Social Democracy in the Global Periphery

Abstract

Social Democracy in the Global Periphery focuses on social-democratic regimes in the developing world that have, to varying degrees, reconciled the needs of achieving growth through globalized markets with extensions of political, social and economic rights. The authors show that opportunities exist to achieve significant social progress, despite a global economic order that favours core industrial countries. Their findings derive from a comparative analysis of four exemplary cases: Kerala (India), Costa Rica, Mauritius and Chile (since 1990). Though unusual, the social and political conditions from which these developing-world social democracies arose are not unique; indeed, pragmatic and proactive social-democratic movements helped create these favourable conditions. The four exemplars have preserved or even improved their social achievements since neoliberalism emerged hegemonic in the 1980s. This demonstrates that certain social-democratic policies and practices - guided by a democratic developmental state - can enhance a national economy's global competitiveness.

Increasing the Power of the Poor? NGO-led Social Accountability Initiatives and Political Capabilities in Rural Uganda

“…The limited outcomes achieved by donor-funded social accountability initiatives in sub-Saharan Africa have also been linked to a failure to engage with the structure of social and political-economic power relations, and informal incentive structures (Booth, 2012). Such findings resonate with studies that suggest better governance outcomes in the Indian states of Kerala and West Bengal have been linked to pro-poor agrarian reform, which shifts the balance of political-economic power from landlords to tenants and smallholders (Sandbrook et al, 2007;Bhattacharya and Bhattacharyya, 2013).…”

“…If anything, these have been reinforced by investing the majority of programme resources into working with local elites. As analyses from across the liberal/social democratic divide suggest, however, elites do play an important role in expanding space for alliances and participation by formerly excluded groups (Sandbrook et al, 2007;North et al, 2009). In a political-economic context where citizen agency and citizen-led action are hard to find or catalyse, and are contradictory to accepted social mores and behaviours, enhancing the advocacy capabilities of rural elites is at least a start on the road to building 'a sense of being a citizen' as Corbridge observes (2007, p. 197).…”

Developmental States: A Review of the Literature

“…7 Later in the review we will return to the tension between these developmental outcomes and ESID's concern with inclusive development, and to the work of scholars whose concepts of what kind of developmental state is needed in the future focuses on different understandings of developmental outcomes (Sandbrook et al 2007;Evans 2010;. Some argue for democratic developmental states (White 1998;Edigheji 2005Edigheji 2011.…”

“…Some argue for democratic developmental states (White 1998;Edigheji 2005Edigheji 2011. Evans recent work 8 builds on Amartya Sen's capability approach to focus on the development of capabilities of individuals rather than economic gains as the focus of the developmental state (Evans 2010(Evans , 2011 The work of Richard Sandbrook et al identifies states as a key player in development, but sees the developmental outcomes of these state-led projects to centre on building a society without poverty and social exclusion (Sandbrook et al 2007). …”

“…Moreover, the state playing a key role in development can be seen to be applicable to a wider array of countries' experiences which have not been or have only recently been discussed as developmental states. Some of these instances are very informative, but employ different terminology such as Social Democracy (Sandbrook et al 2007). …”