Abstract
Social contracts and state fragility represent two sides of one coin. The former concept highlights that governments need to deliver three “Ps”—protection, provision, and political participation—to be acceptable for societies, whereas the latter argues that states can fail due to lack of authority (inhibiting protection), capacity (inhibiting provision), or legitimacy. Defunct social contracts often lead to popular unrest. Using empirical evidence from the Middle East and North Africa, we demonstrate how different notions of state fragility lead to different kinds of grievances and how they can be remedied by measures of social protection. Social protection is always a key element of government provision and hence a cornerstone of all social contracts. It can most easily counteract grievances that were triggered by decreasing provision (e.g., after subsidy reforms in Iran and Morocco) but also partially substitute for deficient protection (e.g., by the Palestinian National Authority, in pre-2011 Yemen) or participation (information campaign accompanying Moroccan subsidy cut; participatory set-ups for cash-for-work programmes in Jordan). It can even help maintain a minimum of state–society relations in states defunct in all three Ps (e.g., Yemen). Hence, social protection can be a powerful instrument to reduce state fragility and mend social contracts. Yet, to be effective, it needs to address grievances in an inclusive, rule-based, and non-discriminatory way. In addition, to gain legitimacy, governments should assume responsibility over social protection instead of outsourcing it to foreign donors.
Highlights
Throughout history, states and their governments could only emerge with at least some consent by society
Social contracts say that society should recognise a government as legitimate if it satisfies the expectations of citizens in terms of delivering protection and provision and granting some participation
It appears trivial to state that social protection can contribute effectively to the repair of social contracts suffering from weak government performance in provision
Summary
Throughout history, states and their governments could only emerge (and endure) with at least some consent by society. Since 1990, the UNDP’s Human Development Index, measuring and comparing gross national income per capita, educational attainment, and life expectancy between all countries, has provided a standardised measure of the degree to which these basic needs or developmental grievances are being met (Kivimäki 2021) From this angle, deficiencies in social contracts pertaining to one of the first two Ps, protection or provision, may be more urgent and more likely lead to protests—whereas citizens can grudgingly put up with a lack of participation, at least for some time, they cannot survive without basic nutrition, hygiene, and shelter. The growing relative deprivation of citizens in MENA countries—defined as “a situation where there is a gap between the expected and observed receipt of welfare, income, wealth, political power, or something else” (Kivimäki 2021)—requires a stronger focus on social protection
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
