Sei sulla pagina 1di 11

Social Sustainability

A review
Joachim H. Spangenberg

Social sustainability is not the social tolerability of environmental policy measures (in particular for economic instruments, see (OECD 2001, 2001), with sustainability perceived as a potential obstacle to social development. To the contrary: from the outset, the definition of the Brundtland Commission, it is a constitutive dimension of sustainable development, important in its own right as much as in its interaction with the other dimensions. 1. Lack of theory Since the mid-1990s, in particular in the German language area, some groundbreaking work on the social conditions of sustainable development has been undertaken. They refer to the socio-economic impacts of environmental sustainability strategies (Fischer-Kowalski et al. 1995), to social politics (Opielka 1997;1998), basic needs and social capital (Empacher, Wehling 1999; 2002) and highlight the dependency of social analysis on social theory (Empacher, Wehling 1999). Internationally, the work of the European Foundation on Social Quality, Amsterdam, the Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Dublin, the ILO (mostly work related), the OECD (on social and in particular on human capital) and UNESCO (the MOST project) have to be mentioned, amongst others. Nonetheless so far a clear theoretical concept of social sustainability is still missing (Littig, Grieler 2005, p.68), and this deficit makes it difficult to structure and prioritise the different elements developed in an ad hoc fashion, responding to certain problems or project priorities, which dominate the current debate. Consequently, objectives [] often comprise a theoretically unfounded selection of assumptions, goals and indicators of socio-political governance. [] It still appears to be rather unclear what social matters really means and what kind of dynamics and breaks exist therein. (Littig, Grieler 2005, p. 67). There is a dearth of available literature on [] the precise causal relationships between [the] various aspects of social sustainability (McKenzie 2004, p.14), not least because the social sciences have stayed rather quiet in the debate on sustainable development as such (Koning 2001, p.7). As a result, there is a paucity of genuine research within the framework of sustainability into what sustains and promotes an equitable and just society (McKenzie 2004, p.11). This is not only a scientific deficit, it also has political repercussions: Much macro-level social theory and policy has thus far failed to develop sufficient frameworks for social sustainability (McKenzie 2004, p.17), in particular as in national strategies, [] ideas are also subject to the usual deformations and selectivity of the political process, [which] often simplifies, reduces and changes the initial focus (Littig, Grieler 2005, p.67). This situation has two consequences: in future, more theoretical research is needed to be able to permanently correct the aberrations occurring in the political process, and for the present situation it is necessary to clearly distinguish between scientific and political concepts of social sustainability. One of the reasons why scientists have been reluctant to engage with the issue of social sustainability may be the fact that any research result is easily prone to value-laden, normative and political interpretations. However, this is not an aspect which can be avoided, as social sustainability (as already the term social) has both an analytical and a normative connotation. What is necessary is to lay open this Ianus face and make explicit when normative settings or assumptions are used in the analytical process. For this behalf, however, first of all an analytical framework must be developed.

