Readers know how distasteful I find the ever-increasing narrowness of academic disciplines. The very second
post this year's blog posed a question which has bothered me for years –
Why so little energy seems to be spent attempting
to get consensus on the way forward for the deficiencies which have been
so visible over the past decade in the economic system which we know,
variously, as “globalization” or, increasingly, as “capitalism”.
The UN had
its fingers burned when, in 2009, it
organized the first and only
Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis. The G77 group
of 130 developing countries tried to insert text that mandated a major role for
the UN in dealing with the crisis and backed a comprehensive set of reforms,
but northern countries including the US and the EU played a blocking
game. Joseph
Stiglitz was the author of what remained a Preliminary Report
That post praised the Club of Rome for having the courage to produce Come On! Capitalism, short-termism, population and the
destruction of the planet; (Club of Rome
2018) - superbly summarized in this article in the fascinating Cadmus journal. And
went on to say that I understood the reluctance of professionals to get engaged
in such work – knowing how aggressively they would be accused of “leftism”,
“populism”… and even greater crimes….
I am, of course, aware of The Great Transition Initiative which
encourages individuals to comment on a monthly question and paper. It’s perhaps
only nerds that me who read it – but at least it is reaching out to form a
network…
The Next System is
also a good source of well-written material - project of the US Democracy Collaborative.
It had an initial report – The
Next System Report – political possibilities for the 21st Century (2015)
and references to good community practice in various parts of the world. It has
since followed up with a series of
worthwhile papers.
But, thanks to the current issue of the journal Political
Quarterly, I have just learned of a very worthwhile endeavour called The International Panel for Social
Progress (IPSP) - a bottom–up initiative launched by a group of researchers
from different disciplines, whose first congress was held in 2015 in Istanbul.
While its basic structure and operational principles are similar to
those of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), its remit is rather
different. The aim of the IPSP is to
‘harness the
competence of hundreds of experts about social issues’ and ‘to deliver a report
addressed to all social actors, movements, organizations, politicians and
decision-makers, in order to provide them with the best expertise on questions
that bear on social change’.
It may not offer an agenda for change - but it does something which is actually even more important - it offers an impartial and wide-ranging picture of social, economic and technical trends as you are likely to get from any other single source.
The IPSP is not the first panel to analyse social and economic issues
of pressing relevance. Various international organisations regularly monitor,
for example, labour market conditions (ILO), or the dynamics of inequality and
poverty (World Bank), or social inclusion, across the globe (UN Sustainable Goals).
But the IPSP
does not just
talk the talk when it comes to interdisciplinarity, it actually provides a
shining example of what social scientists can do when they pool their skills,
freely crossing disciplinary boundaries and combining quantitative analysis and
qualitative approaches.
You can download and read the Executive
Summary as well as each chapter here -
Part I deals with socio-economic
transformations, focusing on economic inequalities, growth and environmental
issues, urbanisation, capitalist institutions of markets, corporations and finance,
labour, concluding with a reflection on how economic organization determines
wellbeing and social justice. Here is
its chapter on social trends
Part II focusses on political issues, analyzing
the current trends in democracy and the rule of law, the forms and resolutions
of situations of violence and conflicts, the mixed efficacy of supranational
institutions and organisations, as well as the multiple forms of global
governance, and the important role for democracy of media and communications.
It concludes with a chapter on the challenges to democracy raised by inequalities,
and the various ways in which democracy can be rejuvenated.
This is the chapter on Paradoxes of democracy and rule
of law; and the one on governing
capital, labour, nature
Part III is devoted to transformations
in cultures and values, focussing on cultural trends linked to ‘modernisation’ and
its pit-falls, as well as globalisation, the complex relationship between
religions and social progress, the promises and challenges in ongoing
transformations in family structures and norms, trends and policy issues
regarding health and life–death issues, the ways in which education can
contribute to social progress and finally,
the important values of solidarity
and belonging.
The report
offers a refreshingly balanced view of the state of social progress and the
perspectives for change. It embraces neither a ‘doom and gloom’ perspective,
nor neoliberal optimism. Societies do face significant problems, and the report
hides none of them: inequalities are reaching unprecedented levels; in large
parts of the world human development shows no signs of improvement;
corporations are becoming increasingly powerful; automation leads to the
disappearance of good jobs in a number of sectors; low-intensity violent
conflicts show no sign of decrease throughout the world; liberal democracies
are facing major challenges.
Reading, or
even approaching, a scientific report consisting of three volumes, with a total
of 850 pages and written by a panel of more than 260 authors, certainly looks
like adaunting task. One is tempted to give up without even trying. And yet,
such a first impression would be misleading. Not only is this an important
contribution summarizing an impressive intellectual endeavour, it is also a
genuinely interesting and engaging read.
