Social policy by numbers. How international organisations construct global policy proposals

Abstract

Considering the socio‐economic and cultural diversity of the world, it is a bold undertaking by international organisations to propose welfare policies designed to apply to all or many countries. We argue that since the 1990s, new instruments of quantification have extended the knowledge base of international organisations, helping them to design and communicate policy proposals with a global scope. We map these numerical instruments in the field of basic income protection, showing that they serve to identify global social problems and to design global models of welfare. Three case studies illustrate the findings. To make sense of the spread of quantification, we draw on world society theory, arguing that the numerical instruments create a global space of observation, comparison and deliberation regarding social reform. We conclude that numerical instruments have facilitated the expansion of global social protection since the 1990s, but have also narrowed social concerns in the process.

Revisiting global development frameworks and research on universal basic education in Ghana and Sub‐Saharan Africa: a review of evidence and gaps for future research

“…World Bank, DHS, MICS, LSS, etc.) which define schooling access from the perspective of enrolment and completion statistics (Lewin, 2011; Fukuda‐Parr and Yamin, 2013; Berten and Leisering, 2016; Unterhalter, 2019). For instance, UNESCO’s EfA Global Monitoring Reports (GMR) have over the past two decades used enrolment and completion (gross and net) rates as the main tools for tracking individual country progress in meeting their development targets in the basic education sector (Kuépié et al , 2015; UNESCO, 2015; UNESCO, 2019).…”

“…DHS and MICS), it becomes feasible for policy‐makers to define not only educational problems, but also their policy solutions from global and regional perspectives. The design and implementation of policy solutions such as school fees abolition, school feeding programmes, and other cash transfer programmes to booster schooling access are, for instance, key examples of global practices of policy‐learning in SSA, brought about by the indicator approach (Berten and Leisering, 2016).…”

“…Based on this review, we advance the argument that the emergence of global development frameworks such as EfA, MDGs, and SDGs have reinforced a culture of quantifying educational access, and have neglected research in exploring how educational access is experienced, especially in the field of basic education. Though SSA governments have relied on enrolment and completion indicators in educational policy‐making and planning since independence, recent usage of these indicators to measure progress across countries has given rise to international datasets (Berten and Leisering, 2016) which make it possible to frame, define and monitor educational problems and their policy solutions from a global outlook. This development has focused current global discourse surrounding basic education access on enrolment and completion statistics.…”

Policy making and governance structures in Zimbabwe: examining their efficacy as a conduit to equitable participation (inclusion) and social justice for rural youths

“…Although the sixth rung is adult initiated, there is, however, shared decision making with children which is essential in development programs, i.e. it determines the level of support that a project will receive from community members (Berten & Leisering, 2017). Hart (2008, p. 26) then outlines the need to include groups that may be excluded because of some special characteristic, including age and disability.…”

The Global Governance of Systemic Risk: How Measurement Practices Tame Macroprudential Politics

“…In their efforts to govern systemic risk, both the FSB and the IMF have sought to operationalise it through quantification. Many IOs design and diffuse various quantitative tools for evaluation, which offer (potentially misleading) informational shortcuts to governance action (Berten andLeisering 2017, Broome et al 2018). In addition to representing it, metrics mould the social world as they sanction particular conceptualisations that, in turn, shape actors' behaviour (Espeland andStevens 2008, p. 412-6, Hansen andPorter 2012).…”