2. Analytical approaches Three kinds of analytical approached have dominated the debate, one based on functionality analysis (often in studies of rural, urban or community sustainability), one based on the notion of capital stocks, and one using system analysis as a means of describing sustainable development and social sustainability in particular. All three have to decide in first instance, how to structure their analytical space, i.e. into how many axes (domains, capital stocks or subsystems) society and its development processes are analytically subdivided. Here a consensus seems to emerge: for all schools of thought the economy and the environment are two distinct axes, and the social is increasingly divided into two additional axes, establishing a four-dimensional analytical space. The two social axes are the human (system, capital, domain) and the societal (for the capital stocks, see Serageldin 1996; Goodland 2002; for community analysis and the need for individual/human plus social/community capacity see Chambers, Conway 1992; Scoones 1998; for system analysis see Bossel 1999; Spangenberg 2001). Both together are also labelled soft infrastructure, mainly by (urban) planners. However, the way these axes are structured, whether they analysed separately or in conjunction, whether their interplay is taken into account or the analysis is restricted to an autistic dimension, all this varies between and also within the different schools. One more difference concerns the very definition of social sustainability: whereas in capital stock analysis (Hicksian income) and in system analysis (system maintenance) one easily formulated (not necessarily operationalised) minimum criterion prevails, in functional analysis this is not the case. Here no easy-to-define minimum exists, and it hardly possible to clearly separate what is the minimum social requirements for long-term development (critical social capital to some), i.e. to identify the challenges to the very functioning of the society in the long run, and what the desirable policies to optimise development and increase welfare. According to Biart (2002, p.6) only the former should be considered as social sustainability, but most authors (e.g. Chambers, Conway 1992; Sachs 1999; Barron, Gauntlett 2002; Hildebrandt 2002; Littig, Grielert 2005) prefer the latter usually a mix of both results when defining social sustainability criteria. 2.1 Functional analysis Functions and their realisation differ according to the specific circumstances, locality, culture and institutional setting, and they change over time. Little wonder then that functional studies often emphasise the difficulty of generalisations and prefer community studies as an empirical base, be it in rural studies or in the analysis of urbanisation. When analysing the sustainability of communities, (most often with o policy background), the given situation, i.e. the state of sustainability is as important as the mechanisms which brought about a satisfactory situation, or which have been causing havoc. Defining a normative objective permits to compare the status quo to it and define a distance to target, and the process analysis is then the basis for policy suggestions how to close the (social) sustainability gap. Whereas in such a setting the analysis as such is often part of a scientific undertaking, the strategy development is part of a political process, with immanent difficulties for the use of scientific information mentioned earlier. This causes problems insofar, as if the norms are already a part of the definition, evaluation is restricted to measure the degree of norm fulfilment, but cannot assess the objective against other norms and values. Another problem from a scientific point of view is the deficit in clearly defined terms describing social sustainability components there is always the temptation to define one new characteristic by using a series of other, scientifically also undefined terms, Such a kind of approach may have appeal in the political arena, where only vaguely defined terms can have a high level of resonance, but it helps neither in the development of theory nor in its operationalisation (since this is always concrete). This is less the case if social sustainability is described as the task to maintain and develop societal resources, and to guarantee equal opportunities to access them (McKenzie 2004, p.13); the normative

component unavoidable in functional studies is very obvious), but it is clearly visible in some other definitions of social sustainability: Social sustainability as safeguarding the functionality of communities they should be healthy, inclusive, vital and enterprising, according to the Bank of I.D.E.A.S., Australia. A socially sustainable society is one that is just, equitable, inclusive and democratic, and provides a decent quality of life for current and future generations (E. Partridge, University of Technology, Sydney) Social sustainability is the orderly progress of society. (Ahmad, Ahmed ) Social sustainability of a city is development and/or growth that is compatible with the harmonious evolution of civil society fostering an environment conducive to the compatible cohabitation of culturally and socially diverse groups while at the same time encouraging social integration, with improvements in the quality of life for all segments of the population. (Polese, Stren 1999) Social sustainability includes achieving affair degree of social homogeneity, equitable income distribution, employment that allows the creation of decent livelihoods, and equitable access to resources and social services, [] a balance between respect for tradition and innovation, and self-reliance, endogeneity and self-confidence. (Sachs 1999), p.32-33; note the cross reference to the economic domain!). Social sustainability is a life-enhancing condition within communities, and a process within communities that can achieve that condition.(McKenzie 2004), p.12) Social sustainability occurs when formal and informal processes, systems, structures and relationships actively support the capacity of future generations to create healthy and liveable communities. Socially sustainable communities are equitable, divers, connected and democratic and provide a good quality of life(Barron, Gauntlett 2002).

