Living policy Labs: A case study of collaborative dialogue about social protection to alleviate grievances and facilitate peaceful outcomes in Egypt

IF 5.4 1区 经济学 Q1 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES World Development Pub Date : 2024-09-26 DOI:10.1016/j.worlddev.2024.106790
Rachel Forrester-Jones , Rana Jawad , Chahir Zaki , Gihan Ismail
{"title":"Living policy Labs: A case study of collaborative dialogue about social protection to alleviate grievances and facilitate peaceful outcomes in Egypt","authors":"Rachel Forrester-Jones ,&nbsp;Rana Jawad ,&nbsp;Chahir Zaki ,&nbsp;Gihan Ismail","doi":"10.1016/j.worlddev.2024.106790","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Social protection may be regarded as the conduit for governments to end poverty (SDG1) and in turn maintain civil order/peace. However, how social protection<!--> <!-->is conceptualized alongside poverty ideology (who/what causes it and whose responsibility it is to relieve it) can negatively impact the development of social protection programs to the extent that they do not meet the social and economic needs of beneficiaries/end-users. Underpinning these views are social and political dynamics that reflect a wide range of sometimes opposing interests and social divisions. Thus, social protection inadvertently risks becoming a conduit to conflict rather than peace. In this paper we report on a living policy lab (LPL) we developed in Cairo (Egypt) to help mitigate this risk. The aim of the LPL was to facilitate dialogue between various stakeholders to support collaboration towards policy-making. First, we present an in-depth review of extant literature, discussing the viability of a ‘living policy lab’ approach to social policy making in MENA countries such as Egypt that are susceptible to conflict. Using Egypt as our focus, we critically outline its evolution of non-targeted to targeted programs and initiatives to alleviate poverty, arguing that they have been reactive and piecemeal rather than thought through (except for the universal health insurance system). We then examine findings from a project in Egypt involving a series of interrelated living policy labs (2018–2019) on social protection reform that involved a range of social actors. The aim was to explore whether, as a design process, the approach might offer an alternative shared power model that facilitates agreed policy priorities and in so doing mediates peace. In this way, we add to the scholarship on social protection by considering to what extent new approaches to policy making in contexts of conflict can support more sustainable and peace-promoting social protection interventions. We end the paper by providing recommendations in terms of research, policy and practice particularly in relation to<!--> <!-->future possibilities for consultative design theory.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48463,"journal":{"name":"World Development","volume":"185 ","pages":"Article 106790"},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Development","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X24002602","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Social protection may be regarded as the conduit for governments to end poverty (SDG1) and in turn maintain civil order/peace. However, how social protection is conceptualized alongside poverty ideology (who/what causes it and whose responsibility it is to relieve it) can negatively impact the development of social protection programs to the extent that they do not meet the social and economic needs of beneficiaries/end-users. Underpinning these views are social and political dynamics that reflect a wide range of sometimes opposing interests and social divisions. Thus, social protection inadvertently risks becoming a conduit to conflict rather than peace. In this paper we report on a living policy lab (LPL) we developed in Cairo (Egypt) to help mitigate this risk. The aim of the LPL was to facilitate dialogue between various stakeholders to support collaboration towards policy-making. First, we present an in-depth review of extant literature, discussing the viability of a ‘living policy lab’ approach to social policy making in MENA countries such as Egypt that are susceptible to conflict. Using Egypt as our focus, we critically outline its evolution of non-targeted to targeted programs and initiatives to alleviate poverty, arguing that they have been reactive and piecemeal rather than thought through (except for the universal health insurance system). We then examine findings from a project in Egypt involving a series of interrelated living policy labs (2018–2019) on social protection reform that involved a range of social actors. The aim was to explore whether, as a design process, the approach might offer an alternative shared power model that facilitates agreed policy priorities and in so doing mediates peace. In this way, we add to the scholarship on social protection by considering to what extent new approaches to policy making in contexts of conflict can support more sustainable and peace-promoting social protection interventions. We end the paper by providing recommendations in terms of research, policy and practice particularly in relation to future possibilities for consultative design theory.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
生活政策实验室:在埃及开展有关社会保护的合作对话以缓解不满情绪并促进和平成果的案例研究
社会保护可被视为政府消除贫困(可持续发展目标 1)并进而维护社会秩序/和平的渠道。然而,如何将社会保护与贫困意识形态(谁/什么导致了贫困,谁有责任消除贫困)一起概念化,会对社会保护计划的发展产生负面影响,以至于无法满足受益人/最终用户的社会和经济需求。这些观点的背后是社会和政治动态,反映了广泛的、有时是对立的利益和社会分歧。因此,社会保护有可能无意中成为冲突而非和平的渠道。在本文中,我们报告了我们在开罗(埃及)开发的 "活政策实验室"(LPL),以帮助降低这种风险。活政策实验室的目的是促进各利益相关方之间的对话,以支持政策制定方面的合作。首先,我们对现有文献进行了深入回顾,讨论了在埃及等容易发生冲突的中东和北非国家采用 "活政策实验室 "方法制定社会政策的可行性。我们以埃及为重点,批判性地概述了该国从无针对性到有针对性的扶贫计划和倡议的演变过程,认为这些计划和倡议都是被动的、零碎的,而不是经过深思熟虑的(全民医疗保险制度除外)。然后,我们研究了埃及一个项目的研究结果,该项目涉及一系列相互关联的社会保护改革生活政策实验室(2018-2019 年),涉及一系列社会参与者。目的是探讨作为一种设计过程,该方法是否可以提供一种替代的共享权力模式,促进达成一致的政策优先事项,从而调解和平。通过这种方式,我们考虑了在冲突背景下制定政策的新方法在多大程度上可以支持更可持续、更促进和平的社会保护干预措施,从而为社会保护方面的学术研究添砖加瓦。最后,我们从研究、政策和实践方面提出了建议,特别是与协商设计理论的未来可能性有关的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
World Development
World Development Multiple-
CiteScore
12.70
自引率
5.80%
发文量
320
期刊介绍: World Development is a multi-disciplinary monthly journal of development studies. It seeks to explore ways of improving standards of living, and the human condition generally, by examining potential solutions to problems such as: poverty, unemployment, malnutrition, disease, lack of shelter, environmental degradation, inadequate scientific and technological resources, trade and payments imbalances, international debt, gender and ethnic discrimination, militarism and civil conflict, and lack of popular participation in economic and political life. Contributions offer constructive ideas and analysis, and highlight the lessons to be learned from the experiences of different nations, societies, and economies.
期刊最新文献
Shine a (night)light: Decentralization and economic development in Burkina Faso A critical review of the state-of-the-art on social policy, conflict and peace in the Middle East and North Africa region: Why social policy matters for peace and why it is also not enough How wartime recruitment affects political engagement among civilians: Evidence from Côte d’Ivoire To use financial incentives or not? Insights from experiments in encouraging sanitation investments in four countries Do conditional cash transfers improve intergenerational gains in educational achievement?: Evidence from Brazil’s Bolsa Familia Program
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1