Mapping The Research-Policy Matrix PDF

UNESCO
Publishing
United Nalion~ .
Educational, Scientific and .
CultUf1l10rganization •
Mapping out
the Research.Policy Matrix
Highlights from the Firsllnternational
Forum on the Social Science-Policy Nexus
Edited by German SoHnis

and Nicolas Baya-Laffite
Mapping out the Research-Policy Matrix
Published in 2011 by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization
7, place de Fontenoy, 75352 Paris 07 SP, France
©UNESCO, 2011
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-92-3-104176-1
The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout
this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever
on the part of UNESCO concerning the legal status of any country,
territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation
of its frontiers or boundaries.
The authors are responsible for the choice and the presentation of
the facts contained in this book and for the opinions expressed therein,
which are not necessarily those of UNESCO and do not commit the
Organization.
Cover design: Pierre Finot

Typeset by Jacqueline Gensollen-Bloch for UNESCO Publishing
Printed by UNESCO
Printed in France
MAPPING OUT
THE RESEARCH-POLICY
MATRIX
A REPORT ON THE OUTPUTS FROM
THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL FORUM
ON THE SOCIAL SCIENCE-POLICY NEXUS
Edited by Germán Sol in is and Nicolas Baya-Laffite
Management of Social Transformations Programme

UNESCO
Research & Policy Series
UNESCO Publishing
RESEARCH & POLICY Editorial Board
Alicia Kirchner, President of the MOST Intergovernmental Council,

Minister of Social Development, Argentina
Nazli Choucri, President of the MOST Scientific Advisory Committee,

Associate Director, Technology and Development Program, Senior
Faculty, Center for International Studies, Head, the Middle East
Program, MIT, Egypt and USA
Elizabeth Longworth, Director of the Division of Social Sciences Research

and Policy, UNESCO
Zdenka Mansfeldová, MOST Scientific Advisory Committee,

Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Virginia A. Miralao, Rapporteur MOST/IGC,

Executive Director, Philippine Social Science Council, Philippines
Charly Gabriel Mbock, MOST Scientific Advisory Committee,

Director of Research, Ministry of Scientific and Technical Research,
Cameroon
Luc van Langenhove, MOST Scientific Advisory Committee,

Director, Centre for Comparative Regional Integration Studies,
United Nations University, Belgium
Masanori Naito, MOST Scientific Advisory Committee,

Dean, Graduate School of Global Studies, Doshisha University,
Kyoto, Japan
Tuomo Melasuo, Vice-President of the MOST Intergovernmental Council,

Director, Tampere Peace Research Institute, Finland
FOREWORD
The world we face today is characterized by ever-increasing complexity and

rapid change. We are confronted by what has been called a 'confluence of
crises', that is, contemporary crises that mutually reinforce one another. The
recentfinancialand social crises have posed severe challenges for development
goals, human welfare and achieving opportunity for the people of our
societies. The worst off have invariably been disproportionately affected.
In this era of major social transformations, there is renewed concern about
enhancing the links between social science knowledge and policy-making.
At the heart of this lies the idea that better use of rigorous social science can
lead to more effective policies and outcomes, and thus to creating a fairer and
more equitable global society.
At UNESCO's Social and Human Sciences Sector, we are committed
to enhancing effective policy-making to bring better responses to today's
challenges. This is done first and foremost through the Management of Social
Transformations Programme (MOST). Integral to the philosophy of MOST
is the conviction that in order to achieve development goals it is necessary
to link political decisions to scientific knowledge. A crucial element to this
is facilitating better and more effective interactions between the main actors
involved. MOST is able to use its significant convening power to bring
together various stakeholders and provide appropriate and innovative spaces
for mediation between them.
A theoretical and methodological reflection on the linkages connecting
research and policy, meanwhile, has begun three years ago within the MOST
Programme's Secretariat. The aim of this venture is to make explicit the nature
of the links between social science research and policy-making, in developed
as well as developing countries. MOST is thus working to establish a critical
analysis on these links, with the view of contributing to a revitalized research-
policy nexus.
From the point of view of evidence-based policy-making, an ideal nexus
ensures that relevant knowledge is produced and made available to policy-
6 MAPPING OUT THE RESEARCH-POLICY MATRIX
makers in forms they can understand and use. A major obstacle, however,
is that research commonly deals with questions that are of no policy interest
while policy-makers ask questions that researchers do not recognize as valid.
Policy often calls for rapid-response expertise, but it is entirely unrealistic to
imagine that such expertise can thrive without the backdrop of an intellectually
vibrant and autonomous academic community.
The challenge is therefore contained in the very words social science. A
science that cuts itself off from the social world is irrelevant because no one
will notice. But one has to accept the gap between social science questions and
policy questions, and accompany that with appropriate spaces of mediation
to enable such questions to cross-fertilize; to create synergy between research
interests and policy priorities; and to recognize that expertise is neither
subversive of nor subordinate to politics.
At the same time, we must be wary of viewing the research-policy
nexus solely in terms of bilateral relations between academics and policy-
makers. Simply getting the two communities talking to each other is no
panacea in itself for effective policy-making, while achieving participation
and democratic scrutiny in practice undoubtedly requires more than this. But
solutions can be imagined and practices do exist that can provide inspiration.
These typically depend on the recognition that there are many forms of
knowledge and on an active civil society that can organize and put forward
the concerns, fears, hopes and experiences of individuals and societies.
In recent years the MOST Programme has been enhancing UNESCO's
capacity as a convener of hybrid forums. The objective of this process is to enable
the development of high-quality policy responses to social transformations.
After 2002, MOST undertook to formalize and institutionalize gatherings
of Ministers of Social Development, which now meet regularly in many of
the world's regions. These Forums aim to provide spaces for the exchange of
practices and to facilitate policy dialogue among relevant stakeholders. They
thus aim to improve policy formulation by ensuring that it is underpinned by
state-of-the-art research, and anchored by international standards and norms.
A few examples: MOST has organized six Forums of Ministers in Latin
America and the Caribbean from 2002 to 2010. In 2004, the Government
of the Republic of South Africa hosted the first meeting of the Forum for
the countries belonging to the Southern African Development Community
(SADC). In January 2006, meanwhile, the Government of Mali hosted in
Bamako the first Forum of Ministers for the Economic Community of West
African States (ECOWAS) countries. Since then, Forums have been organized
for the countries of Southern Asia as well as those of the Arab region.
FOREWORD 7
The International Forum on the Social Science-Policy Nexus (IFSP),