The latter definition resembles some elements of the political science description of societal decision making processes for sustainable development. In this case, all elements involved in or contributing to the decision making process are classified as institutions (which can be formal or informal, implicit or explicit), subdivided into organisations, mechanisms and orientations (March, Olson 1996). Their specific realisation and their interplay are crucial for social sustainability (Spangenberg. 2002). The WACOSS study refers to the relevant organisations and mechanisms, but does not make the orientations of society a research issue maybe here some fruitful crossing-over could emerge. Whereas case studies usually focus on the functionality of individual institutions, political analysis must view the system of institutions as a whole, as the system functionality (and its resilience) comes from the diverse functionalities of each institution, plus the redundancies at the macro level. In this respect, institutional analysis is complementary to functional analysis on the micro scale. Also governance studies and concepts, in particular the Dutch approach of transition management by initiating social discourses have increasing overlaps with the social sustainability concept as published by WACOSS. However, the fruitful the exchange between these schools may be, it is the point where the analytical discussion converts into a policy strategy approach. A focus on work and labour Some European authors emphasise the central role of work (enumerated labour and unpaid, voluntary and caring work) for the social sustainability of our (post-) Fordist work societies. Work in the broadest sense (paid and unpaid labour, care work) plays a central role for sustainability. (Littig, Grieler 2005, p.71). This combines a normative dedication to (and often the explicit call for) gender mainstreaming with the analytical insight that a reform of the organisation of work is a crucial condition for social sustainability (Hildebrandt 2002). Consequently, for (Littig, Grieler 2005) work plays an important role in the definition; for them social sustainability is a quality of societies. It signifies the nature-society relationships, mediated by work, as well as relations with the society. Social sustainability is given, if work within a society and the related institutional arrangements Satisfy an extended set of human needs,

Are shaped in a way that nature and its reproductive capabilities are preserved over a long period of time and The normative claims of social justice, human dignity and participation are fulfilled. (p. 72). In a major research project in Germany dedicated to this purpose, social sustainability was defined as having simultaneously a self-determined lifestyle through a mix of paid and voluntary work, the satisfaction of basic needs, a reliable social security system, equal opportunities to participate in a democratic society enabling social innovation and structuring of work types (Hans-BcklerFoundation 2001). In this context, sustainable work was defined as work that allows a sustainable lifestyle, from an employment perspective characterised by the following:

a work structure which guarantees the long-term health of the employee and allows him or her to lead a healthy lifestyle (health & safety at work, limits in respect of the extension of working hours and intensity of work and stress caused by deadlines and in coordinating the various components of work); a remuneration structure, which at least guarantees a basic income throughout life, and provides for basic needs and active participation in society; the facilitating of mixed work options, i.e. simultaneous combination of paid work with voluntary caring and community work and work as a self-provider [Eigenarbeit] and the changes in this combination as regards career portfolio (access and transition). This should make it possible to do justice to the socio-environmental interests and perspectives of the individual and to increase social justice between the sexes and between age groups (particularly in terms of time and education policy); cooperation on products, services and care networks which improve environmentally acceptable provision and the production of which is itself structured in companies, organisations and associations on a socio-environmental basis; promotion of individual structuring and social innovation in all types of work, through improvement of legal and institutional requirements (works constitution, activating organisations). From this perspective, the link of economic and social developments requires political attention, as social sustainability appears threatened by the current form of globalisation. This is clearly visible in the analysis of Raymond Torres, a former senior ILO official, who has identified four key trends which are nowadays threatening social sustainability, as a result of the process of globalisation (Torres 2001): the emerging, highly volatile new patterns of employment; leading to the growing job insecurity, caused by accelerated technological change, the possibilities to relocate production and the unwillingness to train the incumbent staff; and the decreasing levels of corporate and income taxes, eroding the financial basis of the welfare state, contributing to the increasing income inequalities, from polarised primary income distribution and reduced redistribution activities.

2.2 The capital stock approach In capital stock terminology, the social is usually understood as the sum of human and social capital. Human capital, introduced in the 1960s as the societies endowment of educated, trained and healthy workers, as a contribution to overall productivity is now rather used to describe knowledge, education and skills (Costanza et al. 1997; Cocklin, Alston 2003) or labour.

Social capital Social capital has been widely used to cover social networks, contacts and trust (Coleman 1990) on the macro level,

Social capital includes both social structure at large and the norms guiding interpersonal behaviour (Koning 2001, p.10), Livelihood is constructed from natural capital, economic capital, human capital and social capital. The latter consists of social resources such as networks, social claims, social relations, affiliations and associations (Chambers, Conway 1992; Scoones 1998).

but it has also been applied to the micro level, e.g. for characterising livelihoods:

Bourdieu (1986), one of the first to use the terminology, distinguishes between social capital, which is the sum of actual or potential resources that accrue to an individual or a group by virtue of possessing a durable network of relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition (Woolcock 1998), and cultural capital. The latter can be embodied as a state of the mind or body, objectified in the form of cultural goods, or institutionalised He furthermore defines symbolic and linguistic capital, (Bourdieu 1983). Berkes and Folke (1994) use the term cultural capital to refer to the system of institutions, i.e. the rules of society, including socio-political institutions, values and needs, social preferences, environmental ethics and knowledge. It reflects the aptitude or inclination of a group or society to behave in a certain way. Even more generally, Spangenberg distinguishes human and social capital as the intra- and interpersonal assets relevant for the purpose of investigation, i.e. sustainable development, including the system of institutions and thus the cultural capital into the social capital (Spangenberg. 2001). However, capital stock terminology and definitions in the social sciences are by far not the same as in economics. The term got a specific economic interpretation when at the World Bank Serageldin (1996) analysed the factors contributing to economic growth and realised that social capital was a relevant production factor (in fact it is human and social capital as opposed to natural and manufactured capita that were responsible for most of the economic development in the later years of the 20th century). However, he did not provide a definition and a method of calculation, but estimated social capital as a residual. (Messner 1996) identified the elements contributing to different growth rates in otherwise similar contexts and with rather identical micro- and macro-policies as networks, formal and informal institutions and called them the meso level of the economy (he also added a meta level of orientations). Whereas Goodland, another World Bank economist, defines human capital rather clearly as health, education, skills, knowledge, leadership, access to services and points to the fact that it needs two to three decades of investment and apprenticeship to realise some of the potential each individual contains, he gives no clear definition of Serageldins residual, social capital. Instead he describes it as the basic framework for society, creating trust (thus lowering transaction costs) and facilitating cooperation. According to him, it needs participation and a strong civil society, cohesion, connectedness, reciprocity, tolerance, compassion, patience, generally accepted standards of honesty, discipline and ethics. Social capital, as ongoing aggression and social tensions show, is undercapitalised (Goodland 2002) (note that health and education, by authors from the social sciences often considered part of the social capital, are here counted as human capital, i.e. individual achievements under individual responsibility this is a normative position as well). Capital in social sciences is broader than its pure economic connotation. It often denotes the idea of a resource which (or with which) can be invested in other resources with possible expected returns. (Koning 2001, p.7). However, using the capital stock terminology often leads to further use of economic concepts, and to a focus on production:

Social capital, like all capital, is a resource into which other resources can be invested with the expected (uncertain) return, it is both appropriable and convertible, and it can be a substitute or complement to other resources. (Koning 2001, p.11). Social capital is productive networks and shared values, institutional capital institutional structures in the private, public and third sector. (Cocklin, Alston 2003). Putnam defines social capital as the features of social organisation, such as trust, norms and networks that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated actions. Norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness arise from such networks (Koning 2001, p.10). Portes concludes that there is emerging a consensus that social capital stands for the ability of actors to secure benefits by virtue of memberships in social networks and other social structures. (Koning 2001, p.10. Such benefits can be economic and political efficiency, but can also lie in the social domain such as a sense of belonging, status and prestige. (Koning 2001, p.11).

