Social Investment According to the OECD/DELSA: A Discourse in the Making
| Date | 01 May 2013 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-5899.2012.00182.x |
| Published date | 01 May 2013 |
| Author | Rianne Mahon |
Social Investment According to
the OECD⁄DELSA: A Discourse
in the Making
Rianne Mahon
Balsillie School of International Affairs and Wilfrid Laurier University
Abstract
It is important to draw critical attention to the broad policy perspectives that travel across the globe and operate at
multiple scales. Social Investment is clearly one such set of ideas that has assumed increasing prominence over the
last two decades. Like most such rapidly diffusing ideas, however, it admits of quite different interpretations. In this
article I examine the most recent iterations of the Directorate for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs’ (DELSA)
interpretation of Social Investment against the backdrop of its earlier work. I argue that its initial formulations could
be seen as an example of inclusive liberalism. Since then, however, DELSA has begun to embrace important elements
of a social democratic version, including a concern with gender equality.
Policy Implications
•While the idea of Social Investment may have opened anew a positive role for social policy, it is insufficient for
such policies to focus narrowly on improving the human capital of the poor. Rather it is important to develop the
human capital of all.
•While Social Investment policies can include measures to facilitate work and family life it is also important to
actively promote equality of the sexes in paid and unpaid work.
•Social Investment policies, with their emphasis on the supply side, need to be complemented by policies to pro-
mote good jobs for all.
•To be effective, Social Investment policies need to be accompanied by appropriate macroeconomic policies.
It is important to draw critical attention to the broad
policy perspectives that travel across the globe and
operate at multiple scales. Social investment is clearly
one such set of ideas that has assumed increasing prom-
inence over the last two decades. Like most such rapidly
diffusing ideas, however, it admits of quite different
interpretations. For some, it simply represents a develop-
ment of neoliberalism (Craig and Porter, 2004) while for
others it represents a significant break with neoliberal
assumptions (Morel et al., 2011). The Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) – or
more specifically the Social Policy Division within the
Directorate for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs
(DELSA) – which made an important contribution to the
creation and dissemination of the Social Investment per-
spective, has articulated its own version, one that has
continued to undergo important modifications over the
course of the last two decades.
This article aims to contribute both to the growing lit-
erature on travelling policy ideas and to debates on
Social Investment and ties these two themes together
through an examination of the formulation and fleshing
out of DELSA’s version of Social Investment. With regard
to the first, I develop the concept of ‘organisational dis-
course’ as a way of examining how a particular interna-
tional organisation (IO), or part thereof, places its stamp
on travelling policy ideas. While Dostal was the first to
use the concept, I render the concept more dynamic,
arguing that such discourses, which encapsulate ‘long
term political projects as defined by the organization in
question’ (Dostal, 2004, p. 445), do not emerge fully
formed but rather are open to reformulations over the
course of their existence. With regard to the second, I
argue that there are different versions of Social Invest-
ment. While some remain firmly within the neoliberal
paradigm, another, which I label the ‘social inclusion’
variant, represents a partial break. Only the third, which
Morel et al. label the social democratic version, repre-
sents a potential alternative to neoliberalism. Tying the
two strands together, I argue that DELSA’s initial formu-
Global Policy Volume 4 . Issue 2 . May 2013
ª2012 London School of Economics and Political Science and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Global Policy (2013) 4:2 doi: 10.1111/j.1758-5899.2012.00182.x
Research Article
150
To continue reading
Request your trial