the analytical object of this book, can be seen as a milestone in terms of a
hybrid forum convening a wide range of participants from academia, policy-
making communities and civil society. It provided a truly innovative space
at the international level for a new kind of dialogue between the worlds of
research and practice, enabling stakeholders to exchange experiences and
together think about forging shared terms of engagement.
The Forum explored different regional and thematic dimensions of
the research-policy nexus, and suggested ways to overcome the existing
gap between these two areas. It aimed to propose a diagnosis on current
collaboration between researchers and policy-makers. In doing so, it shed
light on a number of problems and limitations that restrain or paralyse the
creation of a nexus between the two worlds.
Since then, the IFSP has paved the way for a new mode of enhanced
cooperation between social science actors and policy-makers, known as 'the
Buenos Aires Process', in line with the idea of launching an ongoing process
of research and action via the Forum. The main outcome of this, politically-
speaking, was the 'Buenos Aires Declaration' (found in Appendix I), which
called for a new approach to the social science-policy nexus.
This book is a follow-up to the analysis initiated in the Forum's final
report,1 with the specific objective of mapping out the different analytical
and methodological approaches used or discussed by IFSP workshops to
address the nexus. The different workshops often utilized hybrid mixed
and intertwined conceptual frameworks in dealing with the issue of the
nexus. The structure of the book offers an analytical reading of the Forum's
heterogeneous outcomes.
The thread of the book, without proposing a hypothesis, analyses,
clarifies and explains the reasons for the different approaches used for the
nexus. The authors propose a key to understanding them: the distinction
between instrumental and conceptual approaches. This helps us understand
the contrast - in both epistemic and political terms - of the interface between
social science and policy. The concept of this framework was discussed and
developed with the Scientific Advisory Committee of MOST at a meeting in
Bergen, Norway, in May 2009.
This book is the first instalment of the new UNESCO/MOST
publication series 'Research and Policy', which will disclose the principal
works of theoretical and methodological reflection on research-policy
linkages throughout the world. Its publication represents a significant
1 www.unesco.org/shs/ifsp
8 MAPPING OUTTHE RESEARCH-POLICY MATRIX
intellectual accomplishment. The authors have not only successfully captured

the state of the art on the issue of the research-policy nexus drawn from
the IFSP, but they have contributed to ensuring continuity of the Forum's
work and objectives. It thus demonstrates our strong commitment to an
enhanced research-policy nexus for better responses to today's burning social
challenges. I have no doubt that it will be a valuable addition to reflecting
on the ways in which the linkages and relationship between the two worlds
can be improved.
Pierre Sané,
Assistant Director-General
Sector for Social and Human Sciences (2001-2010)
CONTENTS
Foreword
Presentation
PART I: FRAMING THE LINKS

Introduction
Chapter 1 : Instrumental approaches to the links
Chapter 2: Focusing on the conceptual uses of research

in the policy process
Chapter 3: Focusing on specific actors shaping the nexus

between social science and policy
Conclusion
PART II: COLLECTED DOCUMENTS

The politics of knowledge management
A knowledge system for managing social transformations
Research and policy-making in the field of health

at the federal level in Canada
The governmentality of consultancy and competition:

the influence of the OECD
The knowledge base for the work of the World Commission
on the Social Dimension of Globalization 167
Globalization and the new social conditions

of development and democracy 173
The knowledge commitment and city management 191
Metropolitan environmental management

and the contribution of the university of Säo Paulo 199
APPENDIX I: BUENOS AIRES DECLARATION

CALLING FOR A NEW APPROACH
TO THE SOCIAL SCIENCE-POLICY NEXUS 207
APPENDIX II: LIST OF SELECTED IFSP

WORKSHOPS A N D DOCUMENTS 211
Abbreviations and acronyms 217
Notes on the editors and contributors 221
References 225
PRESENTATION
Organizing the first International Forum on the Social Science-Policy Nexus

(IFSP) was a long and arduous enterprise but the hard work proved well
worthwhile given the splendid success ofthat first major meeting of policy-
makers and social scientists from around the world. Immediately following
the meeting, UNESCO was not in a position to give its full attention to
the fundamental questions raised by the studies presented and discussed
at the IFSP, since the Organization had other priorities that needed to be
considered in implementing the programme of the Social and Human
Sciences Sector.
So it was some two years after the IFSP took place that we began to
look into the theoretical content of the Forum. As a first step, almost all the
work presented and discussed at the Forum was gathered together. Next came
the task of identifying the workshops most pertinent to our fundamental
question: how to approach the issue of the nexus, and theoretically and
methodologically analyse the interrelation between knowledge and the
social sciences in the exercise of public policy. Once this critical mass of
elements was assembled, the next stage was to re-examine and sift through the
papers delivered; our aim was to extract models of thinking and fundamental
concepts for a schema of the current issues developed by the social science
studies relating to public policy. The outcome was the selection and indexing
of approximately a third of these papers for analysis, which provided fertile
ground for the exploration and elaboration of the overall schema of issues.
Subsequently, enquiries were made as to the dissemination of these papers
to ascertain which had already been published and which had not.
The resulting analysis was a matrix of interrelations between concepts
and the most frequently used models. This was set out in a report by the
MOST Programme Secretariat and presented for discussion, examination

and approval to the official meeting of the MOST Scientific Advisory
Committee in May 2009. One of the recommendations of the Committee
was for the analysis to be published. As the work progressed, so did the
style of the document, which developed from its initial format as merely
an internal report to a two-language - English and Spanish - publication
accessible to a public composed principally of social scientists and policy-
makers.
The first section of the book comprises its main corpus.2 In the second
section are eight of the papers presented at the IFSP, which were selected
as being the most pertinent and which had not yet been published. Finally,
in the two appendices, are first the Buenos Aires Declaration and then the
list of selected IFSP workshops and documents.
This is the first publication in a new UNESCO series entitled
'Research and Policy', both strictly speaking as well as in the broad sense,
because it is the first book in the series to be published and because the
exploratory, interpretative analysis of the IFSP papers clarifies and specifies
the 'state of the question' (the link between research and policy), from which
further publications will follow. So this collection, which is primarily for
researchers, experts, other actors in the public and private sectors and civil
society, has three main objectives: to disseminate and elucidate the theories
that are the very basis of the links between research and policy, giving
greater importance to innovative, alternative approaches; to examine the
practices, programmes and prevailing synergies in different regions of the
world; and lastly, to provide methodological tools to help policy-makers
use social science knowledge in their work.
I am grateful to Pilar Alvarez Laso, current Assistant Director-
General, Social and Human Sciences Sector, and Elizabeth Longworth,
Deputy Assistant Director-General, for supporting the publication of this
book, and to Christina von Fürstenberg for her wise counsel throughout
this undertaking. I would also like to thank Nicolas Baya-Laffite, who spared
no effort in providing his enlightened analysis, and Georgios Papanagnou
for his pertinent contribution to Part I. Jenghiz von Streng also helped
us with his valuable comments. Rosemary Wiltshire translated texts from
Spanish into English. Thanks go to everyone for their professionalism,
reflected in the quality of this book. My thanks also go to the eight authors
of the chapters in the second section of this publication for having revised
their papers and for giving permission for their publication. Pierre Sané,
2 For the references to this first section, please see the end of the volume.
PRESENTATION 13
then Assistant Director-General of UNESCO's Social and Human Sciences

Sector, supported and set up the International Forum on the Social Science-
Policy Nexus. A very special thanks goes out to him for entrusting me with
this undertaking.
Germán Solinís
PARTI
FRAMING THE LINKS:

A 'map' of the analytical and methodological
approaches to the research-policy nexus drawn
from the International Forum on the Social
Science-Policy Nexus
Nicolas Baya-Laffite and Georgios Papanagnou