Most of these definitions are descriptive, and do not analyse the mechanisms how the social capital is produced. Some definitions even eliminate the process of production completely, describing social capital as an asset, occurring naturally and to a varying degree within societies, which allows them to maintain coherence and overcome change and hardship. (McKenzie 2004, p.13). Social sustainability Social capital is an analytic category, and its link to the normative concept of sustainability deserves a closer look. Usually the definition is that social sustainability is equivalent to maintaining the stock of social capital, or using only the surplus, the interest generated from it. This however is the fallacy of economic thinking: whereas manufactured capital loses value much faster when used, and needs to be replenished from the results of the productive use, there is consensus that social capital deteriorates when not used, but grows when used (the same is true for human capital). Man-made capital is consumed in the process of use, social and human capital are created: the standard economic definition cannot but fail due to the different dynamics. The second problem with the capital stock based definition of social sustainability the key condition maintaining the capital stock. As sustainable development (as the term development implies) is a dynamic process, this cannot mean to maintain every single element summarised under the term of social capital. Instead every economist would agree that it is the value of the capital stock which needs to be maintained. However, what is the value of a capital stock? It can only be calculated, if the goods within such a stock are homogenous, i.e. commensurable and possible substitutes. Economists speak of a functional equivalent, but in which respect can a bridge be a functional equivalent for a factory? Only if all goods within the capital stock are valued only with respect to one purpose, their contributions to value creation (expressed as market prices it would be more plausible to describe them as contributions to the production process, but the neoclassical marginalism is no production theory). In this one respect all goods are interchangeable substitutes but should there be a single purpose which provides the yardstick for all elements of the social capital stock regarding their contribution? Isnt a modern society a priori a pluralistic, multi-purpose, and multi-value entity (the characteristics mentioned to exemplify social sustainability support this point, as they cannot be reduced to a singe purpose). Finally, the above definitions of social capital refer to structures, not the quality of their effects, and extensive networks of organised criminals, like mafia, prostitution and drug trafficking, users of child pornography etc. would fulfil the criteria of social capital, but would hardly be considered a contribution to social sustainability. Similarly, formation of a social group is by definition a process to distinguish inside and outside, so inclusion is always associated with the exclusion of others (and a high level of coherence can imply militancy against outsiders). More generally spoken, from a social sustainability perspective there can be negative as well as positive social capital, and it is a matter of the normative definition to distinguish both. The capital stock approach, borrowed from economics, knows no qualities, and is not capable to make this important distinction.

There are two main reasons to use the capital stock terminology on the one hand, the hope to gain from the economic methodology and to be able to quantify the social capital stock, thus demonstrating its importance. This intention, however honourable, is bound to fail unless the whole of social capital (plus the human and, depending on the definition, the cultural capital) are valued for one single purpose a nonsensical suggestion for a pluralistic society. The other motivation for using the economic terminology (albeit with a different definition of capital) has been that economics is the language of power, a way to communicate to decision makers in politics, media and business. However, exactly the fact that the addressees think in economic (most often simplified neoclassical) categories makes it illusory to communicate to them on the basis of other than the economic definitions, all their connotations included. And as always in social systems, there are feedback lops: economic language is not restricted to the capital term, but scholars talk about investments, returns, efficiency gains, and all these categories will be interpreted by their audience in a non-social (in the normative sense of the word), economic context. One cannot have the cake and eat it. 2.3 Systems analysis Few human activities, individually or collectively, do not involve all four dimensions; at least the human and the societal/institutional ones are always present. Each of them is a complex, dynamic, self-organising and evolving entity in its own right, making the coupled system one of tremendous complexity. For this system to be sustainable, each of the four subsystems has to have the capability to maintain its capability to survive and evolve, and the interlinkages of the subsystems must enable a permanent co-evolution. For adequate analysis and prognoses or at least to avoid wrong ones the appropriate level of complexity for descriptions and models has to be found. As the four dimensions are omnipresent in human life, sustainable development can be understood as a normatively defined group of specific constellations in all four dimensions, characterised by the fact that their synergetic interaction produces a variety of feasible pathways towards a stable development of the overall system. As this includes the need to permanently reproduce the each of the four subsystems of each society, sustainability is characterised by reproductive societies, while industrial societies are productive societies. Social systems like the society, the population or the economy are dynamically evolving systems. Thus sustainable development can be considered as an optimisation process for an evolving system consisting of four independent but coupled subsystems. Each of these has its own geographical scope, logic, rhythms, time scales and dynamics, is regulated by different mechanisms and responsive to different influences. It is this dynamic of the systems, their viability and resilience that is the precondition for the recovery after external disturbances e.g. by conflicts or human exploitation, and that has to be sustained in the long run (Spangenberg 2001). On the other hand, due to the non-linear character of environmental, economic, social (institutional) and human (psychological) dynamics any predictions e.g. regarding the results of specific policy measures are only of limited reliability, in particular in the longer term. The resulting limitations to external steering capabilities are one reason to consider sustainable development an iterative process in need of a broadly based participative governance in order to keep it on track, i.e. social sustainability comprising these elements is a necessary condition for the overall system sustainability.. The four subsystems, their mutual interconnectedness and the importance of the interlinkages as fields of developing integrative and if possible synergistic policies are the domain of system analysis (system analysis is here not understood in the sense of the Luhmann steering scepticism, nor in the 1960s steering optimism, but as a tool used in a steering realism approach (Brand 2002). Thus the research question as suggested by Littig and Grieler (2005) how can societies regulate and change their processes and structures so as to ensure the chances for development of future generations? (p. 69). Safeguarding their sustainability cannot mean freezing a specific state, but must be a protection of the capability to co-evolve with each other and the natural system in which they are embedded. Sustainability policy has to avoid or overcome lock-ins, use or create bifurcations where the current

