Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenor:
-
Brian Ikejiaku
Send message to Convenor
- Discussants:
-
Graciela Tonon
(Universidad Nacional de Lomas de Zamora Uiversidad de Palermo, Argentina)
John Sydenstricker-Neto (Mackenzie Presbyterian University (UPM), Brazil)
Lindsay Thompson (Johns Hopkins Carey Business School)
- Format:
- Thematic Panel
- Theme:
- Creating social and economic impact in development and public policy using the capability approach
Short Abstract:
There are some concerns by academics and practitioners about the risk of the SDGs remaining a meaningless aspiration if social and economic policies for achieving the specific SDGs to do make revolutionary shift to benefit those that seem to be ‘left behind’ including the poor, the vulnerable, those facing inequality of any sort, and social injustice. The discussion draws from capability approach.
Long Abstract:
While this is a Thematic Panel Session, it centres on the recent book published by Dr. Brian Ikejiaku “The Capability Approach and the Sustainable Development Goals: Inter/Multi/Trans Disciplinary Goals’ (Routledge, 2024: 06).
This abstract has two strands in the sense that it is being used for proposing two panels. One of the panels will have two presentations focusing solely on India/Asian countries – to recognise this year’s conference being held in India/Asia, also part of the book has case studies on India/Asia. The second panel will be presentations focusing on other regions/countries.
There are some concerns by academics and practitioners about the risk of the SDGs remaining a meaningless aspiration if social and economic policies for achieving the specific SDGs to do make revolutionary shift to benefit those that seem to be ‘left behind’ – including the poor, the vulnerable, those facing inequality of any sort, social injustice, discrimination, lack of education, unemployment (Ikejiaku, 2024). A closer look and consideration of a few past UN reports on the status of SDGs at their halfway or midpoint suggests some discouraging remarks (Kenny, 2023). This is because progress on more than 50-percent of targets of the SDGs could be described as weak and insufficient. The issues of Covid-19 pandemic, the triple crises of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution, coupled with the ongoing Russia–Ukraine conflict, all seem to have slowed down development progress. Though, the reality is that we have been off-track the positive performance marks prior to or without these problems.
The fact is that while the ‘goals’ for the UN-2030 agenda were massively ambitious, the required revolutionary change and resilience it deserves are missing. The food for thought is that, if we are honest to ourselves, it is not that we do not have the scientific knowledge and capacity to achieve most of the SDGs, but as usual, most of the global projects targeted ‘primarily’ to the benefit of the developing countries of the Global South are approached with a lack of willpower and a lackluster attitude. Thus, it is difficult to creating the level of social and economic impact in development and policy as expected. This is glaring when we briefly recast our minds to antecedents by considering various international development agenda/projects: (a) the failure of Law and Development Movement championed by global-rated academics and financial institutions was mainly because of the lack of fit of the transplanted laws in the practical scheme of things in the developing countries and this failed to creating social and economic impact in development and policy; (b) the demise of the Basic-Needs Approach pioneered by the World Bank was because it appeared to lack scientific rigour, was anti-growth, and consumption-oriented and, created little or no social and economic impact in development and policy; and (c) the ‘little’ success accorded to the Millennium Development Goals was the fact that any success of the goals was not experienced equally practically across the globe; therefore, the little social and economic impact in development and policy it created was lopsided or disproportionate.
