Читать книгу The Struggle for Social Sustainability - Группа авторов - Страница 10

1

The ‘social’ in the age of sustainability

Christopher Deeming

Introduction

COVID-19 is a human tragedy, but it has also created a generational opportunity, as UN Secretary-General António Guterres (2020) has observed. An opportunity to build back a more equal and sustainable world. New and emerging socially inclusive models and global policy frameworks are being formulated by policy makers to address the pressing global challenges of the 21st century, such as rising social inequality, extreme poverty and the climate emergency, that focus on important aspects of the social of social policy, are the subject of this volume. This introductory chapter provides a critical introduction to the idea of the ‘social’, and considers how notions of the social are now guiding the development of global social policy for the age of sustainability. The chapter also introduces the different contributions to the evolving debate on the social of social policy and the social dimensions of sustainability that this volume brings together for critical examination and reflection.

Social sustainability

The ‘social’ is now becoming more integrated in global social policy debates around sustainability (Koch and Oksana, 2016; Gough, 2017). Often, however, we find conceptions of the ‘social’ are less than well-defined in ascendant discourses of sustainability (Dillard et al, 2008; Vallance et al, 2011). Certainly, the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (UNGA, 2015), and the associated 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs, Box 1.1) with their 169 targets adopted by member states of the UN in September 2015, underlines a global commitment to ‘achieving sustainable development in its three dimensions, economic, social and environmental in a balanced and integrated manner’ (UNGA, 2015, 2020; UN, 2019a, 2019b). This is a major achievement, global social policy in the making (Gore, 2015; Fukuda-Parr and Muchhala, 2020). The SDGs are global goals, which build on the experience and successes of the international development goals, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs, Box 1.1) agreed at the UN Millennium Summit in 2000 (UNGA, 2000), and also the recommendations and targets, eradicate poverty, support full employment, achieve equity, equality and protect human rights, found in the report A Fair Globalization of the World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization (WCSDG) (ILO, 2004), and the Copenhagen Declaration on Social Development adopted at the World Summit for Social Development (WSSD) in 1995. All 193 UN member states have pledged to achieve the 17 SDGs by 2030, relating to global social problems of extreme poverty, inequality, climate change, environmental degradation, peace and justice as well as the promotion of healthy lives. Here we find the social, the ecological and the economic are understood to be interconnected, in order to address the global challenges that humanity now faces.

Box 1.1: Global goals: from the MDGs to the SDGs

The 8 Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) 1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger 2. Achieve universal primary education 3. Promote gender equality and empower women 4. Reduce child mortality 5. Improve maternal health 6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases 7. Ensure environmental sustainability 8. Develop a global partnership for development

The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to Transform Our World 1. No poverty 2. Zero hunger 3. Ensure good health and well-being 4. Ensure quality education 5. Achieve gender equality 6. Ensure clean water and sanitation 7. Ensure affordable and clean energy 8. Promote decent work and economic growth 9. Build resilient infrastructure 10. Reduced inequality within and among countries 11. Make cities and communities sustainable 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production 13. Climate action 14. Conserve life below water 15. Protect life on land 16. Peace and justice strong institutions 17. Partnerships to achieve the Goals

Note: For the MDGs see www.un.org/millenniumgoals/; for the SDGs see www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/

Source: Adapted from UN UNGA (2015: 14).

(Reproduced with the permission of the United Nations.)

Agenda 2030 aims to mobilise global efforts to transform our world. The scale and ambition of this universal policy agenda and the political commitment has never been seen before, endorsed by 193 countries (UN member states), formulated and supported by the international and global institutions and organizations like the World Bank (2020a) and International Monetary Fund (IMF, 2020), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2019) and world-regional social policy actors. The European Union (EU), for example, was one of the leading forces behind the 2030 Agenda and is fully committed to its implementation. The SDGs thus act as a compass, guiding regional sustainability strategies, reviews and monitoring (for example, ECLAC, 2018; EC, 2019; ECA, 2018; ESCAP, 2019). The long-term development goals are helping to unite policy actors at all levels and across all regions.

In this age, then, we find growing interest in the social dimensions of sustainability. Importantly, we find ideas and contested conceptions of ‘the social’ (which have a long history in the social sciences), now taking centre stage in international and globalizing social policy debates, the focus of this volume. The notion of ‘social sustainability’ can be found at the intersections (a key theme of this volume) of the environment and the ecological, the economic and the social. As such, this new and emerging political agenda invites us to think about the ‘social’ in social + policy, and the emergent field of study – global + social + policy – as well as the related social and ethical dimensions of social sustainability, equity, equality, justice and cohesion, as the influential Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen (2013) reminds us.

Global policy perspectives and policy paradigms have been (slowly) shifting to encompass important elements of the social, particularly evident in the work of international institutions, regional actors and agencies in the United Nations system like the IMF.¹ The emerging new social spending strategy now taking shape at the IMF is perhaps testimony to this shift. The IMF, for example, is now a leading advocate of social investments in public health, public education, social assistance and safety nets and other key aspects of social infrastructure development.² The IMF is also promoting sustained economic growth, and ‘inclusive growth’, in order to meet the 2030 SDGs. Full and productive employment (SDG 8) it is claimed will help set the world free of extreme poverty (SDG 1) and social inequality (Goals 5 and 10) (IMF, 2019). This policy positioning by the IMF and many of the other international institutions is perhaps unremarkable in some ways, being the conventional wisdom, as global social policy is ‘framed’ (Bøås and McNeill, 2004) and ‘reframed’ (Deeming and Smyth, 2018). However, in other ways this does seem significant if we recall that the IMF and World Bank were the strong advocates of neoliberal policy prescriptions on the global stage during the 1980s and 1990s. As we find throughout the volume, international institutions and organizations established in the post-war era are constantly under pressure, involved in their own legitimation struggles and contests, increasingly in the realm of global governance and social movements, formations and coalitions for change involved in local, national and global politics and the dynamics of contention (see also O’Brien et al, 2000; Frey et al, 2014; Dingwerth et al, 2019; Tilly et al, 2019).

In the age of sustainability, the ‘social’ is facing multiple challenges and crises, however. In global social policy, Agenda 2030 is heavily contested and progress on the SDGs is slow, uneven and patchy, even before COVID-19 and the economic crises (World Bank Group (WBG) flagship reports Global Economic Prospects (GEP) consider the enormous global shock delivered by COVID-19, leading to steep recessions in many countries, World Bank, 2020b, 2021). Many of the SDGs are either ‘gender-sparse’ or ‘gender-blind’, for example (Razavi, 2016, 2019; UN Women, 2018). Despite the global commitment to gender equality, women still form the majority of the world’s poorest people (Fredman, 2016). Persisting high levels of violence against women, economic exclusion and other systemic inequalities are of deep concern, revealing the lack of political commitment to address gender equality according to the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women, 2019, 2020). Governance and institutional failings, underinvestment and underfunding concerns amid a slowing of the global economy and the climate emergency, all pre-date the pandemic (Sachs et al, 2018; Dalby et al, 2019; IPBES, 2019; IPCC, 2019; UNIATF, 2019; UN, 2020a).³ COVID-19 could now set sustainable development and progress on the SDGs back years and even decades, global poverty is on the increase for the first time in decades (dire warnings are found in the latest editions of the UN flagship reports, Financing for Sustainable Development Report (FSDR) (UNIATF, 2020), World Economic Situation and Prospects (WESP) (UN 2020a, 2021), and UNCTAD’s (2020a, 2020b, 2020c) Trade and Development Report (TDR)).

Global social crisis

The global crisis runs deep.⁴ The effects of global warming, the climate emergency, the global financial crisis and the latest global health crises and global economic shock still unfolding reveal the extent of our highly interconnected world, and the scale of the post-national political commitment from global institutions and societies needed to address them. They are all world issues, global problems and global challenges and multiple crises. They have all exposed social crises at every level, with many health and social protection systems and institutions severely challenged and struggling to cope in the age of extreme global inequality and poverty. The COVID-19 pandemic (with the new buzzwords ‘social distancing’ and ‘self-isolation’) is once again exposing the deep divides that exist within and between nations, but also the way risk is governed in an era of international financial liberalization. While the World Bank and IMF have made further loans available to the poorest countries grappling with the spread of the virus, it is clear they are prioritizing fiscal objectives and market-driven solutions rather than public health (Kentikelenis et al, 2020). The international financial institutions preferring to suspend debt payments on loans and grants, rather than cancelling them altogether in order to abolish debt burdens (Hickel, 2017; Oldekop et al, 2020).⁵ The rich nations stand accused of being complicit in a ‘climate debt trap’ with their loans to developing countries for ‘loss and damage’ caused by climate change, and many argue that the polluters (the rich nations) should have to pay for the damage they have caused.⁶