development trajectory leads to unsustainable, i.e. undesirable results, and enhance the system sensitivity for change and its capability to cope with it, or proactively implement it. Social sustainability in a systems analysis sense includes both, sustaining a particular resilient state and adjusting to changing internal and external conditions (Khn, Gowdy 2001). In this way, social sustainability policy enhances the system viability and resilience (which may be based on moral, kinship, identity and other factors, and reduces the vulnerability of societies and communities (Ahmad, Ahmed). Brandl describes the objective clearly, stating that the approach aims to uphold both the functionality and the resilience of linked sub-systems, thus keeping the whole system stable. (Brandl 2002, p.13). Peet and Bossel (2000) distinguish an economic, a natural, a human and a social system, formulation criteria based on Bossels orientor theory, and with a strong emphasis on ethical imperatives. Bossel (1999; 2000) defines six domains (infrastructure, economic system, environment and resources, individual development, social system, government, which in 1996 he still described as capital stocks) and aggregates them into three systems: nature system, human system, support system. For each of them based on the orientor theory a plethora of conditions and criteria can be derived. Systems theory, although often abstract, can provide a useful backbone for the analysis of social sustainability (as it has for environmental and economic sustainability). If applied properly, it can be complementary to functional analysis, providing a theoretical structure to be filled with social science research. 3. Political approaches As it is to be expected, in the political approaches all kinds of themes, objectives and targets are mixed, based on the specific circumstances, and always with a normative connotation. The lack of an integrating theory contributed to a lacking sense of direction (weights will always be attributed in the political process, but an analytical basis would have been helpful), and to the almost complete absence of hierarchies or other kinds of prioritising. As a result, the definitions as well as the demands have a rather tabular form, with a list of relevant factors, most often linked to (or rather derived from) normative objectives. These are legitimately always specific to the situation from which the emerged, as an all-encompassing list would be rather meaningless for the specific situation. Although this bottom-up procedure hinders comparison, it is one, and often the appropriate answer to current policy needs. However, the problems arising again underline the need for more work on the theoretical basis. Social sustainability in many respects seems to be understood as either a currently existing positive condition, or as a goal that remains to be achieved. (McKenzie 2004), p. 13). Such a goal, however, is a social construct, and most often the call for a cure against perceived deficits, be it the erosion of family values in the USA and Australia (Cocklin, Alston 2003), loss of job security in Japan (Whittaker), lack of policy coherence in the EU (CEC Commission of the European Communities 2005), loss of self-discipline and increasing materialism in Bhutan (Wangyal), alcoholism and divorce rates in Norway (Hareide 1994), unemployment in Germany (Hans-Bckler-Foundation 2001) or erosion of social cohesion in communities in Australia (Chambers, Conway 1992; Barron, Gauntlett 2002). This is most visible in the negative explanation of the conditions for social sustainability as given by (Woolcock 1998): inequalities (gender, class, ethnicity) are widespread, poverty is rampant and no sufficient social safety nets are in function, uniform laws are weak, polities are not freely and fairly elected, groups have little shared concern in common outcomes, a basic sense of order is undermined by war and famine, and minorities are discriminated. (Koning 2001) racial tensions, weakening of family, community and democratic values, stigmatisation of have-nots, political apathy and distrust (M. Cuthill, Brisbane Institute)

In this sense, the list below tells more about the self-perception of deficits by their authors than about the state of sustainability in the respective entity of analysis; in particular, due to the deficit in theory, no comparative analysis is possible. If there is any consensus, it may be the demand for a society that is just, equal, without social exclusion and with a high quality of life, or livelihood, for all (if that is a vision which is logically possible, i.e. free of internal contradictions, can be analysed, and whether it is politically possible, is another dispute). General themes and criteria Well-being, quality of life for all citizens (requires contributions from all four dimensions); Social inclusion, social cohesion, social coherence as both, a condition for and an outcome of societies, diversity, citizenship, opportunity to contribute to the life of the community, participate in shared interests, sense of belonging; Empowerment of people for participating in economic, social and political processes; Social equity (as opposed to free-market induced inequity), social justice, social mobility; Gender justice, gender mainstreaming; Interconnectedness, social interaction; Dignified life, decent life, needs fulfilment; Convivality, harmony, protecting the vulnerable; Safeguard values, cultural identity.

