1 / 5

Group 3

Group 3. W hat have we learned? A paradigm shift is needed – this requires that we package the lessons and messages emerging from the social capital discussion in a way that can influence policy-makers

bhawthorne
Download Presentation

Group 3

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Group 3 • What have we learned? • A paradigm shift is needed – this requires that we package the lessons and messages emerging from the social capital discussion in a way that can influence policy-makers • SC gives us an analytical lens, a language and a set of tools that can be useful in reframing debates, in identifying priorities and thereby improving interventions/responses • One debate we need to intervene in is the 'AIDS exceptionalism' debate – SC may help us the reframe that question in a way that helps us see ways in which the role of AIDS-focused interventions can enhance general developmental interventions

  2. We must use the conceptual tools of SC to help rethink the role of politics and of the state in developmental and AIDS interventions • Social Capital can help 'orthodoxy' (the development establishment, our 'audience') both to 'think outside the box', to escape the strictures of standardizable interventions that tend to disregard the social aspects critical for success (at least in certain kinds of problems, like AIDS) AND to help fill the policy space with new modalities/interventions that are relationally-intensive and that build/harness bonding, bridging and linking social capital.

  3. We see an iterative, dialectical approach to developing a long-term response. There is both a need to develop a long-term vision, which requires critical thinking, new approaches and an 'idealistic' approach; and the need to develop the steps we need to take in the interrim in order to get us where we want eventually to be. So we cannot escape the urgent need to develop practical interventions, but these must be continually reassessed, including in the light of their impact on social capital • Social Capital is something that already exists in many communities and in homegrown responses – it is something to be harnessed; but it is also something that must be built. So again there must be a dialectical relationship between indigenous responses and 'outside interventions' in which both reinforce the harnessing and building of social capital.

  4. There is a Research Agenda – to identify projects/responses (either home-grown or outside) that have been successful and communicate these to policy-makers • package policy-messages in an accessible way (i.e. 2-pager type policy briefings) • develop easy to implement tools for measurement, monitoring & evaluation etc. and make available in easy to use package

  5. An important step we would advocate is that resources should be redirected to projects that build Social Capital • we discussed whether SC interventions can be 'scaled up' – most appropriate model is 'big time local development' or multiple replicability: principles that are valid across contexts, but enough local discretion to make sure projects are sensitive to the requirements of diverse contexts • depends on the research and advocacy which must be tackled in parallel

More Related