The coronavirus crisis has had devastating health and socioeconomic impacts, it has exposed weaknesses, divisions and inequities in health and social protection systems around the world, and it has exacerbated health and social inequalities both within and between countries (UN, 2020b; WEF, in 2020).⁷ Perhaps the crisis will help to restore ‘universalism’ and universal health coverage (UHC), moving towards a fairer world post-COVID-19 with more inclusive and sustainable economies (OECD, 2020). Universal healthcare systems are vital for promoting global public health security, a global priority objective of the World Health Organization (WHO), the global health agency of the UN. The inclusion of UHC in the SDGs (Target 3.8) is rooted in the right to health. Social protection systems are in crisis in many parts of the world, where universal social protection is far from a reality, and safety nets are simply not available to catch people if they fall into poverty. The global health crisis reinforces the need for stronger universal social protection floors in developing and developed countries alike, to protect all members of society, and has re-energized the global debate on unconditional basic income: ‘basic income’ or ‘Universal Basic Income’ (UBI) (Downes and Lansley, 2018). Moreover, the health and social crisis has further exposed many fictions, myths and lies: that free markets can deliver healthcare for all; that unpaid care work is not work; that we live in a post-racist world; that we are all in the same boat (Williams, 2021). Across every sphere, the impacts of COVID-19 are exacerbated for women and girls, the poorest and the most vulnerable in society and the developing countries (UN, 2020b; WBG, 2020). The world faces a “catastrophic moral failure” because of unequal COVID-19 vaccine policies, the Director-General of the WHO has warned. The price of this failure will be paid with lives and livelihoods in the world’s poorest countries.⁸

We are likely to see significant changes in how society works as a result of COVID-19.⁹ Already, we find that the crisis is transformatory in many ways. There is major governmental intervention at levels unprecedented in peacetime. Politicians and political parties are (mostly) united behind the raft of emergency packages, budgets and fiscal stimulus. Strong welfare states are once again the best automatic stabilizers in times of crisis, as unemployment soars, and new safety nets and aid packages have been designed and extended to help protect businesses and the self-employed in some contexts. Universal healthcare systems are the most powerful of policy instruments in a health crisis. Each night a grateful public in many countries like France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, and the UK, paid tribute to the carers and frontline workers dealing with the coronavirus pandemic (‘clap for carers’), a positive affirmation and display of social solidarity, and growing understanding of ‘social value’ created not by market forces but by society as a whole.¹⁰

The ‘social’ of social policy

Theorising ‘the social’ has a rich history in the social sciences, although notions and conceptions of the social are not always precisely defined.¹¹ The term ‘social policy’ has also itself received a lot of critical scrutiny over the years yet there is no standard definition. Interest in exploring the ‘comparative’ and ‘global’ dimensions of the social of social policy continues to grow, as does work uncovering the origins of social policy with the framing of the ‘social question’ that demanded ‘social reform’ and ‘social policy’ and ‘social rights’ of citizenship as a growing response to the privations of the 19th century (Kaufmann, 2013).¹²

In all of this endeavour we find the search for a better understanding of the social, the social sphere and social life (of the state and of civil society), and we learn more about the conceptual challenges associated with drawing clear distinctions between the economic and the political realm, or the ‘public’, private, market and familial spheres; these are familiar distinctions and complex institutions that have long interested moral philosophers and social theorists alike, from Adam Smith ([1759] 2009) and Hegel ([1821] 1967) to Jürgen Habermas ([1962] 1989), Daniel Bell ([1977] 1996), Axel Honneth (1995a) and Carole Pateman (1988) for example.¹³ What does the ‘social’ mean in social policy debates, shaped by culture and history, and what does or might it increasingly mean in a transnational context in the work of the international organizations, the United Nations (UN) and International Labour Organization (ILO) for example (Emmerij et al, 2001; Bellucci and Weiss, 2020), and from a global social policy perspective (see also recent discussions of the social question(s) in global times by Bogalska-Martin and Matteudi, 2018; Breman et al, 2019; Faist, 2019; Leisering, 2021).

In this volume, then, we hold the idea of the ‘social’ in social policy up to fresh scrutiny. In so doing, we build on earlier works, along with some of our work, that has critically discussed the nature of the ‘social’ in social welfare (Clarke, 1996, 2007; Lewis et al, 2000; and Clarke writing in Chapter 2) and in social policy (Corbett and Walker, 2017; Williams, 2021; and Walker, Chapter 8, and Williams, Chapter 11 in this volume), and with the ‘active’ turn in social policy (Mahon, 2014; Deeming, 2016; Bonoli, 2018). Further insightful works have critically examined the new and emerging conceptions of the ‘social’ influencing the development of social policy, influential ideas about ‘social investment’ (Jenson, 2010a; Laruffa, 2018) and ‘inclusive growth’ (Jenson, 2015a, 2015b); also ideas about ‘social exclusion’ (Béland, 2007; Winlow and Hall, 2013), ‘social inclusion’ (Dujon et al, 2013), and the growing body of work discussing ‘social inequality’, ‘social wellbeing’ and ‘social progress’ (Wilkinson and Pickett, 2009, 2018 and Chapter 14 in this volume; Deeming, 2013 and Chapters 13 and 15), ideas about ‘social capital’ (Smith and Kulynych, 2002; Bebbington et al, 2004; McNeill, 2004; Ferragina and Arrigoni, 2017), ‘social solidarity’ (Stjernø, 2005; Barbier, 2013) and ‘social cohesion’ (Jenson, 2010b and Chapter 11 in this volume), along with conceptions of ‘social justice’ and ‘global social justice’ (Vosko, 2002; Craig, 2018 and Chapter 12 in this volume), ‘ecosocial’ perspectives (Fitzpatrick, 2001 and Chapter 6 in this volume; Koch and Fritz, 2014), ‘social innovation’ (Jenson, 2015c; Ayob et al, 2016) and ‘social entrepreneurship’ (Jenson, 2018), to name just some of the recent works critically exploring conceptions of the social of social policy.

Important work also continues to uncover the structured nature of inequality on a global scale; the gendered and ethno-racial structure of inequality (Razavi and Hassim, 2006; Taylor and Mahon, 2019; UN DESA, 2020; UN Women, 2020; Williams, 2021), and the many barriers to inclusion that people with disabilities and indigenous people face (who are at a disadvantage regarding most SDGs) according to UN and WHO flagship reports like the World Report on Disability (WDR) (WHO, 2011), Disability and Development Report (DDR) (UN DESA, 2019a), State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples (SOWIP) (UN DESA, 2019b), and the World Social Report (WSR) examining global inequality (UN DESA, 2020). The so-called social questions relating to ‘race’ and ‘women’ signified gendered-ethno-racial divisions and struggle in patriarchal societies, within the context of structural and systemic racism (Pateman, 1988; Pilbeam, 2000; Fassin and Fassin, 2006; Wacquant, 2006, 2014). The Me Too (or #MeToo) women’s empowerment movement has become a worldwide phenomenon, in the global struggle against violence against women. Male intimate partner violence and sexual violence is a major public health problem and a violation of women’s human rights (WHO, 2013, 2014, 2017). While the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, established in 2013 in the USA, has grown into the largest black-led social movement advocating racial justice since the 1960s (Garza, 2020). It is now a global network calling for radical, sustainable solutions that affirm the prosperity of Black lives (Tilly et al, 2019).¹⁴

Social resilience and political struggle are becoming more evident on a global scale, in opposition to the lack of respect for basic human rights and key freedoms to equality, fair treatment and dignity as set out in foundational international human rights documents. These include the 30 Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, Box 1.2), and the international agreements, treaties and conventions emerging out of conflict and social struggle, such as the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD, in 1965), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR, in 1966), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW, in 1979), UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, in 1989), and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD, in 2008). The core international human rights instruments and associated UN human rights monitoring bodies are shown in Box 1.3.

Box 1.2: The 30 rights and freedoms set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

The 30 rights and freedoms were adopted and proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) on 10 December 1948

Article 1. Innate freedom and equality Article 2. Ban on discrimination Article 3. Right to life Article 4. Ban on slavery Article 5. Ban on torture Article 6. Right to recognition as a person before the law Article 7. Equality before the law Article 8. Right to effective judiciary Article 9. Ban on arbitrary detention Article 10. Right to public hearing Article 11. Right to the presumption of innocence Article 12. Right to privacy Article 13. Right to freedom of movement Article 14. Right to asylum Article 15. Right to a nationality Article 16. Right to marriage and family Article 17. Right to own property

Article 18. Right to freedom of thought and religion Article 19. Right to freedom of opinion and expression Article 20. Right to freedom of assembly and association Article 21. Right to take part in government Article 22. Right to social security Article 23. Right to work Article 24. Right to rest and leisure Article 25. Right to an adequate standard of living Article 26. Right to education Article 27. Right to participate in cultural life Article 28. Right to a social and international order Article 29. Duties and limitations Article 30. Salvatory clause

Source: United Nations: www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

(Reproduced with the permission of the United Nations.)

Box 1.3: Core international human rights instruments

Acronym	Full name	Date adopted	UN monitoring bodies
CSR51	The 1951 Refugee Convention	28 Ju1y 1951	UNHCR
ICERD	International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination	21 Dec 1965	CERD
ICCPR	International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights	16 Dec 1966	HRC
ICESCR	International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights	16 Dec 1966	CESCR
CEDAW	Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women	18 Dec 1979	CEDAW
CAT	Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment	10 Dec 1984	CAT
UNCRC	Convention on the Rights of the Child	20 Nov 1989	UNCRC
ICMW	International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families	18 Dec 1990	CMW
DEVAW	Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women	20 Dec 1993	SRVAW
CRPD	Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities	13 Dec 2006	CRPD
ICPPED	International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance	20 Dec 2006	CED
UNDRIP	Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Persons	13 Sept 2007	EMRIP

Source: Adapted from UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR): www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CoreInstruments.aspx

(Reproduced with the permission of the United Nations.)