INTRODUCTION
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

(UNESCO) was founded in 1945 to build peace in the minds of men.
Today, UNESCO's main functions are to act as a laboratory of ideas and as
a standard-setter, forging universal agreements on emerging ethical issues.
The Organization also serves as a clearing-house - for the dissemination
and sharing of information and knowledge - while helping Member States
build their human and institutional capacities in diverse fields.
The mission of UNESCO's Social and Human Sciences Sector (SHS)
is 'to advance knowledge, standards and intellectual cooperation in order
to facilitate social transformations conducive to the universal values of
justice, freedom and human dignity' (UNESCO SHS, 2004b).
Within this Sector, the Management of Social Transformations
Programme (MOST) was launched in 1994 as the only intergovernmental
programme that fosters and promotes social science knowledge, its
importance and its utility throughout the world. For this reason, MOST
is placed in a pivotal position in the overall accomplishment of UNESCO's
mission. Moreover, MOST is the only United Nations intergovernmental
programme tasked with contributing to public policy development
through research in the field of social sciences. It promotes knowledge
that contributes to the better understanding and conduct of social
transformations, focusing on improving the linkage between research
and policy-making, including the dissemination of research results, best
practices and capacity-building.
MOST's structure and management frame are based on three
'cluster areas' (UNESCO MOST, 2007b):
• thinking (research and promotion of knowledge-based choices)
• shaping (capacity-building and policy advice), and

• debating (gatherings, dialogues and organization of forums).
In a world that is changing rapidly the need for effective strategic advice to
overcome challenges is stronger than ever. Hence, the quality and usefulness
of social science are of great importance in understanding the way our
societies work. Social science helps us understand our social, cultural and
economic environment. It provides knowledge, identifies and analyses trends,
and therefore helps identify viable paths of action. From this assumption,
two main directions can be considered. A better utilization of research in
development policy should help reduce problems and improve the quality
of life for most people. Second, scientists should have the responsibility of
sharing their findings and knowledge and thereby contributing to society's
well-being. This is why it is important to produce scientific material that is
useful, accessible and meaningful to citizens and policy-makers.
Indeed, in this era of major social transformations there is a renewed
concern over the links between social scientific knowledge and policy-making.
Within UNESCO, as stated in the Medium-Term Strategy 2008-2013, the
current main challenge is to enhance our contribution to strengthening the
links between the results of scientific research and the policy needs of national
and local authorities (UNESCO, 2008, paras 69-72). So, according to the
approved programme and budget 2008-2009, under the biennial sectoral
priority 2 (Strengthening national and regional research systems in order
to provide policy-oriented research on social and ethical issues), the MOST
Programme received the responsibility of fostering policy-oriented research in
close cooperation with existing international and regional research networks:
Priority will be assigned, in the framework of the MOST Programme, to

strengthening policy-oriented research and the research-policy linkages in the
field of the social and human sciences, in particular on global, regional and
national issues of key relevance problems.
(UNESCO, 2008: para. 03009)
Hence, the primary purpose of the MOST Programme is to transfer relevant

social science research findings to decision-makers and other relevant
stakeholders. By the end of the Programme's first phase (1994-2003), the
quest for bridging research, policy and practice had become the major issue
identified by UNESCO Member States. In its current second phase (2004-
2011), MOST focuses on building efficient bridges between research, policy
INTRODUCTION 19
and practice in the fields of poverty eradication, migration, gender equality

and youth empowerment. To do so, the Programme is now working on
identifying the most appropriate ways for enhancing the effectiveness of the
policy uptake of knowledge.
However, this endeavour raises a number of important theoretical
and methodological issues which need to be addressed critically. Here, the
challenge is to bring forward new understandings, approaches and strategies
to deal with the translation from social science research into policy action, and
policy action into social welfare (UNESCO MOST, 2007a). Moreover, MOST
action aims at challenging the traditional linear interpretation of the scientist/
policy-maker relationship so as to ensure the co-production of knowledge
between policy, research and civil society.
Pursuant to requests from Member States, the 'thinking cluster' of
MOST launched a theoretical and methodological process of reflection on
the research-policy linkages. It intended to make explicit the connection
between both elements, by taking stock of the institutional underpinnings
of both knowledge production and its uptake by policy-makers. In order to
achieve this, MOST is first of all developing a state-of-the-art overview of the
research-policy links. Second, MOST analyses how the links are thought of,
how they interact practically and with what results.
The practical goals of this venture include determining the Programme's
distinctive input, providing a sound basis for a methodology for efficiently
linking research and policy-making, and disseminating the output of the
reflection to social science researchers, policy-makers and members of civil
society (UNESCO MOST, 2008; Solinis, 2008).
THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL REFLECTION

ON RESEARCH-POLICY LINKAGES
From the beginning, the social sciences have been directly or indirectly
concerned with social transformations; working either towards the improve-
ment of a certain status quo or seeking to change it. Nevertheless, it is impor-
tant to be aware that greater social scientific knowledge does not guarantee
immediate action in an instrumental manner.
Thus, the topic of knowledge use is linked to the development of the
social sciences. Different usage models suggest different strategies for reaching
a certain goal. This is often exemplified by the contrast between 'applied
research' and 'basic research'. Although applied research in this sense is linked
to the research actors, mostly analysts and experts, it is more specifically
connected with the 'social uses of social sciences'. Furthermore, it should

be appreciated that problems with research use and its impact on society do
not necessarily have to do with the relevance or quality of research. They can
also relate to the way social science is thought of, in terms of its usefulness
for policy.
These remarks led to a call for the public to participate in the
International Forum on the Social Science-Policy Nexus (IFSP), which will
be examined in this report:
The presence of policy-makers, researchers and NGO members of non-

governmental organizations will enable the development of new forms of
cooperation between policy and social sciences, with the ambition of bringing
better responses to today's challenges .... The objective of the Forum is to
understand how these differences (between policy-makers, researchers and
NGOs) can be bridged so that social policy can be better informed by social
science.
(UNESCO, 2006a)
In general, it is a matter of fact that the relationship between research and

policy-making covers a huge range of possibilities and levels, corresponding
to several actors, factors and situations.
On one hand, there are questions having to do with how different
types of knowledge sources (local, scientific, popular, and so on) are taken
into account and with how practices become knowledge through the
constitution of social knowledge. This first level is about knowledge, and
the main focus of this report is scientific knowledge in the social sciences
and the humanities.
O n the other h a n d , one can raise further questions concerning
relevance. How is it possible to identify when research outcomes could be
policy relevant? How can we ensure that analyses correctly inform policy-
making at the relevant levels in each field of competence? How can we
ensure that relevant knowledge information is disseminated across the main
stakeholders? In short, how can the policy usefulness of research findings
be ensured?
Those are some of the questions that frame the task of analysing the
research-policy linkages. The theoretical approach allows things to be put in
their proper place, since even if research produces knowledge that is relevant
for policy, there is no guarantee that policy-makers will use it. Nevertheless,
INTRODUCTION 21
the starting point of this report is that enhancing the research-policy links
should help reduce problems and improve the quality of life.
Bridging the gap between the different stakeholders involved in the
research-policy links is necessary. It is crucial to assist policy-makers in
defining the questions relevant to the problems they have to solve. It is also
necessary to cooperate with researchers and experts by enhancing their
commitment to sharing responsibilities with policy-makers and citizens.
Good and bad consequences of policy implementation should be treated
as an object of study.
Thus, the issue is important because it is necessary and yet sensitive and
difficult. The search for empirical evidence in the process of policy-making
is necessary if we are to avoid policies being defined and implemented
on a whim. Hence, policy analysis should incorporate both quantitative
data and also cover a large range of qualitative considerations, such as the
systematization of experiences and historical processes. Nonetheless, other
dimensions are important. For example, institutions' objectives that relate to
policies are often more basic to policy-making than evidence from research.
Moreover, in general, obtaining reliable hard data is often problematic;
especially in developing countries where hard data are in many instances
simply not available.
Another example of the difficulties involved is that the relationships
between knowledge and policies are not always defined in the same terms.
Nowadays, the links are largely approached within the paradigms of
'evidence-based research' and 'evidence-based policy', where 'evidence'
is understood in its broad sense as information that helps form policies.
Nonetheless, within the current practices and discourse, it is not clear
what 'information' is, what is really meant by 'evidence', and how it can be
obtained 'objectively'.
It is sometimes claimed that the usefulness of science and technology
is a function of their area of application. The evidence-based scientific
approach, oriented by a problem-solving model and by demand-driven
challenges, is very often uncritically transferred to the social and historical
context. But in such a relationship knowledge may be easily instrumentalized
and thus serve to legitimize power. History is full of controversies on this
issue (such as the role of experts and think-tanks in legitimizing structural
reforms in Latin America in the 1980s and 1990s). Beyond the mainstream
approach, a renewed concern with the social science-policy nexus is needed
to encourage the co-production of knowledge between diverse social actors.
THE INTERNATIONAL FORUM ON THE SOCIAL

