Global policy perspectives and policy paradigms have been (slowly) shifting to encompass important elements of the social, particularly evident in the work of international institutions, regional actors and agencies in the United Nations system like the IMF.1 The emerging new social spending strategy now taking shape at the IMF is perhaps testimony to this shift. The IMF, for example, is now a leading advocate of social investments in public health, public education, social assistance and safety nets and other key aspects of social infrastructure development.2 The IMF is also promoting sustained economic growth, and ‘inclusive growth’, in order to meet the 2030 SDGs. Full and productive employment (SDG 8) it is claimed will help set the world free of extreme poverty (SDG 1) and social inequality (Goals 5 and 10) (IMF, 2019). This policy positioning by the IMF and many of the other international institutions is perhaps unremarkable in some ways, being the conventional wisdom, as global social policy is ‘framed’ (Bøås and McNeill, 2004) and ‘reframed’ (Deeming and Smyth, 2018). However, in other ways this does seem significant if we recall that the IMF and World Bank were the strong advocates of neoliberal policy prescriptions on the global stage during the 1980s and 1990s. As we find throughout the volume, international institutions and organizations established in the post-war era are constantly under pressure, involved in their own legitimation struggles and contests, increasingly in the realm of global governance and social movements, formations and coalitions for change involved in local, national and global politics and the dynamics of contention (see also O’Brien et al, 2000; Frey et al, 2014; Dingwerth et al, 2019; Tilly et al, 2019).
In the age of sustainability, the ‘social’ is facing multiple challenges and crises, however. In global social policy, Agenda 2030 is heavily contested and progress on the SDGs is slow, uneven and patchy, even before COVID-19 and the economic crises (World Bank Group (WBG) flagship reports Global Economic Prospects (GEP) consider the enormous global shock delivered by COVID-19, leading to steep recessions in many countries, World Bank, 2020b, 2021). Many of the SDGs are either ‘gender-sparse’ or ‘gender-blind’, for example (Razavi, 2016, 2019; UN Women, 2018). Despite the global commitment to gender equality, women still form the majority of the world’s poorest people (Fredman, 2016). Persisting high levels of violence against women, economic exclusion and other systemic inequalities are of deep concern, revealing the lack of political commitment to address gender equality according to the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women, 2019, 2020). Governance and institutional failings, underinvestment and underfunding concerns amid a slowing of the global economy and the climate emergency, all pre-date the pandemic (Sachs et al, 2018; Dalby et al, 2019; IPBES, 2019; IPCC, 2019; UNIATF, 2019; UN, 2020a).3 COVID-19 could now set sustainable development and progress on the SDGs back years and even decades, global poverty is on the increase for the first time in decades (dire warnings are found in the latest editions of the UN flagship reports, Financing for Sustainable Development Report (FSDR) (UNIATF, 2020), World Economic Situation and Prospects (WESP) (UN 2020a, 2021), and UNCTAD’s (2020a, 2020b, 2020c) Trade and Development Report (TDR)).
Global social crisis
The global crisis runs deep.4 The effects of global warming, the climate emergency, the global financial crisis and the latest global health crises and global economic shock still unfolding reveal the extent of our highly interconnected world, and the scale of the post-national political commitment from global institutions and societies needed to address them. They are all world issues, global problems and global challenges and multiple crises. They have all exposed social crises at every level, with many health and social protection systems and institutions severely challenged and struggling to cope in the age of extreme global inequality and poverty. The COVID-19 pandemic (with the new buzzwords ‘social distancing’ and ‘self-isolation’) is once again exposing the deep divides that exist within and between nations, but also the way risk is governed in an era of international financial liberalization. While the World Bank and IMF have made further loans available to the poorest countries grappling with the spread of the virus, it is clear they are prioritizing fiscal objectives and market-driven solutions rather than public health (Kentikelenis et al, 2020). The international financial institutions preferring to suspend debt payments on loans and grants, rather than cancelling them altogether in order to abolish debt burdens (Hickel, 2017; Oldekop et al, 2020).5 The rich nations stand accused of being complicit in a ‘climate debt trap’ with their loans to developing countries for ‘loss and damage’ caused by climate change, and many argue that the polluters (the rich nations) should have to pay for the damage they have caused.6
The coronavirus crisis has had devastating health and socioeconomic impacts, it has exposed weaknesses, divisions and inequities in health and social protection systems around the world, and it has exacerbated health and social inequalities both within and between countries (UN, 2020b; WEF, in 2020).7 Perhaps the crisis will help to restore ‘universalism’ and universal health coverage (UHC), moving towards a fairer world post-COVID-19 with more inclusive and sustainable economies (OECD, 2020). Universal healthcare systems are vital for promoting global public health security, a global priority objective of the World Health Organization (WHO), the global health agency of the UN. The inclusion of UHC in the SDGs (Target 3.8) is rooted in the right to health. Social protection systems are in crisis in many parts of the world, where universal social protection is far from a reality, and safety nets are simply not available to catch people if they fall into poverty. The global health crisis reinforces the need for stronger universal social protection floors in developing and developed countries alike, to protect all members of society, and