Intersectionality has become the watchword in the media, while academic work in this field continues to facilitate a deeper understanding of advantage and disadvantage as praxis and for the possibilities of politics and policy, human rights, equal rights and anti-discrimination (Collins, 2007; Collins and Bilge, 2020; Williams, 2021).¹⁵ ‘Race’, class and gender as citizenship categories disadvantage many groups in society, and yet age straddles all of these categories. Young people’s experiences of social problems are more intensified, young people around the world know that jobs for teenagers and young people are scarce (unacceptably high numbers of young people experience poor education, employment outcomes and poverty: UN DESA, 2019c).¹⁶

Finally, there is a lack of a critical scrutiny over the social – or conceptions of the social – in the arguments of international institutions and regional bodies, who are in the business of constructing and promoting new and alternative ideas and visions for social policy (Jolly et al, 2009; Mahon, 2010, 2015, 2019; Jenson, 2010a, 2017; Béland and Petersen, 2014; Deeming and Smyth, 2018).¹⁷ It is certainly true that there has been a discernible trend towards a common language of the ‘social’, ‘inclusion’, inclusiveness’ and ‘sustainability’ in global social policy discourses and the policy instruments of global social governance (a common conceptual grammar, it would seem), accompanied by a growing trend towards greater collaboration and cooperation amongst international institutions and policy networks and epistemic communities, and the formulation if not the fulfilment of the SDGs arguably represents an unprecedented shared common motivation and global social policy objective. Needless to say, this does not mean long-standing academic and global policy debates have now finally been settled or are diminishing. The extent to which global and regional social policy is still caught up in the ‘neoliberal’ era of market generating inequality, for example, or whether we have now entered an era after neoliberalism, is an issue that is receiving much scholarly attention (Gore, 2000, 2015; Craig and Porter, 2005; Rodrik, 2006; Clarke, 2007, also writing in Chapter 2; Kaasch and Deacon, 2008; Jenson, 2010a; Mahon, 2010, 2011, 2013; Babb, 2013; Deeming and Smyth, 2018).

What is clear, however, is that international organizations like the World Bank have certainly been shifting their policy positions, as is evident in recent political discourses. The World Bank’s reframing of global social policy is well captured in its annual flagship publication, the World Development Report (WDR). In 1996 it was claimed that virtually all solutions to social problems were to be solved by markets, the 1996 WDR strongly advocating the move away from ‘plan’ (state) to ‘market’ (World Bank, 1996). A year later, the tone had changed and the talk was now about bringing the state back in again, about ‘rethinking the state’ and the importance of ‘good government’ (World Bank, 1997). More recently, we find the demand for a more effective investment state, with the Bank championing ‘public investment’ in human capital, universal education, and vocational training and health services in order to promote social and economic wellbeing (World Bank, 2006). Past mistakes and policy shortcomings are also openly acknowledged, notably the overly aggressive market-making policies deployed in many parts of the developing world, due in no small part to the Bank’s ‘structural adjustment’ loans of the 1980s and 1990s (World Bank, 2005: 17, 93; 2007: 138).

Ideological battles continue to rage between global social policy actors, however, and also within them (Deacon, 2005; Kaasch and Deacon, 2008; Kaasch, 2013). Contestation and struggle in global policy making is well documented, policy positions continue to evolve and adapt, policy instruments and policy processes are complex, social policy remains largely the responsibility of nation states and national governments; there are also transfer and cultural effects and lived experiences and human voices that are all too often overlooked or excluded in policy-making processes (Narayan et al, 2000a, 2000b; Narayan and Petesch, 2002; Weiss et al, 2005; Evans and McBride, 2017). In the realm of ideation, then, international institutions and the experts that serve them diffuse their evidence and their ideas, and they define the social questions that influence and shape global, regional and domestic policy agendas. Their ideas often serve as policy blueprints, while their policy prescriptions on national social policy constitute powerful ideological weapons that seek to convince policy makers, interest groups and the population at large that change is necessary, or even desirable (Deacon et al, 1997; Béland and Orenstein, 2013; Stone, 2020).

It is clear we are in need of such fundamental reflections on the ‘social’ of social policy in global political discourses, and considered work interpreting social struggle and contestation, which often represents moral conflict and symbolic struggle. The claims being raised in fierce and complicated struggle usually centre on the social. Social justice demands due recognition and respect for differences as well as fair distribution, as Honneth ([1992] 1995b) and Fraser and Honneth (2003) maintain, and such demands and struggles are increasing under conditions of economic globalization and increasing inequality and stratification in society (Dean, 1996; Narayan et al, 2000b; Williams, 2000; Hobson, 2003; Weiss et al, 2005; Banting and Kymlicka, 2006; Lister, 2008; Yuval-Davis, 2011; Faist, 2015). All of this is forcing scholars to reconsider the ‘social’ and the possibilities of politics and social policy for sustaining the social in an increasingly complicated, globalized and challenging world.

The chapters in this book approach the social from multiple angles, rooted in history and culture studies, economics and political science, social politics, sociology and social epidemiology, written by scholars working within and across these different disciplines. The volume as a whole helps us to think more critically about important moral and political aspects of the ‘social’ and especially of the notion of ‘social policy’, increasingly conceived in global forms, ‘global social policy’, signified by international agreements, and the global goals and targets now directed towards the sustainability challenges facing humankind.¹⁸

This is important work for sure, revealing many different ideas and conceptions of ‘the social’ (that is, ‘the socials’: ‘social cohesion’, ‘social justice’, ‘social wellbeing’, ‘social sustainability’, ‘social progress’ and so on) in the arguments of international institutions, epistemic communities and domestic policy makers. Often these concepts, or quasi-concepts, are not clearly defined in policy documents, this volume is testament to that. As such they appear fuzzy, lacking in precision, but in many ways this is precisely what makes quasi-concepts particularly useful for policy-making purposes, in practical policy terms across space and time, as Jenson (2018) argues.

The volume then engages with the contested conceptions of ‘the social’ focusing on ideas about ‘social justice’, ‘social cohesion’ and ‘social progress’ in a global context. It is the critical engagement with these key social science concepts, or quasi-concepts, along with the pressing ‘social questions’ (to do changing world population, ageing societies, mass migration, and so on) and the global challenges of the 21st century (to do with social inequality, social wellbeing, social sustainability) that are of profound interest to the contributors and readers of this volume alike. Each contribution draws our attention to the inherent complexity of thinking about ‘the social’, not only the varying conceptions or dimensions of the ‘social’, but also in terms of thinking about scale and multiscalar approaches (that is, global, world-regional, national, local or interpersonal scales). In summary, each chapter forces us to think very carefully about the meaning of the ‘social’, and the different conceptualizations of the ‘social’ of social policy.

Outline of the volume

Neoliberalism, in many variants, involved a sustained attack on ideas, institutions and formations of the ‘social’, as John Clarke contends in Chapter 2. Indeed, the neoliberal period closing out the 20th century was often considered to mark the ‘death of the social’. There is some obvious truth in this, evident in the ideologies of Thatcherism and Reaganism for example, and in the attack on social rights and the social sphere (‘there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families’, claimed Margaret Thatcher in 1987), and in the neoliberal policy prescriptions of the World Bank and IMF during the dominant ‘Washington Consensus’ era. Yet political and cultural formations of the social continued to exist alongside the dominant neoliberal tendency of global capitalism. While some commentators are now suggesting that we are moving beyond neoliberalism, or that global social policy is being reframed as ideas and discourse evolve (Deeming and Smyth, 2018), Clarke cautions us to be wary. We are living in and against a neoliberal global order. Dominant neoliberal ideas and legacies persist. John Clarke helps us to navigate the complex terrain, going beyond simple binaries, dichotomies and periodization. The important point here is to recognize the shape-shifting processes of neoliberalization on the one hand, but also alternative ways of thinking and organizing the social on the other.

Economics, it seems, often in the pursuit of a market society, has never really had an easy relationship or a happy coexistence with the ‘social’. Nevertheless, economists have sought to embed the economy in society, as Bradley Bateman reminds us in Chapter 3. The enduring relevance of key economic ideas is the subject of Bateman’s chapter, as he considers how the pressing social and economic questions of the day (the social questions, concerning rights and representation, diversity and difference) have been cast and recast, and the responses to these questions from the discipline of economics. Ultimately, economics is used to argue for and against social policies. Two clear nexuses between economic theory and social policy thus arise. The libertarian focus of much mainstream economic theory does not often lend itself to recommending solutions to social policy questions, whereas Keynesian economic theory does. The nexus between the social and economic is particularly intuitive when it comes to the issue of climate change, the question of sustainable development now facing humanity. If societies are to successfully address climate change, it will require immense levels of investment. New infrastructure is required to generate clean energy (SDG 7), while green energy is not the only industry where the fight against climate change can create jobs. Nor do investments have to be made to help fight climate change in order to be effective at providing more and better paid jobs; that is, investment in infrastructure, housing and homes, schools and hospitals creates jobs, and can help mitigate inequality, increase inclusion and cohesion. The possibility for the state to improve people’s lives by creating more sustainable, resilient and inclusive societies is as relevant today as it was in the ‘heyday’ of Keynesian economics.

The question and limits of neoliberalism theme continues in Chapter 4. Here Jean-Michel Bonvin and Francesco Laruffa consider the ‘social’ investment perspective (focused on human capital formation) taking hold in global social policy discourses and the policy proposals advocated by international institutions like the OECD, the World Bank and the IMF, as well as regional actors like the EU and the European Commission (EC) and UN Regional Commissions like the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). With this growing worldwide development they also sense the growing economization and de-politicization of the social. That is the loss of the social, with the focus on maximizing gross domestic product (GDP) and the employment rate, for example. Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach, however, may provide a way out of such neoliberalizing policy processes. Given the central importance of democratic deliberation in this approach, Bonvin and Laruffa argue that social policy should be framed as an enabling factor of democracy in order to better promote equality in terms of both processes and outcomes. After all, the ‘good society’ will require flourishing democratic debates and public action to successfully promote inclusive societies for sustainable development, to challenge and undo established patterns of social inequality within and among nations.