SCIENCE-POLICY NEXUS (IFSP)
The International Forum on the Social Science-Policy Nexus (IFSP)3 was
organized in February 2006, in collaboration with the governments of Argen-
tina and Uruguay, the cities and universities of Buenos Aires, Córdoba,
Montevideo and Rosario, and with the support of the International Social
Science Council (ISSC) and six international organizations: the Interna-
tional Labour Organization (ILO), United Nations (UN) Department of
Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA), UN Development Programme
(UNDP), UN Children's Fund (UNICEF), UN Research Institute for Social
Development (UNRISD), UN University - Comparative Regional Integration
Studies (UNU-CRIS) and the World Bank (WB).
The IFSP was designed as an innovative space for a new kind of
dialogue, bringing together social scientists, policy-makers and civil society
actors in the search for mutual understanding and reflection. Since then,
this groundbreaking initiative has opened a new process for the enhanced
cooperation of research and policy, known as the Buenos Aires Process. Its
main outcome politically speaking was the Buenos Aires Declaration, which
called for a new approach to the social science-policy nexus (see Appendix I).
The organization of the IFSP mobilized the entire UNESCO SHS
Sector for several months. Its content design was under the responsibility
of an International Steering Committee chaired by the president of the
Intergovernmental Council of the MOST Programme, Minister Zola
Skweyiya. It was composed of experts, representatives of all fields of social
sciences and policy-making, official representatives of the governments of
Argentina and Uruguay, as well as representatives from UNRISD, UNU-CRIS,
ILO, the European Science Foundation (ESF), ISSC, the Association of Asian
Social Science Research Councils (AASSREC) and the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council (Canada) (SSHRC). It met several times in
Paris as well as in Buenos Aires to define the programme of the Forum, set
up the thematic issues, identify keynote speakers, select workshops proposed
by institutions throughout the world, and draft the final Declaration of the
Forum.
The IFSP gathered over 2,000 participants from more than 85 countries,
including thirteen ministers of social development and education from Africa,
Asia and Latin America, five secretaries-general of regional organizations,
and numerous representatives of governments and local authorities, students,
university professors and academics, project representatives and members
3 Information on the IFSP is available on the UNESCO website at www.unesco.org/shs/ifsp
INTRODUCTION 23
of civil society. There were ninety-nine workshops with 497 speakers, five
high-level round tables and two technical consultation meetings, distributed
among the four host cities.
The call for participation to the Forum was divided into five thematic
areas identified as the most relevant for the current social transformations:
global issues and dynamics

social policies
population and migration
urban policies and decentralization
regional integration.
The twenty-seven workshops on 'Global issues and dynamics' held in Buenos

Aires (Argentina) dealt with the nature and impact of globalization and the
paths towards improved global governance. The IFSP call for participants
stated:
Globalization is a fact in today's world. However, the dynamics ofglobalization

differ widely: it benefits some but marginalizes and leaves behind many others.
How then can social scientists, NGOs, and policy makers affect the process of
globalization so that it can accrue to the benefit of everyone, instead of dividing
and discriminating?
Moreover, the call asked that the topics for workshop proposals should
explicitly take the research-policy nexus into account.
The thirty-six workshops on 'Social policies', also held in Buenos
Aires, focused on the analysis of successes and failures in the use of social
science knowledge for social policy in areas such as poverty eradication, social
integration, health and education. These workshops on 'Social policies' agreed
with the IFSP's call for participants, which stated that:
Contemporary states intervene ever more closely in the fabric of their societies to
promote public health, to target social benefits, to address entrenched poverty,
to adapt institutions and policies to the implications of ageing populations or
new modes of education and knowledge. Such intervention requires detailed
knowledge of social situations and the ability to predict their responses, as well
as bridges between the inevitably different agendas, languages, timeframes and
evaluation frameworks, and interests, of social scientists and policy actors. The
objective of the Forum is to understand how these differences can be bridged so
that social policy can be better informed by social science. Particular emphasis
should be given in workshop proposals to analysis of successes and failures in
the use of social science knowledge for policy. Better understanding of what
works and what fails is the basis of more accurate scientific analysis of the social
world and enhanced capacities for action to address its most urgent ills in order
to contribute to achieve the Copenhagen commitments and the Millennium
Development Goals.
The IFSP call for this thematic area stressed the fields of poverty eradication,
social integration, health, social insurance, housing, employment and
education. In addition to these workshops, two closed consultations took place
in Buenos Aires. One of them was organized by the Swedish International
Development Cooperation Agency Department for Research Cooperation
(SIDA-SAREC), and brought together many social sciences funding agencies.
The other was focused on regional cooperation, and gathered all relevant
regional bodies. It led to the reinforcement of networks and to the definition
of new possibilities of action.
The fifteen workshops on 'Population and migration' held in Córdoba
(Argentina) addressed the core issues raised by contemporary migration flows,
scenarios for the future of migration and current demographic tendencies.
They replied to the IFSP call, stating:
International migration and changing population patterns have become major

issues in social transformations and political debates throughout the world. In
a context of economic globalization, flows of people have diversified and now
concern nearly all countries, whether as sending, transit or receiving regions.
The challenge for the international community is to elaborate concrete and
efficient answers to the questions raised by international migration, which
includes above all migrants' vulnerability and violations of their human rights
but also ways in which movement of people may benefit both origin and
destination countries, and migrants themselves. The workshops should address
the core issues raised by contemporary migration flows: forced migration
and asylum, globalization and migrants' transnational lives and identities,
the cultural and environmental impact of migration, the legal framework of
migration and migrants' rights, intergovernmental and regional cooperation in
the elaboration of migration policies, and scenarios for the future of migration.
Several workshops will address current demographic tendencies, including
changing family structures, and the ageing populations of many countries.
INTRODUCTION 25
The fourteen workshops on 'Urban policies and decentralization' organized

