2024年衡量社会可持续性：多维方法（英）.pdf

Policy Research Working Paper10875Measuring Social Sustainability A Multidimensional Approach Paola BallonJose CuestaSocial Sustainability and Inclusion Global PracticeAugust 2024 Public Disclosure AuthorizedPublic Disclosure AuthorizedPublic Disclosure AuthorizedPublic Disclosure AuthorizedMeasuring Social Sustainability:A Multidimensional Approach Paola Ballon and Jose Cuesta World Bank Social Sustainability and Inclusion Global Practice Acknowledgement This paper has benefited from comments from Richard Damania,Louise Cord,Nikolas Myint,Alexandru Cojocaru,Ana Maria Munoz,Ezgi Canpolat,and participants of the Quality Enhancement Review that took place in August 2023.Paola Ballon is grateful to Omar Santos Alburqueque for his excellent research assistance.Keywords:Social Sustainability,Multidimensional Social Gaps,Intersectionality,Counting Approach,Peru,South Africa JEL codes:D63,J15,I30 Produced by the Research Support TeamAbstractThe Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues.An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly,even if the presentations are less than fully polished.The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly.The findings,interpretations,and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors.They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations,or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent.Policy Research Working Paper 10875While the concept of social sustainability is growing in salience,there is little consensus on how to measure it.This lack of an accepted measure makes it harder to moni-tor progress toward sustainable development goals,honor political commitments to leave no one behind,and design effective social development and protection programs.This study proposes an original measure of social sustainability and its associated fragilities in the form of multidimen-sional social gaps.The measure is anchored conceptually in the new social sustainability in development framework and applied empirically using a counting approach.The study calls this metric the Social Sustainability Index.It was piloted in Peru and South Africa,country contexts with low levels of trust,deep social tensions,and stark inequality.The measure comprises four dimensionsinclusion,resilience,social cohesion,and process legitimacymeasured by 16 indicators.The study finds that roughly two-thirds of the population in Peru and South Africa experience overlapping social gaps in the space of social sustainability.On aver-age,these populations exhibit intensity rates of 47 and 53 percent,respectively,equivalent to experiencing multiple social gaps in seven and eight indicators.Women and ethnic minorities are disproportionally fragile.Weak process legit-imacy is the main driver of multidimensional social gaps in both countries.In South Africa,low satisfaction with the way corruption is fought and deficits in government effectiveness are the principal indicators driving multidi-mensional social gaps.In Peru,inequality before the law and deficits in government effectiveness are the two indicators contributing the most to overall gaps in social sustainabil-ity.These findings call for strategies to boost accountability and inclusion beyond access to markets,services,and social benefits.This paper is a product of the Social Sustainability and Inclusion Global Practice.It is part of a larger effort by the World Bank to provide open access to its research and make a contribution to development policy discussions around the world.Policy Research Working Papers are also posted on the Web at http:/www.worldbank.org/prwp.The authors may be contacted at pballonworldbank.org.2 1.Introduction Scholars,policy makers and the public around the world are paying increasing attention to social sustainability as social,economic and environmental crises mount and intersect.The number of the extremely poor grew from 648 million to 719 million globally during the COVID-19 pandemic,reversing decades-long declines in income poverty(World Bank 2022).The fallout from the pandemic has driven the largest increase in global inequality since the Second World War(Yonzan et al.2022).Interpersonal trust is at its lowest since measurement started in the 1980s and social unrest is rising globally(ACLED 2022).Yet in contrast to monetary poverty or income inequality,social sustainability lacks a consensus empirical measure.This limits its broader adoption as a concept,monitoring,and the effectiveness of policies designed to tackle it.Without such a measure,international and national institutions cannot effectively monitor progress towards sustainable development goals,design effective social development and protection programs,or honor their political commitments to leave no one behind.Addressing deteriorating levels of social sustainability effectively requires precise estimates