The issue of the ‘social’ in ‘sustainable development’ is the subject of Chapter 5 by Iris Borowy. Much neglected in academic and policy-making circles, the ‘social’ dimension was certainly considered to be a central component of sustainable development at the UN from the 1980s, inextricably linked to economic and environmental concerns. If sustainable development is about meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, then this poses a number of major challenges. Leaving aside the vexing issue of predicting future ‘needs’, there are clear tensions here in the social dimensions of sustainable development and related policy instruments, the SDGs. There are, on the one hand, clear tensions and trade-offs between the present pro-growth bias being promoted by the international institutions in an effort to end poverty (SDG 1) and reduce inequality within and between countries (SDG 10), while on the other hand the pursuit of endless economic growth is clearly incompatible with an environmentally sustainable world (represented by SDG 12, ensure responsible consumption and production patterns, for example, in order to tackle climate change). Economic growth is, of course, represented and promoted by SDG 8, ‘decent work and economic growth’, which is fundamentally about creating more jobs, more production and more consumption. If the environmental part of sustainable development looks rather bleak, its social component is at least starting to look rosier.

In Chapter 6, Tony Fitzpatrick presents an ‘ecosocial’ agenda for social reform, with the focus on reform options for a post-productive future. Here Fitzpatrick claims the synergies between social and environmental policies have barely registered to date. We find the familiar oppositions between those who favour remaining close to existing socioeconomic models, that is pro-productivism (based on GDP growth, production and consumption, and so on) and those for whom environmentalism and the ecosocial implies a greater, transformative potential. While the diminishing public sphere is again a major cause for concern here (as we heard in Chapter 4), Fitzpatrick does offer some hope, by encouraging us to think less in terms of oppositions between pro-productivists and post-productivists, and more in terms of commonalities and overlaps. For example, if the policy logic is to create more jobs globally to tackle poverty and inequality (the pro-productive position) then this should be accompanied by reduced working times overall (the post-productivist position). The struggle for sustainability is clearly evident but only by seeking alliances and common ground, as Fitzpatrick suggests, may we begin to take some of the necessary steps to resolve the social and ecological problems and challenges now facing humanity.

Population dynamics have long been inextricably linked to ideas about social sustainability, since the time of Thomas Malthus writing at the turn of the 18th century. Our ability to achieve sustainable development may well depend on the dynamics of the world’s population. Certainly, the global human population is rising, and looks set to peak at around 10 billion people, causing an unprecedented ‘planetary emergency’ according to some accounts (Emmott, 2013). But to what extent are our numbers really our problem? This is the thorny issue taken up by Danny Dorling in Chapter 7. Part of the social sustainability challenge here surely is how to cope with world population dynamics. There may be problems and issues in some of the assumptions underpinning the UN world population projections, fewer babies are being born for example (people are also now leading longer lives, the focus in Chapter 8). Here Dorling considers changing population dynamics for each of the world regions. However, what may ultimately matter most for social sustainability and social wellbeing is how equitable a country is. When a country is equitable, like Finland, people do not have to think of having more children in future to help pay for their own old age. People are treated well enough regardless of how many children they have, or if they have none at all. It may seem impossible to think that this will ever happen to some of the poorest and most inequitable countries but, as Dorling points out, just a century ago Finland was a relatively poor country.

In Chapter 8, Alan Walker critically examines the implications of the major demographic shifts in global population age structures in relation to the thorny question of social sustainably. Here the scope of global ageing is summarised by Walker, and the relationship between ageing and sustainability is considered in the context of global social policy debates, and in the language streams deployed by the international financial institutions, the IMF and World Bank, which reveals the heavy emphasis on the economic dimension, with the exclusion of the environmental and social ones. However, it is with the development of the WHO’s policy framework on ‘active ageing’ in 2002, relabelled ‘healthy ageing’ in 2015, which brought global ageing policy closer to the UN’s sustainable development agenda. Indeed, the WHO now began to integrate its healthy ageing strategy with the SDGs. Walker therefore demonstrates how global discourses on ageing and sustainability have consistently ignored the ageing process and environmental and social sustainability. It is only very recently that attempts have been made to bring these different perspectives together. Nevertheless, existing global social policy frameworks still require more and better alignment if ageing is to become fully integrated with economic, environmental and social sustainability.

The impact of globalization and the movement of people on the making of social policy and global migration complicates the social question, increasing framed as the ‘global’ social question or ‘transnational’ social question. Article 13 of the UDHR affirms the right of everyone to ‘leave any country’ (the right to emigrate), but this is not the same thing as the right to enter a country (the right to immigrate), to work and access benefits. In Chapter 9, Edward Koning considers social conflict on a transnational scale. Policy makers are increasingly being challenged on how to maintain solidarity and cohesion in societies experiencing intergroup tension. Modern welfare states need to decide on the nature of rights and how rights may be differentiated, depending on status categories. Policy makers therefore face a difficult decision regarding which of the existing social benefits should be accessible to immigrants, and whether new benefits should be created that exclusively target immigrants to help promote social and economic integration. Residence status remains important here. As Koning notes, few policy makers would prefer not to advocate blatant discrimination between native-born and naturalized citizens, but equally welfare states tend not to grant those without legal status full access to welfare services. But beyond these two extremes, there are tough choices ahead in determining the rights of permanent, temporary and undocumented migrants. Approaches to rights differentiation vary considerably from country to country. Migration does indeed pose a formidable challenge to the future sustainability of the welfare state, even if the challenge turns out to be more political in nature than economic. In the face of growing welfare chauvinism in the electorate, and with the rise of anti-immigrant politicians and anti-immigrant parties (AIPs), the immediate outlook seems bleak for transnational solidarity and the social of social policy, at least in the present climate.

In Chapter 10, Fiona Williams illustrates how an intersectional approach can excavate the ‘social’ in social policy analysis, not only at national and local/interpersonal scales but at global scales too. Here Williams focuses on the forces at the global scale that have shaped the development of post-financial crisis (austerity) welfare and the global pandemic of COVID-19, which should be understood in terms of the intersections between the crises of global financialised capitalism, of care, of ecology and of racialized transnational mobilities. The four crises are interconnected; they have commonalities in constitution and effect, as well as interlocking dynamics and mechanisms. They are linked by the ways each jeopardizes security, human solidarity and sustainability for future generations. The commonalities include that they challenge the patriarchal, racial and ecosocial dimensions of neoliberal capitalism and its modes of production, reproduction, consumption, accumulation, commodification and growth, of which they are the outcome. An intersectionality approach is able to find synergies and shared understanding across progressive movements for care, decoloniality, environmental and economic justice. Together recent global events and social movements and formations create possibilities for alliances and transformatory alternatives, and they may provide the basis at least for thinking about new welfare states that focus on sustaining the social.

Intersectionality and intersectional analysis are a recurrent theme and approach in this volume, which continues in Chapter 11, where Jane Jenson considers global social policy making and the quasi-concept of social cohesion. It is a quasi-concept, according to Jenson, not least because no shared definition of social cohesion actually exists in the literature. But also, importantly, because of the way it is used empirically by policy makers (often in relation to a set or ‘dashboard’ of social indicators, for example), while at the same time remaining sufficiently flexible to be deployed by policy makers in policy instruments, at different levels, and within and across different spatial scales; for example, from individuals to communities, and from nation-states to the world regions and increasingly in a global context. Here Jenson examines and compares the work and policy approaches of the international institutions the World Bank, the UN and the WHO, as well as the work of regional actors like the EU. Some of the policy tools, documents and instruments for fostering cohesive social relations appear quite general or broad-brushed, encompassing notions of social, economic and cultural integration, for example, while others are much narrower in scope, operationalizing or interpreting social cohesion according to notions of labour market participation, and other forms of ‘work’ and job creation initiatives.

In Chapter 12, Gary Craig considers the prospects for global social justice in light of the UN 2030 Agenda seeking to better integrate economic, social and environmental needs for a more just and sustainable world. However, there are major challenges now facing proponents of social justice in an economically globalized world. Where most states are increasingly multicultural, for example, how then should the conception of global social justice be formulated? Can we rely on an almost exclusively Eurocentric or Anglo-American, not to say Judaeo-Christian, understanding of the meaning of social justice? What might a global social justice framework look like in theory and how might it work in practice, and what are some of the likely political consequences if it is accepted by mainstream political and cultural groups? At stake are many thorny issues, but there are some positive developments; international actions and demands for stronger global social justice are growing. However, there will be many challenges ahead on this long and winding road, if the idea of global social justice can be turned into a reality for all.

In Chapter 13, Chris Deeming considers the prospects for improved social governance at the global level, as humanity moves towards more sustainable patterns of consumption and production, and a more socially responsible, equitable, inclusive and just world. In particular, the chapter critically examines the emerging social policies being articulated by the OECD in order to reform global capitalism. This international organization is made up of rich nation states and is in the process of repositioning itself as the international institution responsible for promoting ‘global social justice’, a highly challenging endeavour. Nevertheless, the OECD is clearly influencing global social governance debates in an effort to build a new consensus against growing social inequality. There are many challenges ahead in securing a new social governance architecture for inclusive economic growth. Yet something of a paradox remains. On one hand, the OECD claims to want to move beyond growth, but on the other it is promoting growth strategies to end poverty and address extreme inequality (forming part of the SDGs). In other words, the ‘growth paradigm’ is being maintained here, while the opportunities for greater redistribution of resources within and among countries gets crowded out by the dominant discourse sustaining global capitalism, based on the idea that (GDP) growth is always better.

