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.

Introduction

This chapter addresses the prospects for improved social governance to tackle the global challenges of the 21st century, as humanity moves towards more sustainable patterns of consumption and production, and hopefully a more socially responsible, equitable, inclusive and just world. In particular, the chapter critically examines the emerging social policies being articulated by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in an effort to reform global capitalism. This international organization (a rich-country club) has long been leading and coordinating policy efforts on the global stage, diffusing knowledge to member and non-member states alike with leading expertise to tackle the social, economic and governance challenges of the 21st century (Ougaard, 2010; Clifton and Díaz-Fuentes, 2011; Schmelzer, 2014). It is, at present, in the process of repositioning itself as the international institution responsible for promoting ‘global social justice’; although the issues and questions raised by this are complex, arguably much of it may be about representing a particular set of ‘Western values’ and a particular form of market ideology (see Chapters 6, 8, 11 and 12). Nevertheless, we find the OECD is now shaping important aspects of international governance and global social policy, which is the focus of this chapter, attempting to establish a new global social governance (GSG) architecture in an effort to tackle growing social inequality.

The idea of global social governance

There is no ‘world parliament’ or ‘global government’ (a government of the world) as such, at least at present (Monbiot, 2003; Weiss and Thakur, 2010; Leinen and Bummel, 2018), that can enact legislation in order to tackle the pressing global challenges of the 21st century. In this context, social scientists remain divided over whether a truly effective form of world government can realistically exist and how this can function in practice (Beeson, 2019: ch 10). The notions of ‘multi-level governance’ and ‘multilateralism’ continue to be most relevant, marred by uncertainty in the struggle for GSG, where the ‘economic’ and ‘social’ have long been separate spheres at the international level (O’Brien et al, 2000; Held, 2006; Weiss and Wilkinson, 2019). Governing the ‘social’ in a global context or GSG, then, as Bob Deacon (2003, 2007) observes, recognizes the multiple institutional levels shaping social policy in individual nation states, local, regional, sub-national to national government, to supra-national levels.

Introduction

This final chapter draws lessons from across the volume, 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’ and ‘the social question’ posed in the different chapters, reflecting further on the ‘social’ in social policy and the struggle for social sustainability in the 21st century. Emerging global social policy frameworks, and proposed pathways and alternatives for accelerating global social progress, are critically examined, alongside current issues and future challenges.

Internationalizing the social

The ‘social question’ (German: Soziale Frage, French: la question sociale, Danish: Arbejderspørgsmaalet, Swedish: arbetarfrågan) constituted the dominant social problem, to be addressed by social reforms in the early 19th century, as we heard in Chapters 1 and 3, with the emergence of social policy in Europe. Originally identified with the problem of pauperism that shaped the systems of poor relief in the 19th century (Steinmetz, 1993: ch 3), it then became bound up with ‘the workers question’ or the ‘labour question’ (die Arbeiterfrage, the question of the workers) associated with unemployment (Walters, 2000), which became ‘the international workers question’ under the auspices of the International Labour Organization (ILO) from 1919 (Bellucci and Weiss, 2020). The ‘social question’ was internationalized, key global institutions put ‘the social’ into international activities and programmes, at the ILO but also the League of Nations from 1923 (Miller, 1995), and in the work of the UN from 1945 (Emmerij et al, 2001). The League of Nations convened an Advisory Committee on Social Questions and the Health and Social Questions Section, known as the ‘Social Questions bureau’, worked to promote the welfare of women and children. While the ILO has made a key defining contribution to our understanding of social rights, especially workers’ rights, and global social justice over the last 100 years, reflected in the ideological struggles and the changing character of work and labour, advancing the rights of homeworkers in the pandemic (see, for example, Standing, 2008; Kaufmann, 2012; Kettunen, 2013; Deacon, 2015; Boris, 2019; Maul, 2019).

In national contexts, social groups and movements coalesced to counteract the dissolution of the social, labour organizations and trade union movements played a vital role in the struggle for economic and social rights (Polanyi, [1944] 2001; Fox Piven and Cloward, 1977; Esping-Andersen, 1990).

While the idea of ‘sustainability’ appears to be a relatively recent addition to the discursive field of social policy, it is also true that the ‘social’ of social policy has long been interested in issues to do with sustainability, relating to core principles of social justice, equality, welfare and wellbeing, for example, and the possibilities of democracy and being able to live in a safe environment with respect for the natural world. Yet we need a lot more work on sustainability in social policy that reflects and engenders the present struggle for sustainability, and exposes the socio-political and moral conflicts as well as the global governance debates and dilemmas facing the whole of humanity in our globalized world. It is now widely accepted that for a society to be considered sustainable, it must address environmental, ecological, economic and social concerns. Work on sustainable welfare is growing and the trend is sure to continue, complementing more longstanding concerns and debates in this field about the nature of ‘warfare states’, ‘welfare states’, ‘patriarchal welfare states’ and ‘workfare states’.

It is also true that the ‘social’ of social policy, as a field of study, has arguably not received the critical attention it deserves – a gap that this timely volume aims to fill as the coronavirus pandemic has plunged the world into a crisis like no other. The global social crisis runs deep, as we shall see. The effects of global warming, the global ‘climate and environmental emergency’, the ‘migration crisis’, global financial crisis and the latest global health and economic crisis still unfolding reveal the extent of our highly interconnected world, and the scale of the post-national political challenges, nationalism and populism and the withdrawals from international commitments. Global institutions are severely challenged and are struggling to cope with the ongoing adverse social consequences of these crises, but there is hope, for global social policy development and for (transnational) solidarity, in grassroots struggle and the growing number of networks and coalitions mobilizing for change. The 2020s needs to usher in a decade of ambitious action to accelerate socially sustainable solutions to all the world’s biggest challenges and deliver the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030.

Introduction

Welcome! This volume is a celebration of today's research effort developing ‘minimum income standards’ and ‘reference budgets’, also known as ‘family budget standards’, ‘indicative budgets’ and ‘standard budgets’, i.e. the baskets of goods and services that are considered necessary to reach a minimum standard of living for an individual or household within a given country context, region or city. In other words, how much money is needed or, how much is enough?

The volume is a much needed and long overdue international collaboration and fresh critical reflection on the state of the art written by experts in this field. It brings together up-to-date and accessible information and analysis in an effort to raise the profile and understanding of reference budget research, and put minimum income standards firmly at the heart of global social policy debates that focus on strengthening social protection systems.

The timing is important from a policy and practice point of view. This essential review of learnings to date and future prospects for research is all the more relevant in light of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, with the current crisis testing health and social protection systems and social security safety nets around the world. In an effort to promote inclusion, international organisations such as the European Commission (EC), the World Health Organisation (WHO) and International Labour Organization (ILO) have been calling on international and domestic policy makers to guarantee the minimum right to adequate social protection in order to prevent poverty and not just alleviate it. Everyone around the world should enjoy at least basic income security according to the ILO and WHO (ILO/WHO, 2011). The WHO recommends (Recommendation 7.2) national governments should now develop and implement economic and social policies that provide secure work and a living wage that takes into account the real and current cost of living for health, and (Recommendation 8.1) governments, where necessary with help from donors and civil society organisations, and where appropriate in collaboration with employers, build universal social protection systems and increase their generosity towards a level that is sufficient for healthy living (CSDH, 2008). While the European Parliament (EP) and EC has called upon European Union (EU) governments (October 2008) to establish active inclusion policies including adequate minimum income support (EP, 2009).