WELLBEING IN FOUR COUNTRIES A comparison

1. WELLBEING IN FOUR COUNTRIESA comparison Ian Gough WeD

2. Situate wellbeing research in the 4 countries in a broader national and global framework Use here Bath framework of ‘welfare regimes’: a middle range theory Consider in turn: Political economy since 1990 Wellbeing outcomes The ‘welfare mix’ Agency and collective processes Distinct welfare regimes? Conclusions Wellbeing: a comparative sketch

3. End of Cold War Export of Western proto-democratic processes Neo-liberal reforms in economic policy Isomorphism (Meyer): spread of such cognitive and institutional models But wide divergences – and steps backward And decoupling on the ground 1. BACKGROUND: CHANGING POLITICAL ECONOMY SINCE 1990

4. BACK TO THE BACKGROUND: STRUCTURES:

5. Ethiopia: 1991 defeat of Derg; 1992 EPRDF election victory. Focus on state rebuilding with Federal constitution. Relatively weak economic reforms. Continuing elections but authoritarian tendencies. Bangladesh: BNP election victory in 1990 marks end of military rule. Liberalisation, rapid economic growth and urbanisation. Growing cultural clashes with rise of millenarian Islam and entry of JMB into government. Elections now postponed. Ethiopia and Bangladesh

6. Peru: 1990 election of Fujimori, soon followed by authoritarian shift. Collapse of Sendero Luminoso. Neo-liberal reforms and economic growth, but persistent ultra-inequality and ‘sigma society’. Profound inequality and cultural divide. Thailand: 1991 coup followed by Black May and 1992 elections. Continuing capitalist boom, only briefly interrupted by 1997 crisis (though significant social impact). Hegemony of money politics. Thaksin victories ended by another coup in 2006. Peru and Thailand

7. 4 very different patterns of development (see figure) Many objective welfare outcomes map onto income per head, but many variations, eg: Bangladesh: worse poverty and malnutrition Peru: worse poverty Thailand: growing inequality 2. WELLBEING OUTCOMES: a) OBJECTIVE

9. WeDQoL goes beyond ‘happiness’: Goals of people in local contexts Necessity of goals to individuals Satisfaction of goals Study satisfaction of top 15 necessary goals. Country means for all sites Interpret findings with caution WELLBEING OUTCOMESb) Local, subjective measures: goal satisfaction

11. Ethiopia: lower mean satisfaction of basic material goals and economic prospects, including wealth, land, housing, clothes and personal progress and economic independence. But relatively high mean satisfaction with health (?), peace of mind, faith. Bangladesh: Lowest mean goal satisfaction, across collective infrastructure (roads, electricity, environment), prospects for personal progress, health and education and children and their upbringing - despite economic growth. But high value of and satisfaction with family relations. Ethiopia and Bangladesh

12. Peru: Low mean satisfaction levels echo other study findings of more negative feelings than any other Latin American country. Importance of a salaried, professional job (unique) yet very low satisfaction, reflects inequality and blocked opportunities. Thailand: highest mean satisfaction levels, especially re health and basic material needs. Less so with education and collective good goals. Lower satisfaction with goal of ‘well-behaved children’, suggesting strains of rapid growth and change. Peru and Thailand

13. 3. The welfare mix

14. Critical importance of aid (huge increase to 19% GDP by 2004); thus of donors, IGOs and INGOs Role in famine relief and emergency aid, now shift to ‘productive’ services Growing government role in aid harmonisation Community institutions include burial societies (iddirs), religious organisations and clans Heavy reliance on household strategies, including distress migration 4 different systems within one regime Welfare mix: Ethiopia

15. Past role of aid and donors, but reducing Huge role of domestic NGOs – 1200+, some very large: BRAC, Proshika, Grameen Bank Government subordinate in past to both; now seeking to formalise the relationship Hugely complex public works and relief programmes But access to programmes ‘informal’ (see below) Past and present migration yielding very large remittances Welfare mix: Bangladesh

16. Growing government programmes (including food and social assistance) New drive to decentralise plus rights discourse (legacy of SL and Truth Commission) Dual systems: 1. state plus new commercial provision 2. Vibrant community associations, fiestas, faenas, church charity Migration to secure mix and maintain Andean links Welfare mix: Peru

17. Growing state rights to education and now health care (30 Baht programme), but limited social protection Poverty discourse shifting to discourses around inequality and wellbeing Growing commercial provision New acceptance of NGOs Traditional Baan role Central role of Thai family model: diversification and internal migration + remittances to villages Welfare mix: Thailand

18. Ethiopia: Food Aid Huge scale Distribution down to kebele level: either direct or food-for-work Pros and cons: relief, unfairness, destabilization Strong cadres lessen corruption but reinforce state presence and dependency? 4.AGENCY/ COLLECTIVE PROCESSESThree case studies of assistance progs

19. Distribution of subsidised rice Obligatory UP level SKSP committees. In practice allocation via mastaans and/or doliokoron: local representatives of political parties These act as gatekeepers – and thus to many other programmes and benefits. Trade benefits for loyalty. Thus relations with key men crucial. Bangladesh: rice distribution and SKSP

20. Vaso de leche (VL): substantial programme to procure and distribute milk and foodstuffs. Followed earlier popular demonstrations. Precise legal guidelines. Each municipal government required to set up a committee CVL, comprising women reps. Tiny material benefits, but valued social-cultural links. A legitimated programme. Peru: milk and food programmes

21. Everywhere tension between formal rules and informal relations: allocative efficiency and solidarity. Tendency to latter. But different wellbeing outcomes: Ethiopia: cadre allocation; dependent insecurity Bangladesh: ‘Faustian bargain’ reproduced. Peru: more participatory and legitimate. ‘Successful state cooption’. Food assistance: rules and relationships

22. Externally-dependent informal-insecurity regime Failure of development: very low and stagnant real social resources Continuing dependence on aid and external actors. Path dependence due to ‘poverty traps, cycles and ratchets’ reproducing subsistence orientation. Thus continuing reliance on local informal mechanisms and self-help 4. DISTINCT REGIMES? Ethiopia

23. Poorly functioning informal in/security regime Domestic NGOs and remittances Some rise in public productive expenditure, but inequality and poor quality Complex intermeshing of actors generates ‘contamination’ of values, collusion, patronage and illegality Growth and democracy but political settlement blocked DISTINCT REGIMES? Bangladesh

24. Dual liberal-informal security regime Established state role but unequal access Racialised class heirarchy reproduces segmentation, inequality and poverty Insecure livelihoods mitigated by community and family mechanisms widely governed by personal relations Growing rights discourse but no sustained political settlement DISTINCT REGIMES? Peru

25. Productive – informal welfare regime Directive developmental state pursuing growth and Thai cultural values Growing rights-based productive social expenditure Generally successful family role in operating mixed livelihood portfolio – large rural base Strains of modernisation, value clashes and now postponement of democracy DISTINCT REGIMES? Thailand

26. WeD perspective helps understand contradictory impact of development and social change: WeDQoL: Local goals and individual satisfactions inform agency Different role of relationships in determining access to welfare mix Welfare outcomes shaped by operation of agency and relationships - within context of welfare regimes These shaped by common global shifts, but normally develop in path-dependent way Conclusions: WeD wellbeing approach