In Chapter 14 (aptly titled ‘For better or worse?’), Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett point to something of an irony in the age of extreme inequality. In part, represented by the growing worldwide effort to devise new and better measures charting human wellbeing and social progress, a growing academic industry is now devoted to this task. At the same time, however, Wilkinson and Pickett point to the general lack of policy making based on or informed by the knowledge of the social determinants of health and wellbeing (indeed, Richard Wilkinson has made a formative contribution to this field). Moreover, even when governments like New Zealand and Scotland have adopted measures of wellbeing in governmental policy, that does not necessarily mean that wellbeing will increase. Nor should substituting or complementing GDP with a dashboard of wellbeing indicators imply that we are necessarily moving beyond GDP or material growth. While higher material standards are clearly needed in low-income countries, where many do not yet have access to necessities, in the rich countries there are sharply diminishing returns to wellbeing associated with endless economic growth. Further improvements in the quality of life for all will therefore depend on major encompassing societal changes. Firstly, there is a pressing need to escape excessive consumerism. Societies need to switch their focus from material throughput and economic output associated with consumerism in order to transition towards social and environmental sustainability. Secondly, and related, the authors maintain that societies really need to address inequality in order to improve population wellbeing overall. If we are serious about the transition to sustainability, then we must reduce the inequality which ramps up status competition and consumerism. Only then might we think about the long-term possibility of substantial social progress.

The concluding chapter, Chapter 15, by Chris Deeming, draws together some of the lessons from the volume as a whole, for thinking through the conceptual ‘lynchpin’ of the ‘social’ and the seismic shifts in social policy over time and space. Here we return to the different conceptualizations of the ‘social’ of social policy discussed in earlier chapters, and reflect on social progress in the first half of the 21st century.

Notes

1The international financial institutions, the IMF and the World Bank, are considered to be UN agencies, but they have mandates to act independently on economic grounds, in order to maintain global economic stability.

2The policy approach at the IMF is now claimed to be about ‘Forging a Stronger Social Contract’; thus, ‘social spending is not just an expense’, as Christine Lagarde, Managing Director at the IMF, maintains, ‘but rather the wisest of investments in the well-being of our societies’: www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2019/06/14/sp061419-md-social-spending.

3The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2019) reports current negative trends in biodiversity and ecosystems that will undermine Agenda 2030 and progress towards the SDGs, particularly relating to poverty, hunger, health, water, cities, climate, oceans and land (SDGs 1, 2, 3, 6, 11, 13, 14 and 15). Loss of biodiversity is not only an environmental issue, but also a developmental, economic, security, social and moral issue, if we are to preserve human life and the life of other species on earth, according to the IPBES and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2019), the intergovernmental body of the UN.

4For Marxist thinkers like David Harvey (2014) such crises are not altogether surprising, but to be expected, since capitalism is inherently unstable and prone to crises. Crises are essential to the reproduction and reconstitution of capitalism, Harvey maintains, but they also strengthen the case for anti-capitalist politics in the Marxist tradition. For the international institutions (the WTO, the IMF, World Bank and the OECD) and international forums like the G20 the crises appear unexpected: ‘the global financial and economic crisis came as a surprise for many international organizations’ (one of many such claims appearing in aftermath of the global financial crises, in the UN flagship report, Report on the World Social Situation (RWSS), UN DESA, 2011: 2). Nevertheless, they do point to deficiencies in the capitalist system that need to be overcome in order to preserve or strengthen international capitalism and the world economy; ‘inclusive growth’ arguably represents the latest paradigmatic response from the international institutions for the remaking of the global capitalist economy (see Chapter 13 in this volume).

5See Jubilee Debt Campaign, ‘Coronavirus: Cancel the Debts of Countries in the Global South’, https://jubileedebt.org.uk/actions/stop-coronavirus-debt-disaster; also the statement from over 100 global civil society organizations calling on G20 governments, the IMF and World Bank to immediately cancel debt payments in 2020, https://jubileedebt.org.uk/press-release/call-for-immediate-cancellation-of-developing-country-debt-payments.

6See Stamp Out Poverty proposals for a ‘Climate Damages Tax’, www.stampoutpoverty.org/; also the campaign for a ‘Robin Hood Tax’ on trades by banks and other big speculators, so the finance sector meets the cost of its own crises and makes a fairer contribution to society.

7See also WEF, ‘Coronavirus: A Pandemic in the Age of Inequality, www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/03/coronavirus-pandemic-inequality-among-workers/; and UN plans for tackling the social and economic dimensions of the crisis: ‘UN Launches COVID-19 Plan That Could “Defeat the Virus and Build a Better World”’, https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/03/1060702.

8Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General, opening remarks at 148th session of the Executive Board, 18 January 2021, https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-148th-session-of-the-executive-board.

9UN Secretary-General António Guterres (2020), for example, is calling for a ‘New Social Contract’, between Governments, people, civil society and business to integrate employment, sustainable development and social protection. Plus a ‘New Global Deal’, based on a fair globalization, to create equal opportunities for all and respect the rights and freedoms of all. The varying responses to the crisis found at national and regional levels, however, means any durable changes are likely to be understood in relation to the specific institutional features and policy legacies of each country, as Daniel Béland observes, https://www.mcgill.ca/maxbellschool/article/how-different-countries-respond-global-crises-social-policy-lessons-past.

10The challenges associated with creating and sustaining ‘social’ value in market (value) society were well recognized in the writing on political economy, including Adam Smith, Karl Marx, Karl Polanyi and John Maynard Keynes (see discussions by T. H. Marshall, 1972, David Harvey, 2014, Fred Block and Margaret R. Somers, 2014). In recent work, for example, Bill Jordon (2008, 2021) makes the case for ‘social value’ based on notions of wellbeing incorporated into policy-making decisions; while Mariana Mazzucato (2018: 229–33, 264–9) discusses the idea of ‘public value’, urging us to rethink the process of value creation beyond old notions of the public and private sphere. Other initiatives are also attempting to change the way society thinks and accounts for social value: for example, www.socialvalueuk.org/. Some of the problems and challenges associated with defining and conceptualizing ‘social value’ and operationalizing it in policy terms are discussed by Dowling and Harvie (2014).

11In the classical tradition, for example, social theorists like Émile Durkheim were concerned with the study of ‘social facts’, the facts termed ‘social’ (Durkheim, [1895] 1982: 50), and with the study of ‘social solidarity’ (Durkheim, [1897] 1952). For Weber, sociology was all about the understanding of ‘social action’ (Weber, [1922] 1978: 4). Notions and conceptions of the ‘social’ are not always precisely defined, however, dealing with quite diverse problems, institutions and issues relating to governance. Jean Baudrillard, for example, marked ‘the end of the social’ with the rise of consumer capitalist society ([1978] 1983: 25, 82), while Gilles Deleuze (1979: ix) considers ‘the rise of the social’, that is, ‘social’ workers within the social service state. Nikolas Rose (1996: 327), like Baudrillard, lamented ‘the death of the social’ with the rise of New Right ideology, but at the same time, he also observes the rise of ‘social’ policies increasingly being articulated at a supra-national level in the work of international organizations.

12A ‘social question’ is usually one that concerns society and/or a social group, increasingly cast as the transnational social question in global times (see Chapters 3 and 15), that demands or provokes political reactions and institutional responses. The so-called social questions were originally conceived in terms of regulating the social. For example, ‘social control’, ‘the pauper question’ (poor relief and the workhouse), ‘the penal question’ (incarceration and the prison) and ‘the workers’ question’ that dominated thinking about the social question, conceived in terms of social welfare planning and the needs of the capitalist economy. As such, the work of social scientists, in the long history of the social sciences, has been directed at state-orientated concerns and the major political issues of the day, the social questions, as Peter Wagner (2001) suggests.

13As Adam Smith taught us, there are moral limits to markets, to naked self-interest and economic individualism: ‘How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. Of this kind is pity or compassion, the emotion which we feel for the misery of others, when we either see it, or are made to conceive it’ (Smith, [1759] 2009: 13).

14BLM seeks to bring attention to police violence against African-American people in the USA after the shooting death of African-American teenager Trayvon Martin in February 2012. The Black Lives Matter Global Network is now a global movement in the fight for freedom, liberation and justice, see www.blacklivesmatter.com/. The George Floyd/BLM protests in 550 US cities began in May 2020, in reaction to the murder of George Floyd, quickly spreading worldwide.

15Article 2 of the UDHR, for example, states: ‘Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty; further details are available from the OHCHR’: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/UDHRIndex.aspx.

16The World Youth Report (WYR) found 142 million young people of upper secondary age are out of school, while upper secondary enrolment rates average only 14 per cent in low-income countries. Moreover, almost 30 per cent of the poorest 12–14 year olds have never attended school, some 71 million young people were unemployed, and many millions more are in precarious or informal work.

17A clear exception here is research looking at the formal institutions of the EU and the social question hanging over the future of a ‘Social Europe’, with the focus on sustaining social cohesion across diverse EU member states and the challenges associated with social policy development (Mahon, 2002; Jenson, 2010b; Barbier, 2013; Vandenbroucke et al, 2017).