in Rosario (Argentina) focused on the challenges of territorial and urban
transformations, including socio-territorial integration, local democracy and
citizenship, and municipal action, as well as on the main responses to them.
The workshops answered the IFSP invitation, which had recalled that:
Urban policies and territorial development are testing groundsfor the connection
between science, techniques and policies. As cities expand worldwide, urban
policies are becoming an essential element in the territorial regulation of
societies. Yet, paradoxically, urban growth over the last 25 years, particularly in
the developing world, has gone hand in hand with forsaken territorial planning,
increasing basic deprivation and worsening living conditions. Workshop
proposals should focus on territories currently undergoing major change.
Topics should relate to the main challenges of change (planning instruments,
territorial integration, socio-economic insertion, local democracy and
citizenship, municipal action) and to the main responses to them (cooperation,
development of legal instruments, quality ofpublic spaces, enhanced analytical
capacities, expertise and innovative engagement ofprofessionals...).
Finally, the six workshops and the high-level symposium on the 'Social
dimension of regional integration', held in Montevideo (Uruguay), reflected
on how to strike a better balance between the economic and social dimensions
of regional integration, and the relationship between the state and regional
integration schemes (UNESCO MOST, 2007). These workshops answered
the IFSP call, which pointed out that:
In recent years, regional integration schemes of various kinds have been

proliferating in every region of the world. Effective regional integration models
can empower people and national governments to better cope with, and benefit
from, global economic forces. These agreements can foster powerful links
among commerce, economic reform, development, investment, security and
democratization. However, at the same time, because of the prevailing focus
on economic issues, social aspects of regional integration tend to be ignored or
lose out in terms of priority. Moreover, regional integration raises interesting
and important questions for the sovereignty of national governments. The
workshops should therefore be organized around such themes as the reasons for
the resurgence of regional integration, different models of regional integration,
concrete cases of successes and failures, how to strike a better balance between
the economic and social dimensions of regional integration, and the relationship
between the state and regional integration schemes, all the while explicitly
taking into account the research-policy nexus.
Drawing on the work and conclusions of thefive-dayforum and calling for further
analysis on the topic and on various other important issues brought up by the
workshops, the UNESCO IFSP Final Report (2006)4 displays three main results:
• an assessment of the status of the nexus between policy and social science,
involving a cross-sector comparison of its strengths and weaknesses
• the identification of the pitfalls impeding a dynamic nexus
• the elaboration of recommendations for overcoming these pitfalls.
MAPPING THE ANALYTICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL

APPROACHES TO THE RESEARCH-POLICY NEXUS
DRAWN FROM THE IFSP
Via the revision, analysis and valorization of the works discussed and
presented during the IFSP's ninety-nine workshops, the first part of this
volume intends to specify the Forum's results in scientific terms.
This endeavour follows the analysis initiated in the forum's Final
Report, with the specific objective of mapping out the different analytical and
methodological approaches used or discussed during the IFSP conferences
and workshops. By laying out a map of the different approaches taken,
the aim is to contribute to enriching and elucidating the most common
conceptualizations of the nexus, and their theoretical and methodological
characteristics.
The mapping of the IFSP outcomes is based on a process of systema-
tization of the different analyses of the nexus and the master narratives that
define them. By producing a summary of the material drawn from the IFSP,
this endeavour intends to help the MOST Programme Secretariat think about
the ways in which the research-policy linkages can be enhanced.
In addition, the mapping has the following main objectives:
• gathering an IFSP critical mass on research-policy links

• contributing to the production of state-of-the-art knowledge on the
issues coming out of the IFSP documents
• enhancing, valorizing and disseminating the IFSP outcomes.
4 The Final Report is available in English, Spanish and French on its website www.unesco.org/shs/ifsp
INTRODUCTION 27
Methodology and research questions

This endeavour involved several different steps and actions:
• identifying the most relevant workshops with a view to exploring their

outputs in terms of the nexus
• filtering the available documents
• contacting workshop organizers in order to gather unavailable documents
• doing a preliminary review of this mass of documents
• systematizing the content of the selected published and unpublished
IFSP documents
• editing and translating a selection of unpublished material for their
publication in this volume.
The work was done in three successive stages. The first was exploratory. It
included the gathering of information, the first screening of the material,
the first contacts with the authors and the first interpretive hypotheses.
The second step was more analytical; while the last one included the final
analysis of the documents, and a consultation with the members of the MOST
Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC).5
Some 300 IFSP internal documents (workshop proposals, workshop
records, thematic interim reports, concept papers,finalreports, official speeches
and internal reports), in Spanish, English and French, were analysed. About
one-third of the IFSP workshops and fifty documents were identified and
selected as potentially interesting for analysing their approaches to the issue of
the nexus. Reviews of twelve books and fifty papers and articles related to the
IFSP (both published and unpublished) were conducted. The final selection
showed the following thematic distribution (see Appendix II for more details):
• global issues and dynamics: ten out of twenty-six workshops and seven
written works (with one or several papers each)
• social policies: thirteen out of thirty-six workshops and six written works
5 The meeting was carried out during the World Social Sciences Forum organized by the ISSC
in Bergen (Norway) in May 2009. The members of the SAC are: President: Nazli Choucri,
Department of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA;
Lourdes Sola, Department of Political Science and Center for Public Policy Research, University
of Säo Paulo, Brazil; Luk van Langenhove, Centre for Comparative Regional Integration Studies,
United Nations University, Bruges, Belgium; Zdenka Mansfeldová, Institute of Sociology,
Academy of Science of the Czech Republic; Masanori Naito, Institute for the Study of Global
Issues, Hitotsubashi University, Tokyo, Japan; and Professor Charly Gabriel Mbock, Ministry of
Scientific and Technical Research, Yaounde, Cameroon.
• population and migration: two out offifteenworkshops and one written

work
• urban policies and decentralization:fiveout of fourteen workshops and
three written works
• regional integration: four out of seven workshops and two written works.
Of the institutions and actors identified, approximately one-third belong

to international organizations, one third belong to research institutes,
universities, think-tanks and professional bodies, and one-third belong to
governmental institutions.
At this point, it is important to note that, in this experiment, the nexus
linking social science and policy-making was not primarily an object of
theoretical reflection, but a practical objective. This objective could be attained
by bringing researchers, policy-makers and civil society representatives together
to explore possible ways of cooperating to tackle the challenges set in the five
major thematic areas. Hence, it is not surprising that a preliminary analysis of
the workshops showed that only a few of them proposed to address the nexus
explicitly as a topic for theoretical deliberation. In many cases, the issue of the
nexus was almost completely absent from the workshops' proposals.
The fact is that most workshops focused on diverse issues relating to the
IFSP thematic areas, and dealt with questions concerning either social science
research or policy, from which they drew conclusions and in some cases
put forward policy recommendations. This was the result of designing the
forum as a dialogic space, best suited to facilitating communication between
actors with different languages. When a preliminary assessment suggested
that workshops were not likely to say anything explicit about the theoretical
frameworks that might be used to deal with the nexus, it became evident that
the MOST Secretariat had to try to make the underlying understandings of
the issue more pronounced.
Arguably, the most salient characteristic of the IFSP was the hetero-
geneity of the theoretical approaches it displayed. This led to methodological
difficulties when it came to systematizing the workshops' conceptualizations.
It was necessary to find a manageable structure to deal with their heterogeneity
in terms of framings, issues, historical background and styles.
The next section presents the research questions identified to build the
analytical structure of this mapping endeavour.
The question at the basis of the mapping concerns the possible ways
of approaching the social science-policy nexus. What do the IFSP workshop
organizers and speakers tell us about the different ways of conceiving and
INTRODUCTION 29
dealing with the issue of the relationship between social science and policy-
making? As a result of this analysis, four sets of heuristic questions were defined.
The first set of questions concerns the definitions of knowledge,
scientific knowledge production and research. What did the workshops
have to say about the different ways of approaching and defining knowledge,
particularly social scientific knowledge, and the ways in which it is produced
and validated? Did the workshops ponder on the institutional, political
and cultural settings of knowledge production? Did they address issues of
validation, including for example the role of peer review? And finally, what
did they have to say about the specificity of social scientific research, as distinct
from research in the natural sciences?
The second set of questions deals with research use and usefulness
in various social contexts. How did the workshop participants consider
the use and usefulness of social research in policy decision-making? What
does it mean to utilize research? Which different typologies and models did
they propose or develop to clarify this issue? According to these different
typologies, does social science actually matter in the policy process? If so, how
and when does research matter? Which assumptions support the idea that
policies that are informed by research-based evidence are actually better? How
did the participants understand the impact or influence of research in policy
decision-making? How did they propose to deal with the issue of measuring
effective impact?
And conversely, if social research does not really matter in policy
decision-making, why not? Did the IFSP workshops ponder on the nature of
the disruption of social knowledge production, diffusion and use in different
social contexts? And in this sense, what did workshops have to say about
possible strategies for enhancing the usefulness of social knowledge for policy-
making and the policy uptake of research?
This second set also includes questions on the specificities of research
use, both in different policy sectors, and on different levels of intervention
(national, regional and global).
As has already been mentioned, the IFSP proposed five thematic areas
for exploring the nexus. Each one supposes different scales and levels of policy
action. Considering this, did the workshops display distinct approaches to the
nexus that were specific to each policy sector and level, or did they use the same
theoretical approaches to the social science-policy nexus regardless of the sector
or level of intervention? Did the workshops give any insight into the indicators
that have to be taken into account when dealing with the enhancement of these
linkages at different levels and in different policy areas?
Following suggestions made by some workshops, the third set of