and agreed-upon methodologies,drawing on sources available across different country contexts that can be monitored frequently.This paper addresses this gap by proposing an original measure of social sustainability and its associated fragilities in the form of multidimensional social gaps.This measure is conceptually embedded in a framework recently developed by Barron et al(2023)and empirically anchored in the Counting Approach Methodology(Alkire and Foster 2011).The proposed measure provides an estimate of the incidence(number of individuals)and intensity(number of indicators)of simultaneous social gaps experienced by citizens in a given country in the dimensions of inclusion,resilience,social cohesion,and process legitimacy.This metric complements existing measures of national(and subnational)poverty,inequality,human capital and human development.Second,the proposed measure can be disaggregated to capture multiple social gaps across specific vulnerable groups and quantify the contribution of each dimension(and indicator)to the observed levels of social sustainability in a society.Our measuring framework thus captures the incidence,depth and composition of multidimensional social gaps in the space of social sustainability;precisely quantifies the main drivers of multidimensional social gaps;and identifies the most-excluded population groups that is,those that fail to satisfy minimum levels of inclusion,cohesion,resilience and legitimacy,and their gaps with other groups.These insights are relevant not only for measurement and monitoring,but also for policy making.We provide a proof of concept for our proposed measure in two countries,Peru and South Africa.They are good candidates for piloting our measure:they are highly unequal countries,with long-standing social tensions,low levels of trust,and a history of protracted,intergenerational vulnerabilities associated with ethnicity and race.Both countries also collect data that integrate multiple social dimensions,allowing us to assess social sustainability from a multidimensional angle.As such,Peru and South Africa provide ample context for the analysis of complex,multiple and intersecting social vulnerabilities.The paper is organized as follows.Section 2 presents the conceptual and measurement framework of social sustainability used in this paper.Section 3 describes the methodology of our proposed measure.Section 4 illustrates the construction of our new Social Sustainability Index in practice.Section 5 applies the proposed index in Peru and South Africa.Section 6 concludes,reflecting on the relevance of these results for policy design,and pathways to overcome the limitations of the proposed measure.3 2.Conceptual and Measurement Framework of Social Sustainability1 The social sustainability literature spans multiple decades across academic and professional disciplines,with diverse applications,definitions,and connotations across the public and private sectors and the global,national,and local levels.2 The initial literature on sustainability often treated the social pillar as secondary to or subsumed within environmental and economic sustainability.3 A more contemporary view is that no pillar can be understood in isolation and that all three must be considered relationally(World Bank 2013,Ballet Bazin,and Mahieu 2020).Specific to social sustainability,this concept was initially defined as“development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”(World Commission on Environment and Development,1987).At other times,social sustainability has been equated with social inclusion(World Bank,2013b).It has also been described as some combination of community and national dynamics,contemporary and intergenerational equity,social justice,voice,inclusion,participation,and citizenship(Giddings,Hopwood and OBrien,2002;McKenzie,2004;Cuthill,2010;Dempsey et al,2011;Bostrom,2012;Eizenberg and Jabareen,2017;Ballet,Bazin and Mahieu,2020).The complexity of social sustainability in terms of its components,interactions and goals has often led to unworkably long lists of attributes.In fact,the list of features employed in the literature is long and open-ended.Dempsey et al.