18The idea of ‘Global Social Policy’ as a field of study is often conceived, as Deacon et al (1997: 195) observe, in terms of understanding the social policies of international institutions and regional actors, that shape global social redistribution, regulation and provision; and the way in which global actors shape national social policy. In this sense social policy preoccupations are put to the test in the global context.

References

Ayob, N., Teasdale, S. and Fagan, K. (2016) ‘How Social Innovation “Came to Be”: Tracing the Evolution of a Contested Concept’, Journal of Social Policy, 45(4): 635–53.

Babb, S. (2013) ‘The Washington Consensus as Transnational Policy Paradigm: Its Origins, Trajectory and Likely Successor’, Review of International Political Economy, 20(2): 268–97.

Banting, K. and Kymlicka, W. (eds) (2006) Multiculturalism and the Welfare State: Recognition and Redistribution in Contemporary Democracies, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Barbier, J.-C. (2013) The Road to Social Europe: A Contemporary Approach to Political Cultures and Diversity in Europe, Translated by Susan Gruenheck Taponier, Abingdon: Routledge.

Baudrillard, J. ([1978] 1983) In the Shadow of the Silent Majorities, Or, the End of the Social, New York: Semiotext(e).

Bebbington, A., Guggenheim, S., Olson, E. and Woolcock, M. (2004) ‘Exploring Social Capital Debates at the World Bank’, Journal of Development Studies, 40(5): 33–64.

Béland, D. (2007) ‘The Social Exclusion Discourse: Ideas and Policy Change’, Policy & Politics, 35(1): 123–39.

Béland D. and Orenstein, M. A. (2013) ‘International Organizations as Policy Actors: An Ideational Approach’, Global Social Policy, 13(2): 125–43.

Béland, D. and Petersen, K. (2014) ‘Introduction: Social Policy Concepts and Language’, in D. Béland and K. Petersen (eds) Analysing Social Policy Concepts and Language: Comparative and Transnational Perspectives, Bristol: Policy Press, 1–11.

Bell, D. ([1977] 1996) The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism, 20th Anniversary Edition, with a new afterword by the author, New York: Basic Books.

Bellucci, S. and Weiss, H. (2020) ‘1919 and the Century of the Labour Internationalisation’, in S. Bellucci and H. Weiss (eds) The Internationalisation of the Labour Question: Ideological Antagonism, Workers’ Movements and the ILO since 1919, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 1-19.

Block, F. and Somers, M. R. (2014) The Power of Market Fundamentalism: Karl Polanyi’s Critique, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bøås, M. and McNeill, D. (eds) (2004) Global Institutions and Development: Framing the World?, Abingdon: Routledge.

Bogalska-Martin, E. and Matteudi, E. (eds) (2018) The Social Question in the Global World, Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars.

Bonoli, G. (2018) ‘Active Labour Market Policies for an Inclusive Growth’, in C. Deeming and P. Smyth (eds) Reframing Global Social Policy: Social Investment for Sustainable and Inclusive Growth, Bristol: Policy Press, 169–87.

Breman, J., Harris, K., Lee, C. K. and Van Der Linden, M. (eds) (2019) The Social Question in the Twenty-First Century: A Global View, Oakland, CA: University of California Press.

Clarke, J. (1996) ‘Public Nightmares and Communitarian Dreams: The Crisis of the Social in Social Welfare’, The Sociological Review, 44(1): 66–91.

Clarke, J. (2007) ‘Subordinating the Social? Neoliberalism and the Remaking of Welfare Capitalism’, Cultural Studies, 21(6): 974–87.

Collins, P. H. (2007) ‘Pushing the Boundaries or Business as Usual? Race, Class, and Gender Studies and Sociological Inquiry’, in C. Calhoun (ed) Sociology in America: A History, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 572–604.

Collins, P. H. and Bilge, S. (2020) Intersectionality, Second Edition, Cambridge: Polity.

Corbett, S. and Walker, A. (2017) ‘Putting “the Social” Back into Social Policy’, in R. Atkinson, L. McKenzie and S. Winlow (eds) Building Better Societies: Promoting Social Justice in a World Falling Apart, Bristol: Policy Press, 111–24.

Craig, G. (ed) (2018) Global Social Justice, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Craig, D. and Porter, D. (2005) ‘The Third Way and the Third World: Poverty Reduction and Social Inclusion Strategies in the Rise of “Inclusive” Liberalism’, Review of International Political Economy, 12(2): 226–63.

Dalby, S., Horton, S. and Mahon, R. with Thomaz, D. (eds) (2019) Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals: Global Governance Challenges, Abingdon and New York: Routledge.

Deacon, B. (2005) ‘From “Safety Nets” Back to “Universal Social Provision”: Is the Global Tide Turning?’, Global Social Policy, 5(1): 19–28.

Deacon, B. with Hulse, M. and Stubbs, P. (1997) Global Social Policy: International Organizations and the Future of Welfare, London: Sage.

Dean, J. (1996) Solidarity of Strangers: Feminism After Identity Politics, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Deeming, C. (2013) ‘Addressing the Social Determinants of Subjective Wellbeing: The Latest Challenge for Social Policy’, Journal of Social Policy, 42(3): 541–65.

Deeming, C. (2016) ‘Rethinking Social Policy and Society’, Social Policy and Society, 15(2): 159–75.

Deeming, C. and Smyth, P. (2018) ‘Social Investment, Inclusive Growth That Is Sustainable and the New Global Social Policy’, in C. Deeming and P. Smyth (eds) Reframing Global Social Policy: Social Investment for Sustainable and Inclusive Growth, Bristol: Policy Press, 11–44.

Deleuze, G. (1979) ‘Foreword: The Rise of the Social’, in J. Donzelot, The Policing of Families, Translated from the French by Robert Hurley, New York: Pantheon, ix–xvii.

Dillard, J., Dujon, V. and King, M. (eds) (2008) Understanding the Social Dimension of Sustainability, New York: Routledge.

Dingwerth, K., Witt, A., Lehmann, I., Reichel, E. and Weise, T. (eds) (2019) International Organizations under Pressure: Legitimating Global Governance in Challenging Times, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dowling, E. and Harvie, D. (2014) ‘Harnessing the Social: State, Crisis and (Big) Society’, Sociology, 48(5): 869–86.

Downes, A. and Lansley, S. (eds) (2018) It’s Basic Income: The Global Debate, Bristol: Policy Press.

Dujon, V., Dillard, J. and Brennan, E. M. (eds) (2013) Social Sustainability: A Multilevel Approach to Social Inclusion, New York: Routledge.

Durkheim, E. ([1895] 1982) The Rules of Sociological Method, Edited with an Introduction by Steven Lukes, Translated by W. D. Halls, New York: Free Press.

Durkheim, E. ([1897] 1952) Suicide: A Study in Sociology, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

EC (European Commission) (2019) Towards a Sustainable Europe by 2030, COM(2019)22, Brussels: EC, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/rp_sustainable_europe_30-01_en_web.pdf.

ECA (United Nations Economic Commission for Africa) (2018) 2018 Africa Sustainable Development Report: Towards a Transformed and Resilient Continent, Addis Ababa: UN, https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3801706?ln=en.

ECLAC (United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean) (2018) Draft Programme of Work of the ECLAC System, 2020, LC/SES.37/8, Havana: UN, https://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/11362/43570.

Emmerij, L., Jolly, R. and Weiss, T. G. (2001) Ahead of the Curve? UN Ideas and Global Challenges, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Emmott, S. (2013) 10 Billion, London: Penguin.

ESCAP (United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific) (2019) Asia and the Pacific SDG Progress Report 2019, Bangkok: UN, https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3813666?ln=en.

Evans, B. and McBride, S. (eds) (2017) Austerity: The Lived Experience, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Faist, T. (2015) ‘The Transnational Social Question: Cross-Border Social Protection and Social Inequalities’, in P. Kettunen, S. Michel and K. Petersen (eds) Race, Ethnicity and Welfare States: An American Dilemma?, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 227–53.

Faist, T. (2019) The Transnationalized Social Question: Migration and the Question of Social Inequalities in the Twenty-First Century, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fassin, É. and Fassin, D. (2006) De la question sociale à la question raciale: Représenter la société française, Paris: La Découverte.

Ferragina, E. and Arrigoni, A. (2017) ‘The Rise and Fall of Social Capital: Requiem for a Theory?’, Political Studies Review, 15(3): 355–67.

Fitzpatrick, T. (2001) ‘Making Welfare for Future Generations’, Social Policy & Administration, 35(5): 506–20.

Fraser, N. and Honneth, A. (2003) Redistribution or Recognition? A Political-Philosophical Exchange, Translated by Joel Golb, James Ingram and Christiane Wilke, London and New York: Verso.

Fredman, S. (2016) ‘Women and Poverty – A Human Rights Approach’, African Journal of International and Comparative Law, 24(4): 494–517.

Frey, M., Kunkel, S. and Unger, C. R. (eds) (2014) International Organizations and Development, 1945–1990, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Fukuda-Parr, S. and Muchhala, B. (2020) ‘The Southern Origins of Sustainable Development Goals: Ideas, Actors, Aspirations’, World Development, 126: 104706.

Garza, A. (2020) The Purpose of Power: How to Build Movements for the 21 Century, London: Doubleday.

Gore, C. (2000) ‘The Rise and Fall of the Washington Consensus as a Paradigm for Developing Countries’, World Development, 28(5): 789–804.

Gore, C. (2015) ‘The Post-2015 Moment: Towards Sustainable Development Goals and a New Global Development Paradigm’, Journal of International Development, 27(6): 717–32.