research questions concerns wider ways of seeing and dealing with social
science in society at large.
The focus on science in society stems from a recent shift in the way
many policy and research actors understand the place of scientific knowledge
and research in the policy-making process and contemporary political life in
general; moving from positivistic and linear models to more wide-ranging,
constructivist and iterative approaches.
From this perspective, the processes through which policy-relevant
knowledge is produced, validated and used are essentially linked to different
aspects of political life in democratic societies, including the framing of
issues, the formation of political identities and citizenship, the construction
of political legitimacy and authority, and conflict resolution.
Knowledge-power articulations are thus central to this understanding
of the nexus. Hence, the focus is mainly on the different social actors involved
in the political and epistemic processes that determine the research-policy
links at the national, regional and global levels of governance.
This third set of research questions includes: what analytical concepts
and frameworks did participants put forward to deal with these dynamic
and interactive social processes within which social policy-relevant facts and
ideas are formed, validated, criticized, disseminated and discarded? What did
workshops say about the ways in which social scientists and researchers are
part of power networks? Did the workshops give any insight into controversies
in which social science and policy-makers are involved: for example, those
concerning contested statistical evidence? How did workshops deal with
issues regarding the autonomy of research and its independence from political
and economic powers? And in these senses, how did workshops address the
basic dilemma that was identified in twentieth-century social science, between
Value-neutral' research (Weber, 1948) and 'engaged' research (Gramsci,
1957)? Did workshops choose between these classical conceptions of social
science, try to combine them, or move beyond them (Lee et al., 2005)?
In keeping with this approach, the last set of heuristic questions focuses
on the co-production of policy-relevant knowledge between academia, policy-
makers and civil society. The interest in co-production goes hand in hand with
the increasing recognition that dialogue between science and other situated
ways of knowing, such as gender perspectives,6 is an essential component
6 On the concept of partial or situated knowledge, see Donna Haraway (1989, 1991, 1997).
The concept has been a major influence on feminist methodological debates within different
scientific disciplines. Central to the concept of situated knowledge is the idea that there is no one
INTRODUCTION 31
of accountable policies in democratic societies. Indeed, the focus on issues

such as upstream citizen engagement in both policy-making and research is
closely related to a widespread reaction in both the research and policy realms
towards certain technocratic understandings of the nexus.
How did workshops address the renewed attention paid to the role of
laypersons and to the general public, considered as bearers of different forms
of'situated knowledge', in the management of complex social and technical
issues? And more specifically, how did they deal with the situated ways of
knowing implied in gender perspectives? What did workshops that dealt with
participatory politics have to say about the set of methodologies that aim at
organizing citizen involvement? Which methods did they suggest in order to
enhance the co-production of knowledge between diverse social actors? Did
they propose any specific strategies to link this world of non-expert knowledge
with sociotechnical decision-making spheres?
The analysis of the workshops' approaches to the nexus was built on the
basis of these four sets of general questions. However, it should be noted that
these questions can be also considered as a sort of a larger research programme.
Therefore, this mapping endeavour should not be considered as a conclusive
way of dealing with the workshop output, but rather as the beginning of a
process of reflection and discussion that calls for follow-up actions.
BOX 1. Exploring the IFSP workshops' understanding of the social

science research-policy linkages by decomposing it into some of its
constitutive conceptual elements
Scientific knowledge production and validation

*
The use and usefulness of research
*
The policy process and the influence of research
*
The relationships between 'science'and 'society'at large
*
Specific actors, sites and processes shaping the research-policy interface
*
The co-production of policy-relevant knowledge
truth that might be uncovered, and as a result, all knowledge is partial and linked to the contexts
in which it is created.
The analytical backbone

The analytical backbone builds on the conclusion that one of the most
important messages stemming from the exploration of the workshops is that
there is a clear need to distinguish, in both epistemic and political terms,
between two different ideal types of approach. On the one hand, we can
identify instrumental approaches to the nexus that build on rationalistic
understandings of research use. On the other hand, we find conceptual
approaches that analyse social scientific research within societal dynamics,
focusing on more wide-ranging, interactive and indirect ways in which the
wide array of social actors can 'use' research-based knowledge.
After considering the arguments put forward in many workshops,7 we
have chosen in this report to treat this overall distinction as the analytical
backbone of the analysis. Our aim in doing so was to draw attention to the
fact that when it comes to the concern over the use of research evidence, both
the research and policy communities can use very different norms.
In other words, different research and policy actors are moved by
divergent sets of values, norms and ideas about what is socially desirable or
undesirable, good and bad, when dealing with the articulation of research
and policy. Such normative directions are reflected in the choice of a specific
frame of reference by the researcher, the practitioner or the decision-maker.
The point is that each kind of theoretical framework entails specific sets
of ontologies, institutions and methods when defining what is proper, good
and effective. Considering this, it is suggested that the choice of the frame of
reference entails different politics of the nexus. Who speaks and what he/she
says is evidently of paramount importance.
Thus, in order to structure the analysis, we have roughly ordered the
approaches of the IFSP workshops along an ideal spectrum that ranges from
the more practical approaches focusing mainly - but not exclusively - on
instrumental uses of research, to more conceptual, reflective approaches
that deal with the way in which socially constructed knowledge constantly
influences, often indirectly, the way problems are understood.
7 Among these workshops we could mention 'Which kinds of nexus for which kinds of policies?
A comparative study of policies in five intervention areas in Chile', organized by the Group of
Chilean Studies (GRESCH) (De Cea and Gárate, 2006); 'Globalization and intercultural linkages:
the case of migration and intercultural linkages between Pakistan and Norway', organized by
the MOST Committee of the Norwegian National Commission for UNESCO (Naustdalslid,
2006); 'Production and use of research in trade policy-making in Latin America, organized
by FLACSO; and 'Bridges to fight against and to overcome poverty in Latin America and the
Caribbean, hosted by the NGO Fundación Global Democracia y Desarrollo together with the
Dominican Republic delegation to UNESCO.
INTRODUCTION 33
Using this framework, we first present material from workshops that