(2011)proposed a list of 27 elements,whereas Weingaertner and Moberg(2014)identified 17 dimensions.Despite the absence of a consensus around the concept or measurement of social sustainability,there is sufficient common ground to discard some elements and include others in our proposed framework.Ballet,Bazin and Mahieu(2020)identify just three recurring aspects of social sustainability in the literature:social cohesion(coherence in the attitudes and behaviors of members of a given society),equity(lack of inequalities),and safety(protection from economic shocks).They also show that each of these components is closely connected with environmental sustainability.Littig and Griessler(2005)define social sustainability as interactions between individuals and related institutional arrangements.Those links help satisfy an extended set of human needs and fulfill the normative claims of social justice,human dignity and participation.World Bank(2005)provides a conceptually similar definition of socially sustainable development.According to the World Bank,development is socially sustainable when it promotes inclusive,resilient,cohesive and accountable institutions.More recently,Barron et al(2023)construct a social sustainability framework out of components spanning inclusion,resilience,social cohesion and process legitimacy.Barron et al(2023),arguably provide the definition and conceptual framework for social sustainability that is more rigorously grounded in the existing academic literature but that are also aligned with the key objectives,strategic priorities,and operational frameworks common in international development.Their definition is the following:1 This section draws from Barron et al(2023),Cuesta et al(2022).2 See,for instance,hman(2013);Barron et al(2023);Bostrm(2012);Boyer et al.(2016);Colantonio(2007,2009);Eizenberg and Jabareen(2017);Griessler and Littig(2005);James et al.(2013);Koning(2001);McKenzie(2004);Sachs(1999).3 See,for instance,Daly(1996);Sachs(1999);Kunz(2006);Locke and Dearden(2005);Partridge(2005);Vifell and Soneryd(2012).4 Social sustainability is when all people feel part of the development process and believe that they and their descendants will benefit from it.Socially sustainable communities and societies are willing and able to work together to overcome challenges,deliver public goods,and allocate scarce resources in ways that are perceived as legitimate and fair by all so that all people may thrive over time.(Barron et al 2023:30)This definition highlights four critical components of social sustainability:social cohesion,inclusion,resilience,and process legitimacy.A cohesive society has a shared purpose and high levels of trust,allowing communities and groups to work together toward a common good,respond to challenges,and drive real solutions and sustainable compromises.An inclusive society is one where all people have access to markets and services as well as political,social,and cultural spaces,which allows all members of society to thrive.A resilient society has the ability,capacity,and flexibility to avoid conflicts(including inter-personal violence)and to withstand,bounce back from,or absorb the impacts of exogenous shocks over time.Process legitimacy captures the processes by which policies or programs are designed and implemented within the context of existing norms and values,such that the decisions made and carried out are considered fair,credible,and acceptable by all members and groups of a given community or society.Barron et al.s(2023)definition of social inclusion aligns closely with World Bank(2005,2013b)and Das and Espinoza(2019)and shares commonalities with the definitions presented in Ballet,Bazin and Mahieu(2020).While similar Barron et al(2023)differ from Ballet et al(2020)in the following:i)they use social inclusion rather than equity;ii)focus on equal access to economic,political,civic and physical spaces instead of inequalities;iii)employ resilience instead of safety so that the framework can capture readiness to all kind of shocks;and iv)add empowerment to social cohesion,agency and participation.A particular feature of Barron et al(2023)is their inclusion of process legitimacy,feature emphasized by Pawlowski(2008)and Dempsey et al(2011)as necessary to maintain social sustainability.As such,Barron et al.s(2023)definitions and framework unite the social sustainability literature emphases on connected communities,well-being for all,durability or resilience over time,and meaningful participation and engagement,and a strong social contract within an intertemporal horizon(each emphasized in works by Dempsey et al.2011,Pierson 2002;Ratcliffe 2000).Durability and resilience focus on the stability and security of communities over time.Some literature characterizes these principles as safety,resembling but going further than resilience by emphasizing reduced vulnerability before shocks occur(Adger 2000).Meaningful participation and engagement reinforce the importance of connected and cohesive communities,underscoring the value of a strong social contract.Figure 1 shows how Barron et al.s(2023)components interact.Despite the frameworks simplicity,the interactions it portrays are,in practice,highly complex,nonlinear,and context-dependent,reflecting the rich dynamics at play in all communities and societies.The framework functions within a conceptual space known as the“policy arena”:the institutions and forums where public resources are allocated and decisions are made among individuals,government,and stakeholder groups through debate,negotiation,and compromise,with ample potential for disagreement