Gough, I. (2017) Heat, Greed and Human Needs, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Guterres, A. (2020) Tackling the Inequality Pandemic: A New Social Contract for a New Era, The 18th Nelson Mandela Annual Lecture, 18 July, New York: UN, www.un.org/en/coronavirus/tackling-inequality-new-social-contract-new-era.

Habermas, J. ([1962] 1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, Translated by Thomas Burger, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Harvey, D. (2014) Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism, New York: Oxford University Press.

Hegel, G. W. F. ([1821] 1967) Philosophy of Right, Translated with notes by T. M. Knox, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hickel, J. (2017) The Divide: A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and Its Solutions, London: Heinemann.

Hobson, B. (ed) (2003) Recognition Struggles and Social Movements: Contested Identities, Agency and Power, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Honneth, A. (1995a) The Fragmented World of the Social: Essays in Social and Political Philosophy, Edited by Charles W. Wright, New York: State University of New York Press.

Honneth, A. ([1992] 1995b) The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts, Translated by Joel Anderson, Cambridge: Polity.

ILO (International Labour Organization) (2004) A Fair Globalization: Creating Opportunities For All, World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization, Geneva: ILO, https://www.ilo.org/fairglobalization/report/lang--en/index.htm.

IMF (International Monetary Fund) (2019) A Strategy for IMF Engagement on Social Spending, Policy Paper No 19/016, Washington, DC: IMF, www.imf.org/~/media/Files/Publications/PP/2019/PPEA2019016.ashx.

IMF (2020) IMF and the Sustainable Development Goals, 26 February, www.imf.org/en/About/Factsheets/Sheets/2016/08/01/16/46/Sustainable-Development-Goals.

IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) (2019) Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn: IPBES secretariat, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3553579.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2019) Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems: Summary for Policymakers, IPCC, www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/4/2020/02/SPM_Updated-Jan20.pdf.

Jenson, J. (2010a) ‘Diffusing Ideas for After Neoliberalism: The Social Investment Perspective in Europe and Latin America’, Global Social Policy, 10(1): 59–84.

Jenson, J. (2010b) Defining and Measuring Social Cohesion, London: Commonwealth Secretariat and UNRISD, www.files.ethz.ch/isn/151856/Jenson%20ebook.pdf.

Jenson, J. (2015a) ‘The “Social” in Inclusive Growth: The Social Investment Perspective’, in R. Hasmath (ed) Inclusive Growth, Development and Welfare Policy: A Critical Assessment, New York: Routledge, 108–23.

Jenson, J. (2015b) ‘Broadening the Frame: Inclusive Growth and the Social Investment Perspective’, in S. McBride, R. Mahon and G. W. Boychuk (eds) After ‘08: Social Policy and the Global Financial Crisis, Vancouver, BC: UBC Press, 40–58.

Jenson, J. (2015c) ‘Social Innovation: Redesigning the Welfare Diamond’, in A. Nicholls, M. Gabriel, J. Simon and C. Whelan (eds) New Frontiers in Social Innovation Research, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 89–106.

Jenson, J. (2017) ‘Developing and Spreading a Social Investment Perspective: The World Bank and OECD Compared’, in A. Hemerijck (ed) The Uses of Social Investment, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 207–15.

Jenson, J. (2018) ‘Social Politics Puzzling: Governance for Inclusive Growth and Social Investment’, in C. Deeming and P. Smyth (eds) Reframing Social Policy: Social Investment for Sustainable and Inclusive Growth, Bristol: Policy Press, 273–93.

Jolly, R., Emmerij, L. and Weiss, T. G. (2009) UN Ideas that Changed the World, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Jordon, B. (2008) Welfare and Well-being: Social Value in Public Policy, Bristol: Policy Press.

Jordon, B. (2021) Social Value in Public Policy, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kaasch, A. (2013) ‘Contesting Contestation: Global Social Policy Prescriptions on Pensions and Health Systems’, Global Social Policy, 13(1): 45–65.

Kaasch A. and Deacon, B. (2008) ‘The OECD’s Social and Health Policy: Neoliberal Stalking Horse or Balancer of Social and Economic Objectives?’, in R. Mahon and S. McBride (eds) The OECD and Global Governance, Vancouver: UBC Press, 226–41.

Kaufmann, F.-X. (2013) Thinking about Social Policy: The German Tradition, Germany Social Policy Volume 1, Translated from the German by Thomas Dunlap, Edited and introduced by Lutz Leisering, Heidelberg: Springer.

Kentikelenis, A., Gabor, D., Ortiz, I., Stubbs, T., McKee, M. and Stuckler, D. (2020) ‘Softening the Blow of the Pandemic: Will the International Monetary Fund and World Bank Make Things Worse?’, The Lancet Global Health, 8(6): e758–9.

Koch, M. and Fritz, M. (2014) ‘Building the Eco-social State: Do Welfare Regimes Matter?’, Journal of Social Policy, 43(4): 679–703.

Koch, M. and Oksana, M. (eds) (2016) Sustainability and the Political Economy of Welfare, Abingdon: Routledge.

Laruffa, F. (2018) ‘Social Investment: Diffusing Ideas for Redesigning Citizenship after Neo-Liberalism?’, Critical Social Policy, 38(4): 688–706.

Leisering, L. (ed) (2021) One Hundred Years of Social Protection: The Changing Social Question in Brazil, India, China, and South Africa, Cham: Springer.

Lewis, G., Gewirtz, S. and Clarke, J. (eds) (2000) Rethinking Social Policy, London: Sage.

Lister, R. (2008) ‘Recognition and Voice: The Challenge for Social Justice’, in G. Craig, T. Burchardt and D. Gordon (eds) (2008) Social Justice and Public Policy, Bristol: Policy Press, 105–23.

Mahon, R. (2002) ‘Child Care: Toward What Kind of “Social Europe”?’, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 9(3): 343–79.

Mahon, R. (2010) ‘After Neo-Liberalism? The OECD, the World Bank and the Child’, Global Social Policy, 10(2): 172–92.

Mahon, R. (2011) ‘The Jobs Strategy: From Neo- to Inclusive Liberalism?’, Review of International Political Economy,18(5): 570–91.

Mahon, R. (2013) ‘Social Investment According to the OECD/DELSA: A Discourse in the Making’, Global Policy, 4(2): 150–9.

Mahon, R. (2014) ‘The OECD’s Search for a New Social Policy Language: From Welfare State to Active Society’, in D. Béland and K. Petersen (eds) Analysing Social Policy Concepts and Language: Comparative and Transnational Perspectives, Bristol: Policy Press, 81–100.

Mahon, R. (2015) ‘Integrating the Social into CEPAL’s Neo-structuralist Discourse’, Global Social Policy, 15(1): 3–22.

Mahon, R. (2019) ‘Broadening the Social Investment Agenda: The OECD, the World Bank and Inclusive Growth’, Global Social Policy, 19(1–2): 121–38.

Marshall, T. H. (1972) ‘Social Policy in Context’, Sociology, 6(2): 326–7.

Mazzucato, M. (2018) The Value of Everything: Making and Taking in the Global Economy, London: Allen Lane.

McNeill, D. (2004) ‘Social Capital and the World Bank’, in M. Bøås and D. McNeill (eds) Global Institutions and Development: Framing the World?, Abingdon: Routledge, 108–23.

Narayan, D. and Petesch, P. (ed) (2002) Voices of the Poor: From Many Lands, New York: Oxford University Press, http://hdl.handle.net/10986/14053.

Narayan, D., Chambers, R., Shah, M. K. and Petesch, P. (2000b) Voices of the Poor: Crying Out for Change, New York: Oxford University Press, http://hdl.handle.net/10986/13848.

Narayan, D., Patel, R., Schafft, K., Rademacher, A. and Koch-Shulte, S. (2000a) Voices of the Poor: Can Anyone Hear Us?, New York: Oxford University Press, http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/131441468779067441/Voices-of-the-poor-can-anyone-hear-us.

O’Brien, R., Goetz, A., Scholte, J. and Williams, M. (2000) Contesting Global Governance: Multilateral Economic Institutions and Global Social Movements, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2019) Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development 2019: Empowering People and Ensuring Inclusiveness and Equality, Paris: OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/a90f851f-en.

OECD (2020) Beyond Containment: Health Systems Responses to COVID-19 in the OECD, Paris: OECD Publishing, https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/view/?ref=119_119689-ud5comtf84&title=Beyond_Containment:Health_systems_responses_to_COVID-19_in_the_OECD.

Oldekop, J. A., Horner, R., Hulme, D., Adhikari, R., Agarwal, B., Alford, M., Bakewell, O., Banks, N., Barrientos, S., Bastia, T., Bebbington, A. J., Das, U., Dimova, R., Duncombe, R., Enns, C., Fielding, D., Foster, C., Foster, T., Frederiksen, T., Gao, P., Gillespie, T., Heeks, R., Hickey, S., Hess, M., Jepson, N., Karamchedu, A., Kothari, U., Krishnan, A., Lavers, T., Mamman, A., Mitlin, D., Monazam Tabrizi, N., Müller, T. R., Nadvi, K., Pasquali, G., Pritchard, R., Pruce, K., Rees, C., Renken, J., Savoia, A., Schindler, S., Surmeier, A., Tampubolon, G., Tyce, M., Unnikrishnan, V. and Zhang, Y.-F. (2020) ‘COVID-19 and the Case for Global Development’, World Development, 134: 105044.

Pateman, C. (1998) ‘The Patriarchal Welfare State’, in A. Gutmann (ed) Democracy and the Welfare State, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 231–60.

