Social
Competencies: Human development beyond the individual
Individuals cannot flourish alone; indeed,
they cannot function alone. The human development approach, however, has been essentially individualistic, assuming that
development is the expansion of individuals’ capabilities or freedoms. Yet there
are aspects of societies that affect individuals but cannot be assessed at the
individual level because they are based on relationships, such as how well
families or communities function, summarized for society as a whole in the
ideas of social cohesion and social inclusion.
Individuals are bound up with others.
Social institutions affect individuals’ identities and choices. Being a member
of a healthy society is an essential part of a thriving existence. So one task
of the human development approach is to explore the nature of social institutions that are favourable for
human flourishing.
Development then has to be assessed not only for the short-run impact on
individual capabilities, but also for whether society evolves in a way that
supports human flourishing. Social conditions affect not only the outcomes of individuals in a
particular society today, but also those of future generations.
Social institutions are all institutions in
which people act collectively (that is, they involve more than one person),
other than profit-making market institutions
and the state. They include formal nongovernmental organizations, informal
associations, cooperatives,
producer associations, neighbourhood associations, sports clubs, savings
associations and many more. They also consist of norms and rules of behaviour
affecting human development outcomes. For example, attitudes towards employment
affect material well-being, and norms of hierarchy and discrimination affect
inequality, discrimination, empowerment, political freedom and so on. To
describe what those institutions can be and do, and to understand how they
affect individuals, we can use the term social competencies.
Central to the human development
perspective is that societal norms affect people’s choices and behaviours
towards others, thus influencing
outcomes in the whole community. Community norms and behaviours can constrain
choice in deleterious ways from a
human development perspective-for example, ostracizing, or in extreme cases
killing, those who make choices that contravene
social rules. Families trapped in poverty
by informal norms that support early marriage and dowry requirements might
reject changes to such entrenched social norms. Social institutions change over
time, and those changes may be accompanied by social tension if they hamper the
interests of some groups while favouring others. Policy change is the outcome
of a political struggle in which different groups (and individuals) support or
oppose particular changes. In this struggle, unorganized individuals are generally
powerless, but by joining together they can acquire power collectively. Social
action favouring human development (such as policies to extend education,
progressive taxation and minimum wages) happens not spontaneously, but because
of groups that are effective in supporting change, such as producer groups,
worker associations, social movements and political parties. These
organizations are especially crucial for poorer people, as demonstrated by a
group of sex workers in Kolkata, India, and women in a squatter community in
Cape Town, South Africa, who improved their conditions and self-respect by joining
together and exerting collective pressure.
Societies vary widely in the number,
functions, effectiveness and consequences of their social competencies.
Institutions and norms
can be classified as human development–promoting, human development–neutral and
human development–undermining. It
is fundamental to identify and encourage those that promote valuable
capabilities and relationships among and between individuals and institutions.
Some social institutions (including norms) can support human development in
some respects but not in others: for example, strong family bonds can provide
individuals with support during upheavals, but may constrain individual choices
and opportunities.
Broadly speaking, institutions that promote
social cohesion and human development show low levels of disparity across
groups (for example, ethnic, religious or gender groups) and high levels of
interaction and trust among people and across groups, which results in solidarity and the absence of
violent conflict. It is not a coincidence that 5 of the 10 most peaceful
countries in the world in 2012, according to the Global
Peace Index, are also among the most equal societies as measured by loss in
Human Development Index value due to inequality. They are also characterized by
the absence of discrimination and low levels of marginalization. In some
instances anti discriminatory measures can ease the burden of marginalization
and partially mitigate the worst effects of exclusion. For instance, US law
mandating that hospital emergency rooms offer treatment to all patients regardless
of their ability to pay partly mitigates the impact of an expensive health
care system with limited coverage, while affirmative
action in a range of countries (including Brazil, Malaysia, South Africa and
the United States) has improved the situation
of deprived groups and contributed to social stability.
The study of social institutions and social
competencies must form an essential part of the human development approach-including
the formation of groups; interactions between groups and individuals;
incentives and constraints to collective action; the relationship among groups, politics and policy
outcomes; the role of norms in influencing behaviours; and how norms are formed and changed.
By : F Stewart, Source : Human Development Report 2013
0 comments:
Post a Comment