The Social Contract and the Development Potential: State and Context

The Conventional Understanding of Social Contracts and its Limitations

?

Traditionally, social contracts have been narrowly defined as an agreement between the state and its citizens. This common understanding, while not entirely wrong, oversimplifies the complex nature of social contracts.

The limited view fails to capture the multifaceted nature of these “contracts”, particularly in settings where there is no entrenched history of a centralized state, or where faith in states is lacking. These circumstances can emerge from an inherited experience of state abuses or failures to meet societal expectations of governance and living norms and standards, or simply from cultures that historically did not organize or govern through central administrations.

In diverse countries, with a multitude of ethnicities, cultures, and economic classes, the concept of a singular, uniform social contract is unrealistic. Instead, these agreements are abstractions that reflect the variety within societies, taking many different forms to accommodate a country's unique composition.*

?

The Role and Potential of Social Contracts in Development Theory

?

Understanding that social contracts can exist between individuals, groups, actors, and governments, we can better appreciate and navigate the vast network of relationships that truly constitute a society, and so utilize the concept as a powerful tool for effective, context-specific development initiatives promoting resilience and sustainability.

The inclusion of social contracts in development theory is gaining momentum, as evident by the existence of the World Bank driven Social Contracts and Coalitions for Development (SC4D) Global Partnership initiative amongst many others. Scholars such as Patrick Cloutier and Erin McCandless work with developing social contracts into practically useful models and guides for development, but the concept's tight linkage to the idea of a supreme state remains a hurdle.

There is a clear need to further decouple these notions to enable more nuanced and contextualized approaches to development, even if part of the root problem, as highlighted by these scholars, is the international community of states insistence on the continued supreme position of states in all nations. The problem is compounded by most wealthy donor countries stemming from a “western” culture, as well as the need of all global governments to maintain control over territory and resources.

?

Social Contracts for Sustainable Development

?

The creation or enhancement of a social contract, particularly in the context of international development assistance, requires a deep understanding of local perceptions of legitimacy and societal expectations. Simplistic representations of communities, whether through leaders or civil societies, can result in distorted interpretations of the actual social contract in play. Instead, a nuanced, context-specific understanding of these communities is crucial to accurately capture the expectations and norms that underpin their social contracts.

Social contracts can be potent tools for rebuilding or stabilizing countries, provided they are used with humility and deeply rooted in the local context. For instance, consider Somaliland, where clans play a vital role in providing security, status, and social services. The cultural obligation of clans to care for relatives and distribute resources contributes significantly to the nation's resilience against recurring crises.

Recognizing these unique, locally-specific social contracts and integrating them into broader development strategies can be a key part of sustainable state-building and development initiatives.

Redefining social contracts, not merely as agreements between the state and its citizens but as intricate networks of relationships reflecting a society's complexity, presents a transformative opportunity for sustainable development.

This expanded understanding can lead to more effective, context-specific initiatives that align with local expectations and realities. The road to this paradigm shift is strewn with challenges as it calls for uprooting ingrained notions and assumptions. But the potential rewards – fostering sustainable, resilient societies that are built on mutual understanding and consent – make this endeavor absolutely worthwhile.

By refining our understanding and application of social contracts, we can seize the potential to drive sustainable development that is truly context-specific and people-centered, even if the outcome or emerging structure diverges from the expectations of many donor countries.?

*??(It should however always be remembered that even though stability and acceptance are often conflated when it comes to the implementation of a social contract, they are not synonymous. Even in a stable society, acceptance of a social contract can be limited if citizens perceive no viable alternative to the current order.)