The required radical change and resilience required to move SDG forward is missing, there is still a lack of financial and practical commitments by the global communities, alongside weak policy measures and institutional reform to change the tide of things in the developing countries. Another good example is a look at international financing, where we have seen discrete levels of backsliding on the commitment to renewed or additional climate-finance repeated in Paris in 2015 combined with a static level of declining quality development assistance reaching low- and-middle-income countries. Several donors including the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Norway have regressed in terms of aid commitments. To say the least is the declining commitment to global solidarity displayed by the behaviour at the World Trade Organisation, the unequal response over Covid vaccines, and the snail’s pace reform in international institutions from the multilateral development banks through the UN Security Council to better reflect the global balance of demographic and economic power. Even though, the latest UN report shows there has been progress since 2015 (e.g., in health stunting declined from 24.6% of the kids affected to 22.3% worldwide; under-five mortality fell from 4.3% to 3.8% of those born worldwide; upper-secondary school completion rates have risen from 53% to 58%, and in infrastructure, access to improved sanitation has increased from 73% to 81% of the world’s population [UN, 2023] ). This notwithstanding, the overall picture is that there has been a general failure to meet the SDGs; yet there is an understanding of a world where more people have access to the basics of a good life. That does not mean the SDGs themselves are a waste-of-time or a complete failure. It is impressive that the world managed to agree to so many indicators of progress, and even if they make only a very marginal difference to actual rates of change on those indicators that might be a basis for some hopes, no matter how weak. But whether good or bad, what is clear is that the SDGs make very glaring how far humanity is from where it could be and where its collective leaders suggest they want to see it. The world as they say is still getting better, but it is a global moral failing that it is getting better at a snail’s pace, particularly in the developing countries. And there does not seem to be much evidence that failing will be resolved any time soon.
However, SDGs are more inclusive, well-defined, and measurable with required actions but need a more robust conceptual framework that is practical-based and result-oriented – it is based on all these elements that Sen’s capability approach is a reliable analytical tool that can offer deliverable outcomes (Alkire, 2015). Against this backdrop, the two panels will employ the capability approach as analytical framework, drawing from a range of (inter)disciplinary perspectives and using case-studies from across countries, to addressing the issues of SDGs, to creating social and economic impact in development and policy.
Accepted papers:
Paper short abstract:
This presentation addresses the SDG 1-No Poverty, by analyzing the public policies of the Argentina in the specific case of childhood. We follow Sen’ s concept of poverty when he said that poverty must be seen as the deprivation of basic needs rather than simply as a lack of income.
Paper long abstract:
This presentation addresses the goal number 1-No Poverty, by analyzing the public policies of the Argentinian State in the specific case of childhood. We follow Sen’ s concept of poverty (2000) when he said that poverty must be seen as the deprivation of basic needs rather than simply as a lack of income. The selection of this case is interesting because it is the only country in the Southern Cone of Latin America that is implementing social programs to face the drama of childhood hunger in an equally unique context of sustained growth in official poverty rates, previous the COVID-19 pandemic.
The twenty-first century has seen the emergence of innovative public policy proposals based on human rights that allow an interaction and permanent adjustment in accordance with the situations and contexts in which people live. One of the key elements underpinning such proposals is the existence of an effective, efficient, and democratic social protection network, based on the development of social policies. In this connection, Sen (2000) defines the social protection system of a country as the steady social safety net, that is, the fixed institutional arrangements and ad-hoc aid provided by the government to citizens in emergency situations. The policies analysed in this presentation are: the Universal Child Allowance for Social Protection (AUH) a monthly allowance paid to parents that are unemployed or that work in the informal economy, for each child under the age of 18 (no age limits apply in the case of children with disabilities) and the TA ( Feed Card) a card with funds for the purchase of foods to ensure access to the basic food basket for children of up to 14 years of age that receive the AUH, pregnant women from the third month of pregnancy, people with disabilities that are also beneficiaries of the AUH and mothers with seven children (or more) that receive some type of pension. The analysis shows that the TA program, focuses on the material dimension of poverty; while the AUH prioritizes attention on poverty of opportunity, trying to impact on children's ability to live the lives that children and their families value in the present and in their choices of future options. Also, the implementation structure of these two policies is related to Sen's theoretical approach, since they consider that certain groups require different resources to achieve their goals.
Paper short abstract:
The paper analyzes social vulnerability and its relation with organizational and institutional structures in Brazil in 2010 and recent developments. There is a strong relation between social vulnerability and the allocation of organizational, institutional, and financial resources on sanitation.