Pilbeam, P. (2000) French Socialists before Marx: Workers, Women and the Social Question in France, Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Razavi, S. (2016) ‘The 2030 Agenda: Challenges of Implementation to Attain Gender Equality and Women’s Rights’, Gender & Development, 24(1): 25–41.

Razavi, S. (2019) ‘Indicators as Substitute for Policy Contestation and Accountability? Some Reflections on the 2030 Agenda from the Perspective of Gender Equality and Women’s Rights’, Global Policy, 10(S1): 149–52.

Razavi, S. and Hassim, S. (2006) ‘Gender and Social Policy in a Global Context: Uncovering the Gendered Structure of “the Social”’, in S. Razavi and S. Hassim (eds) Gender and Social Policy in a Global Context: Uncovering the Gendered Structure of ‘the Social’, UNRISD, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1–39.

Rodrik, D. (2006) ‘Goodbye Washington Consensus, Hello Washington Confusion? A Review of the World Bank’s “Economic Growth in the 1990s: Learning from a Decade of Reform”’, Journal of Economic Literature, 44(4): 973–87.

Rose, N. (1996) ‘The Death of the Social? Re-figuring the Territory of Government’, Economy and Society, 25(3): 327–56.

Sachs, J., Schmidt-Traub, G., Kroll, C., Lafortune, G. and Fuller, G. (2018) SDG Index and Dashboards Report 2018, New York: Bertelsmann Stiftung and SDSN.

Sen, A. (2013) ‘The Ends and Means of Sustainability’, Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 14(1): 6–20.

Smith, A. ([1759] 2009) The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Introduction by Amartya Sen, New York: Penguin.

Smith, S. S. and Kulynych, J. (2002) ‘It May be Social, But Why Is It Capital? The Social Construction of Social Capital and the Politics of Language’, Politics & Society, 30(1): 149–86.

Stjernø, S. (2005) Solidarity in Europe: The History of an Idea, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stone, D. (2020) Making Global Policy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Taylor, S. R. and Mahon, R. (2019) ‘Gender Equality from the MDGs to the SDGs: The Struggle Continues’, in S. Dalby, S. Horton and R. Mahon with D. Thomaz (eds) (2019) Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals: Global Governance Challenges, Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 54–70.

Tilly, C., Castañeda, E. and Wood, L. (2019) Social Movements, 1768–2018, Fourth Edition, New York: Routledge.

UN (United Nations) (2019a) Mainstreaming of the Three Dimensions of Sustainable Development Throughout the United Nations System: Report of the Secretary-General, https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3800940?ln=en.

UN (2019b) The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2019, New York: UN, https://doi.org/10.18356/55eb9109-en.

UN (2020a) World Economic Situation and Prospects 2020, New York: UN, https://doi.org/10.18356/ee1a3197-en.

UN (2020b) Policy Brief: The impact of COVID-19 on women, New York: UN, www.unwomen.org/-/media/headquarters/attachments/sections/library/publications/2020/policy-brief-the-impact-of-covid-19-on-women-en.pdf?la=en&vs=1406.

UN (2021) World Economic Situation and Prospects 2021, New York: UN.

UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) (2020a) Trade and Development Report 2020: From Global Pandemic to Prosperity for All: Avoiding Another Lost Decade, Geneva: UN, https://doi.org/10.18356/aea7b3b9-en.

UNCTAD (2020b) Transforming Trade and Development in a Fractured, Post-Pandemic World, Geneva: UN, https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/osg2020d2_en.pdf.

UNCTAD (2020c) Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Trade and Development: Transitioning to a New Normal, New York: UN, https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/osg2020d1_en.pdf.

UNGA (United Nations General Assembly) (2000) United Nations Millennium Declaration, A/RES/55/2, https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/422015?ln=en.

UNGA (2015) Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, A/RES/70/1, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld/publication.

UNGA (2020) Declaration on the Commemoration of the Seventy-Fifth Anniversary of the United Nations, A/75/L.1, https://undocs.org/en/A/75/L.1.

UNIATF (United Nations Inter-agency Task Force on Financing for Development) (2019) Financing for Sustainable Development Report 2019, New York: UN, https://doi.org/10.18356/9444edd5-en.

UNIATF (2020) Financing for Sustainable Development Report 2020, New York: UN, https://doi.org/10.18356/6fab9229-en.

UN DESA (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs) (2011) Report on the World Social Situation 2011: The Global Social Crisis, New York: UN, https://doi.org/10.18356/e40a0e7f-en.

UN DESA (2019a) Disability and Development Report 2018: Realizing the Sustainable Development Goals by, for and with Persons with Disabilities, New York: UN, https://doi.org/10.18356/a0b1b1d1-en.

UN DESA (2019b) State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples: Implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 4th Volume, New York: UN, https://doi.org/10.18356/5cb401e7-en.

UN DESA (2019c) World Youth Report 2020: Youth and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, New York: UN, https://doi.org/10.18356/0c6f53e0-en.

UN DESA (2020) World Social Report 2020: Inequality in a Rapidly Changing World, New York: UN, https://doi.org/10.18356/7f5d0efc-en.

UN Women (2018) Turning Promises into Action: Gender Equality in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, New York: UN Women, https://doi.org/10.18356/917ed83e-en.

UN Women (2019) UN Women Annual Report 2018–2019, New York: UN Women, www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/annual-report.

UN Women (2020) Annual Report 2019–2020: The World for Women and Girls, New York: UN Women, www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/annual-report.

Vallance, S., Perkins, H. C. and Dixon, J. E. (2011) ‘What Is Social Sustainability? A Clarification of Concepts’, Geoforum, 42(3): 342–48.

Vandenbroucke, F., Barnard, C. and De Baere, G. (eds) (2017) A European Social Union after the Crisis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Vosko, L. (2002) ‘“Decent Work”: The Shifting Role of the ILO and the Struggle for Global Social Justice’, Global Social Policy, 2(1): 19–46.

Wacquant, L. (2006) ‘From Slavery to Mass Incarceration: Rethinking the “Race Question” in the United States’, in D. Macedo and P. Gounari (eds) The Globalization of Racism, Abingdon: Routledge, 94–110.

Wacquant, L. (2014) ‘Marginality, Ethnicity and Penality in the Neo-Liberal City: An Analytic Cartography’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 37(10): 1687–711.

Wagner, P. (2001) A History and Theory of the Social Sciences: Not All That Is Solid Melts into Air, London: Sage.

Weber, M. ([1922] 1978) Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, Volume 1, Edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Weiss, T. G., Carayannis, T., Emmerij, L. and Jolly, R. (2005) UN Voices: The Struggle for Development and Social Justice, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

WHO (World Health Organization) (2011) World Report on Disability 2011, Geneva: WHO and the World Bank, https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/44575.

WHO (2013) Global and Regional Estimates of Violence Against Women: Prevalence and Health Effects of Intimate Partner Violence and Non-Partner Sexual Violence, Geneva: WHO, https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/85239.

WHO (2014) Global Status Report on Violence Prevention 2014, Geneva: WHO, UNDP, UNODC, https://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/status_report/2014/report/report/en/.

WHO (2017) Violence Against Women, Key Facts, 29 November, https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/violence-against-women.

Wilkinson, R. and Pickett, K. (2009) The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, London: Allen Lane.

Wilkinson, R. and Pickett, K. (2018) The Inner Level: How More Equal Societies Reduce Stress, Restore Sanity and Improve Everyone’s Wellbeing, London: Allen Lane.

Williams, F. (2000) ‘Principles of Recognition and Respect in Welfare’, in G. Lewis, S. Gewirtz and J. Clarke (eds) Rethinking Social Policy, London: Sage, 338–52.

Williams, F. (2021) Social Policy: A Critical and Intersectional Analysis, Cambridge: Polity.

Winlow, S. and Hall, S. (2013) Rethinking Social Exclusion: The End of the Social?, London: Sage.

WBG (Women’s Budget Group) (2020b) Crises Collide: Women and Covid-19, https://wbg.org.uk/analysis/reports/crises-collide-women-and-covid-19/.

World Bank (1996) World Development Report 1996: From Plan to Market, New York: Oxford University Press, https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-1952-1107-8.

World Bank (1997) World Development Report 1997: The State in a Changing World, Washington, DC: World Bank, https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-1952-1114-6.

World Bank (2005) Economic Growth in the 1990s: Learning from a Decade of Reform, Washington, DC: World Bank, https://doi.org/10.1596/0-8213-6043-4.

World Bank (2006) World Development Report 2007: Development and the Next Generation, Washington, DC: World Bank, https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-6541-0.

World Bank (2007) World Development Report 2008: Agriculture and Development, Washington, DC: World Bank, https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-6807-7.

World Bank (2020a) The Sustainable Development Agenda and the World Bank Group: Closing the SDGs Financing Gap, Washington, DC: World Bank, http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/259801562965232326/2030Agenda-2019-final-web.pdf.

World Bank (2020b) Global Economic Prospects, June 2020, Washington, DC: World Bank, http://hdl.handle.net/10986/33748.

World Bank (2021) Global Economic Prospects, January 2021, Washington, DC: World Bank, https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1612-3.

Yuval-Davis, N. (2011) ‘Beyond the Recognition and Re-distribution Dichotomy: Intersectionality as Stratification’, in H. Lutz, M. T. Herrera Vivar and L. Supic (eds) Framing Intersectionality: Debates on a Multi-Faceted Concept in Gender Studies, Farnham: Ashgate, 155–70.