargaining, supervising the process of collective bargaining, and enforcing the terms of otherwise privately negotiated contracts between workers and employers.” The redistributive polices have, therefore, not been at the direct expense of the private sector. The public sector has merely expanded in absolute terms “so that private capital accumulation continues to take place even within welfare economies” (Barrow, 1993, 5 – 6).

Regulatory activities are primarily directed at mitigating neighbourhood effects produced by private individuals and organizations, that is, at arbitrating disputes over private actions that directly alter the immediate conditions of life of other individuals and groups within a society. However, the regulatory activities of the welfare state have expanded in scope to an ever-widening range of social activities to erode the distinction between public and private spheres of life. These regulatory policies now extend to the regulation of “economic relations between labor and management” or “the corporation and the environment”, as well as “regulating institutions of civil society such as the family, education, and the Church”, which are “primarily concerned with the development of personal identity and normative values” (Barrow, 1993, 7).