Paper long abstract:
Despite the UN Declaration stating that health and well-being are basic human rights, health status around the world remains unequal. While current life expectancy in developed countries is as high as 75-80 years, a child born today in Sub Saharan Africa will not live more than 50-55 years. It´s not surprising that the UN has put forth the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Health is a basic human right that is essential for the fulfilment of life and bodily health, which are necessary for survival. They also enable individuals to aspire, claim, and achieve more complex doings and beings as well as freedoms. This paper analyzes social vulnerability and its relationship with organizational and institutional structures of basic sanitation in Brazil in 2010 and recent developments. The study integrates data from: 1) 2000/2010 Social Vulnerability Index (IVS); 2) 2011 Municipal Survey (MUNIC); and 3) 2009 Finance of Brazil (FINBRA). Between 2000-2010, social vulnerability dropped 26.9%, and municipalities with high vulnerability plummeted from 45.7% to 14.4%. Results show a strong relationship between social vulnerability and the allocation of organizational, institutional, and financial resources on sanitation at the local level. Municipalities with very low vulnerability have committed significantly more resources than those municipalities with very high vulnerability. Findings are put into perspective considering more recent data on sanitation, which illuminate the setbacks and threats for Brazil to meet the SDGs targets by 2030. However, policies addressing SDG6 could change the picture dramatically creating social and economic impact in development and people´s life, if informed by the capability approach. Three conceptual bases are highlighted: 1) Ends are not just metrics, but the freedom individuals must enjoy beings and doings they value regarding their health. The process matters perhaps more than the outcome, and freedoms and well-being are developed along the process. 2) The impact of SDG6 is more on collective well-being and society at large. The capability approach is “people centered,” looking at individual per se and individuals’ relations and role as part of social networks and the broader community. 3) The capability approach puts individual agency at the center and also acknowledges the importance of organizations and institutions. Additionally, conversion factors – both social and environmental – highlight the importance of translating and/or using resources for functionings. Particularly in extreme situations, the most vulnerable and poor populations experience the most severe impacts, challenging their paths to more meaningful, free, and fulfilled lives.
Paper short abstract:
Based on the HDCA, we created the Livable Cities Index (LCI) as a collaborative tool for urban business, government, and social sector leaders to prioritize human flourishing in responding to the overwhelming managerial challenges of rapidly expanding urban populations.
Paper long abstract:
For the first time in history, humanity is an urban species. Historically, cities have been incubators of wealth spurred by growth in production and trade, but millions of new urbanites are poor, overwhelming cities with the challenges of building and managing sustainable material, administrative, and social infrastructures for a rapidly expanding population. The burden of industrial urbanization weighs most heavily on the poorest nations while wealthier nations hold levers of power shaping the future of cities. The Livable Cities Index (LCI) is a collaborative tool for urban business, government, and social sector leaders to prioritize human flourishing in responding to the overwhelming managerial challenges of rapidly expanding urban populations. The LCI integrates the HDCA with the UN-HABITAT sustainability framework to place human beings at the center defining factors for a livable city.
The time is right for US business to focus its global leadership role on a livable future for humanity and the planet. This assertion is based on four factors:
1) The UN New Urban Agenda articulates decades of multilateral, multisector effort to focus development on urban sustainability for the future of humanity and the planet.
2) The Fourth Industrial Revolution is a platform for generating the kind of knowledge, technology, and products that synergize wealth creation, human development, and sustainability. Ambivalence about “saving the world” through a new era of business is spurring public accountability for the social and environmental impact of business.
3) The “shareholder growth machine” is widely perceived as no longer viable but actually part of the sustainability problem. The 2019 Business Roundtable Statement and growth of ESG investing – despite recent challenges -- are indicators of a widespread business climate shift away from glorifying greed and towards creating wealth for the flourishing of humanity and the planet.
• Business is already pivoting away from rapacious capitalism
• Business can leverage this pivot to continue economic growth on a livable cities/sustainability platform
• Sustainability is evolving to a much broader view of human, societal, and planetary health and wellbeing.
4) Public trust in business is relatively high compared to government, the press, and other institutions. A dramatic change from a time when public trust in business was at an all-time low, this is an opportunity for business to lead in fostering livable cities initiatives.