What is the potential for plural ownership to support a more inclusive economy? A systematic review protocol

Abstract

Background The world is facing an unprecedented systemic shock to population health, the economy and society due to the devastating impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. As with most economic shocks, this is expected to disproportionately impact vulnerable groups in society such as those in poverty and those in precarious employment as well as marginalised groups such as women, the elderly, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups and those with health conditions. The current literature is rich in normative recommendations on plural ownership as a key building block of an inclusive economy rooted in communities and their needs. There is, however, a need for a rigorous synthesis of the available evidence on what impact (if any) plural ownership may potentially have on the inclusivity of the economy. This review seeks to synthesise and compare the available evidence across the three economic sectors (private, public and third). Methods We will search eight bibliographic databases (Sociological abstracts, EBSCO Econlit, OVID Embase, OVID Medline, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA), ProQuest Public Health, Web of Science, Research Papers in Economics (Repec) – EconPapers) from the earliest data available in each database until January 2021. Grey literature will be identified from Google (advanced), Google Scholar and 37 organisational websites identified as relevant to the research question. We will include comparative studies of plural ownership from high-income countries that report outcomes on access to opportunities, distribution of benefits, poverty, and discrimination. A bespoke search strategy will be used for each website to account for the heterogeneity in content and search capabilities and will be fully documented. A standardised data extraction template based on the Population-Intervention-Context-Outcome (PICO) template will be developed. We will assess the strength of evidence for different forms of economic ownership identified in relation to the impact of each on the four economic outcomes of interest, paying particular attention to the role of wider contextual factors as they emerge through the evidence. Discussion The findings of this review are intended to inform policymaking at local, national and international level that prioritises and supports the development of different economic and business models. Systematic review registration Open Science Framework registration DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/BYH5A

Rural waste management model in creating an inclusive economy

“…Because basically waste management does affect the socio-economic life of the community [19]. When referring to the concept of an inclusive economy [33], The following has been done by Taro Village in managing its waste: 1) Institutional, governance and economic objectives are designed to achieve equity, transparency and accountability. This can be seen in the management aspect where everything is planned to involve various parties and support existing programs in the village that aims to create prosperity for the people of Taro Village.…”

“…Inclusive economy growth is a part of sustainable economic growth as stated in the SDGs, which are creating equity, reduce poverty and unemployment, and encourage faster economic growth [32]. Inclusive economy [33] includes: 1) Institutions, governance and economic objectives are designed to achieve equity, transparency and accountability; 2) Access to various opportunities, including access to education, training, job ownership and running a business and everyone has the opportunity to succeed [34]; 3) Distribution of benefits from the economy; 4) Reducing the poverty rates [35]; 5) Absence of discriminatory practices both active and passive; 6) Operate within planetary scope; and 7) Reduce the negative impact of intersectionality. In the province of Bali, waste is a very serious problem that threatens the tourism sector [36].…”

Assessing the effects of population-level political, economic and social exposures, interventions and policies on inclusive economy outcomes for health equity in high income countries: A systematic review of reviews

“…The focus on, primarily, 'corrective' interventions/policies examined by the reviews suggests that future synthesis should examine a wide range of more 'upstream' exposures/interventions/policies in economic development (16,22). Fruitful areas for future reviews would include: income-based policies such as minimum income standards, (93); good work (2); community wealth building (including anchor institutions and different forms of ownership models (94); the delivery of affordable essential services including housing, transport, digital connectivity and food; education, training and skills (e.g. early years, childcare, primary, secondary and further education); social capital and community infrastructure (including the non-paid economy such as caring, volunteering or mutual aid); community empowerment and engagement; and addressing equitable wealth distribution.…”