relied primarily on an instrumental conception of research use. We then move
on to an analysis of the workshops that focused on more conceptual uses of
research, involving more constructivist, interpretive accounts of knowledge
production, validation and use.
We examine and discuss separately the workshops that focused on
relevant social actors and processes, including for example the global framing
of policy issues, participatory governance trends and new modes of knowledge
production. These workshops draw attention to some processes and social
actors that are considered to be of major importance for understanding the
nexus. Workshops dealt, for example, with the role of think-tanks as knowledge
brokers in specific developmental contexts, the role of international agencies
as international knowledge organizations, and the current transformations
of the role of universities in the context of sustainable development.
Finally, we move to those workshops that addressed the challenges of
co-production of knowledge by academia, government and civil society, as
well as the challenge raised by the inclusion of gender perspectives and other
kinds of situated knowledge as elements of the nexus.
Having said all that, it is of course important to point out the limits of such
a schematic systematization. Differentiating workshops across a somewhat linear
spectrum presents important disadvantages that have to be acknowledged. The
problem is that most of the workshops analysed rarely put forward approaches
that fit completely within the categories made in this systematization. For
example, many workshops building on instrumental approaches dealt, at the
same time, with issues related to the co-production of knowledge and expertise
between scientists, policy-makers and civil society. In the same way, whereas
some workshops focusing on more conceptual uses of research in the policy
process relied on constructivist accounts of knowledge production, others
referred to more positivistic definitions of knowledge. Likewise, workshops
dealing with specific actors and processes in the construction of the nexus
focused on both instrumental and conceptual uses of research.
Finally, it should be noted that we have paid special attention to
workshops addressing issues of citizen participation, action research and
gender perspectives, because of the centrality of the issue of co-production.
Indeed, the co-production of knowledge seems to be an issue cutting though
the whole spectrum, although not all the workshops dealt with it in the
same way. For instance, almost every workshop referred in some way to the
importance of including civil society into the nexus.
In short, the ways in which the different workshops proposed to

frame the issue of the nexus were in most of the cases based on rather hybrid
conceptual frameworks. However, we still believe it is most valuable to
differentiate between them according to our spectrum of ideal types. In doing
so, the report strives to situate the various approaches within larger theoretical
debates, which are in constant evolution. Therefore, this mapping should be
understood, in its imperfection, as an attempt to present the richness of the
diverse views on the nexus put forward by the IFSP workshops in a more
systematic and coherent manner.
CHAPTER 1
INSTRUMENTAL APPROACHES
TO THE LINKS:
Bridging gaps through dialogue,
new procedural approaches
and knowledge management
This first section discusses a series of workshops that displayed instrumental

approaches towards conceptualizing the nexus. This type of workshop relies
mainly on an instrumental definition of knowledge use. This approach also
commonly assumes that scientific research can have a direct impact on policy
and practice, thus contributing to better decisions.
The rationale behind this kind of approach is that the lack of concerted
collaboration between researchers and political decision-makers will lead to
failures in the prioritization of social issues, and in the effective implementation
of policy. Accordingly, workshops building on this approach often call for
the establishment of a common agenda for research and policy via dialogue
so as to ensure both the policy-relevance of research and its policy uptake.
Meeting this goal supposes that it is possible to overcome a great many pitfalls
and drawbacks.
Many concerned research and policy actors who endorse instrumental
approaches see the relationship between social science research and policy-
making in terms of a gap that needs to be bridged in a concrete, practical
manner. This could be done, for example, by creating new spaces for dialogue
and joint agenda setting, developing new tools for better organizational
learning, or enhancing information supply and knowledge management with

the use of new technologies.
In this perspective, however, the main issue is not always defined in the
same terms. Therefore, there is not one universal gap, but different ones, each
calling for a different bridging action (Stone, Maxwell and Keating, 2001).
These gaps are defined in terms of supply and demand. On the supply side, the
gaps concern the availability of policy-relevant research, the accessibility of
research outputs, and communication and understanding between researchers
and policy-makers. On the demand side, these gaps might be conceptualized
in terms of more complex governance issues concerning the disconnection
of both researchers and policy-makers from policy beneficiaries.
Workshops that built on this approach sought to put forward evidence
pertinent to the success or failure of problem-coping strategies, like for
example networks and forums, new procedural and technical approaches,
and knowledge management.
It is interesting to note that most of these workshops took a more
reflective stance, and acknowledged that narrowly framed strategies towards
enhancing the linkages between research and policy might raise new questions
about the autonomy of research, the biased uses of evidence, and underlying
technocratic tendencies.
In view of this, new, more transparent, deliberative and participative
approaches to the research-policy nexus are often proposed by many
scientific and policy institutional actors as a means of addressing issues of
transparency, accountability and empowerment. Nonetheless, often these
problems tend to be approached in a very instrumental fashion, and the
emphasis is put mainly on the practical challenges of effectively including
civil society as a third actor aiding the improvement of decision-making.
Consequently, these approaches stress the need to foster the 'public
understanding of science', as well as the creation of new mechanisms that
might make possible the co-production of policy-relevant knowledge by
academia, governments and civil society.
In what follows, three examples of instrumental approaches to the
nexus between social science research and policy-making are presented. The
first is a series of events taking a somewhat Habermasian-inspired approach.
This approach highlights the need for bringing concerned actors together
within a specially designed dialogic space for bridging communication gaps
between researchers, decision-makers and civil society. Next, two important
workshops building upon a knowledge management approach to the nexus are
studied. This second approach highlights the potential of carefully designed
INSTRUMENTAL APPROACHES TO THE LINKS 37
online knowledge systems and other knowledge management tools for

bridging the gaps that impede an effective nexus. Finally, a workshop looking
at instrumental trends in research use and knowledge transfer mechanisms
is examined.
BRINGING STAKEHOLDERS TOGETHER WITHIN