The latter includes a wide range of interpretations, e.g from Bhutan: loss of values like individual selfdiscipline, interpersonal relationships and responsibility to all sentinent beings undermined by people becoming more self-centred and materialistic through modernity, i.e. urbanisation, industrialisation, secularisation, media participation, education and democratisation (Wangyal). This resembles Goodlands remark that western style capitalism, to the extent it promotes competition and individualism over cooperation and community, weakens social capital (Goodland 2002). Specific demands and areas of application Democratic institutions and practice, rights at work, independent juridical system; Improving health care (with reference to social, environmental and economic factors); Belonging and identity, solidarity, democratic values, tolerance, civic pluralism, diversity; Employment, income generation opportunities (in particular for rural residents), capability to gain and maintain a decent livelihood; reducing poverty, adequate economic activities; Access to resources and services (in particular for the disadvantaged), to public knowledge, media, intellectual property, to discourses and decision processes (participation), to education and training (sustaining culture), to housing; Self-determination, human rights and equal opportunities (hard to measure but essential); Income distribution, social justice, social policy; Security (criminal, war, social disorder), ability to plan for the future; Urban planning, soft infrastructure, housing in sufficient number and quality.

4. Outlook: research perspectives In all approaches described so far, the focus of the analysis has been on the social dimension/system/capital stock, in relative isolation to the other dimensions. This, however, constitutes a double deficit:

On the one hand, none of the dimensions develops alone phenomena within the social system cannot be explained without taking the mutual influences into account. Thus sustainability in the social domain cannot be achieved if not suitable conditions prevail in the other three dimensions.

On the other hand, the normative aspect of social sustainability is not restricted to the social domain social criteria apply to system of institutions as much as to the capabilities of individuals and the functioning of the economy.

For instance, societal institutions and the value systems behind them are a necessary precondition for economic activities and shape them: e.g. without respect (a value) for private ownership (an institution) no market economy could exist. Furthermore, as a specific trait of the sustainability discourse, the perception of the economy cannot as usual be restricted to its money-based compartment, but must include the wealth creation from solidarity and mutual help activities, barter and voluntary and other unpaid work (mainly caring work done by women), as this has a significant impact on the social and human dimensions.

Consequently, it is suggested to apply the normative demand for social sustainability to all four dimensions, i.e. to define criteria for the social sustainability of all four systems (this includes the existing work on social criteria, leads to a clear differentiation between human and societal aspects, and calls for the definition of social criteria for a sustainable economy). As a basis for this work, system analysis seems in the best position to suggest a structure for the complex research environment, whereas much of the existing functional analysis literature, if sorted and adapted accordingly, could fit into this framework, adding flesh to the bones. For the research on social capital however, additional work would need to be invested to make it useful for sustainability analysis, due to the reservations explained above. The work on social sustainability can also not be left to social scientists (like the economy, which is much too important to leave it to economists). Instead, interdisciplinary work is needed, as for the sustainability of the societal and the human domains, environmental and economic criteria have to be taken into account, and competence has to be integrated into the research process, as a society which is only socially sustainable could not be sustained in the end. To operationalise these criteria or interdimensional demands, special attention must be given to their interactions or interlinkages, as this is

where policies are defined and compromises have to be sought (they will be more frequent than synergies). As a heuristic tool to illustrate these connectivities, the prism of development has been developed (Spangenberg, Bonniot 1998 or the tetrahedron, see O'Connor 2002). It illustrates the dimensions and their interaction and makes obvious the broad scale of tasks involved in developing a theory and deriving criteria for social sustainability in an integrated manner (and integration is a constitutive element of sustainable development it doesnt work without, also not for social sustainability. 5. References

Potrebbero piacerti anche