AN ENABLING, DIALOGIC ENVIRONMENT
One of the most interesting examples of an instrumental approach to the
research-policy nexus can be found in the IFSP itself. In what follows, a
certain number of points concerning the theoretical foundations of the IFSP
are highlighted.
The rationale of the approach taken by the MOST Programme in the
organization of the forum was made explicit in different documents published
before, during and after the event (Crowley, 2007; UNESCO MOST, 2007a, b;
Sané, 2008; UNESCO, 2006a, 2006b). In these documents, the issue of the
nexus is framed in terms of a gap between academia, policy-makers and
civil society. In 2005, the strategy developed by the MOST Programme
to address this gap consisted in 'bringing together' actors with essentially
different profiles into an enabling space for a new kind of dialogue. Indeed, the
objective of the IFSP was to generate a renewed and dynamic nexus between
social science and policy-making.
In this understanding of the issue, an enhanced research-policy nexus
requires two things. Firstly, relevant knowledge must be produced and made
available to policy-makers in forms they can understand and use. Secondly,
the policy uptake of research must be ensured.
According to the MOST concept paper 'Social development: from
research to policy to action' (UNESCO MOST, 2007b), there are three main
factors conducive to the under-scientization of policy. The first factor is the
lack of policy-level interest in research, which is commissioned not in order
to provide access to its results but for other reasons, like habit, symbolic
legitimization and patronage. The second factor is the lack of interest in
the policy impact by researchers who prefer, for various reasons, to keep
their distance from the policy process. The third factor is the lack of effective
communication for bridging the divergent languages, timetables and interests
of policy-makers and researchers. Considering these gaps, the challenge for
the IFSP was to create the conditions in which social research could be used
and taken seriously, subject to institutional procedures that might create a
favourable context.
Theoretically, this framing of the issue of the nexus brings into play the
classic conceptualization of the incommensurability of the ethics of science
and politics, as presented by Max Weber in his two famous conferences on the
same subject (2003 [1919]). However, for the MOST Programme, viewing the
research-policy nexus solely in terms of bilateral relations between academics
and policy-makers is both normatively and instrumentally undesirable.
Therefore, the multifaceted role of civil society must be taken seriously. Above
all, it is necessary to address the general disconnection of both researchers
and decision-makers from social demands.
In order to bridge this complex gap, MOST fosters the development of
new modes of governance, paying special attention to issues of accountability,
empowerment and the co-production of policy-relevant knowledge. The fact
that the MOST Programme sees civil society as an essential element of the
nexus suggests that, at this point, it is moving away from the Weberian account
of the relationship between science and politics towards a more Habermasian
understanding. The Habermasian theoretical framework is essentially
committed to revealing the latent possibility of reason, emancipation and
rational-critical communication in the modern public sphere (Habermas,
1981, 1990 [1962]). In this sense, this analytical framework provides the
MOST Programme with useful insights into the increasing interdependency
of the political, the social and the scientific spheres, and the associated
transformation of power, knowledge and legitimacy relations in the public
sphere (Habermas, 1968).
It is important to recall that, since Habermas's interpretation of Max
Weber, theoretical discussion has revolved around three different models of
relationships between experts and politicians: the decisionist model, where the
decision-making power ultimately belongs to the politician; the technocratic
model, in which the decision-making power is enjoyed by technocrats and
experts; and the pragmatic model, where decisions are deliberated in the
public sphere. The technocratic and the decisionist models have been criticized
in the last decades because they both raise problems having to do with the
democratic control of increasingly complex socio-technical decisions.
In contrast to the decisionist and the technocratic models, the pragmatic
model developed on the basis of Habermasian theory highlights the public
nature of the nexus between science and politics, and opens the door to the
expression of multiple interests concerned with problems that do not have
unequivocal technical solutions.
In keeping with the pragmatic model of the relationship between
science and politics, the sociology of scientific knowledge and the sociology
of innovation have produced two interesting conceptual developments that

have had an important impact on both policy and research actors, and that
are at the basis of the approach taken by the MOST Programme. These are the
concept of distributed knowledge production - that is, the co-production of
socially robust knowledge by various social actors, as developed by Gibbons
et al. (1994) and Nowotny, Scott and Gibbons (2001) - and that of of'hybrid
forums', namely the networks that link the views and knowledge of laypersons,
experts and policy-makers (Callón, Lascoumes and Barthe, 2001).
Drawing on these theoretical frameworks, the MOST Programme
endorsed the principle that 'the knowledge appropriate for accountable policies
that actually work is necessarily co-produced by governments, academics and
civil society' (Sané, 2008). This practical approach to the co-production of
knowledge emerges as a realistic answer to the widespread concern about
the potential anti-democratic bias of of evidence-based policies. Following
normative orientations, the MOST Programme rejects any technocratic
governance template that dismisses the contribution of concerned civil society
to policy development. The reasons for such a commitment to a widened
research-policy linkage are not exclusively normative, however; they are also
instrumental. Indeed, for MOST, any 'expert-led governance is likely to be
practically inoperative' (UNESCO MOST, 2007&).
The IFSP was UNESCO's initiative for making the co-production of
knowledge possible. Picking up on the theory of the democratic management
of techno-science (Callón et al., 2001), the IFSP was designed as a particular
kind of 'hybrid forum' bringing together researchers, policy-makers and a
whole range of actors from civil society to discuss the framing of issues, define
what counts as policy-relevant knowledge, and ensure the wide circulation
of available knowledge at a stage in the policy process when options are still
genuinely open (Crowley, 2007; UNESCO MOST, 2007b). With the creation
of such an enabling dialogic environment, the MOST Programme aimed to
bridge the large number of gaps undermining the construction of an effective
three-dimensional nexus between social science, policy-makers and civil society.
RESEARCH-POLICY DIALOGUE IN REGIONAL

INTEGRATION
Building upon this approach to the nexus, two events organized under the
theme 'Regional integration' are of particular significance: the High-Level
Symposium on the Social Dimensions of Regional Integration and the
workshop "The nation-state facing the challenges of regional integration in
West Africa'. As other thematic areas of the IFSP, the workshops organized
on the topic of 'Regional integration' were meant to bring together policy-
makers, researchers and representatives of civil society.
Addressing the social dimensions of regional integration:

the case of the Montevideo high-level symposium
The High-Level Symposium on the Social Dimensions of Regional Integration
was one of the most salient events of the IFSP. At the initiative of the Govern-
ment of Uruguay, the Secretariat of Mercado Común del Sur (MERCOSUR),
the Globalism and Social Policy Programme (GASPP) and UNESCO's MOST
Programme, this event brought together chief executives of regional inte-
gration bodies - MERCOSUR, Convenio Andrés Bello (CAB), the Pacific
Islands Forum (PIF), Black Sea Economie Cooperation (BSEC) and the East
African Community (EAC) - and renowned representatives of the research
and academic communities from all regions. The symposium dealt with
the possible ways of striking a more appropriate balance between the social
and economic dimensions of regional integration processes. The aim was to
discuss social challenges and issues linked to contemporary regional integra-
tion processes with a view to sharing knowledge and experiences, defining
joint ways of action and reinforcing research-policy linkages.
Following the point of view of the organizing institutions, the social
dimensions of regional integration referred not merely to the circumstantial
externalities of economic integration, but more specifically to the social
transformations entailed by integration processes (Sané, 2006b). In this light,
the symposium proposed to address the regional level as a new space for social
policies as well as a suitable frame for comparative analysis. This analysis
was based on policy-oriented social science research undertaken in order
to inform governments about the advantages of regional social policies and
mechanisms of social regulation in the fields of social security, labour, health
and education.
Consequently, the contributions to the symposium, made available
online as a series of discussion documents edited by Ninou Garabaghi (2006fc),
touch upon a wide variety of themes and issues. For example, Nicola Yeates
and Bob Deacon (2006) discuss possible viable answers to the challenges that
neoliberal globalization poses to existing social policy systems. Their point is
that a good way of addressing these challenges would be for regional groups
of countries to develop cross-border regional distribution and regulation
as well as rights articulation mechanisms, thus providing for the health
protection and educational needs of the population. In a somewhat similar
vein, Brid Brennan (2006) argues that regional formations have put a heavy
emphasis on economic and trade issues at the expense of social ones on many
occasions. She argues in favour of developing alternative regionalisms that
would counter the neoliberal globalization paradigm and would articulate
the demands of social movements instead.
Turning the focus towards Asia, Jenina Joy Chavez (2006) notes that the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) shows clear weaknesses in
terms of its social dimension. She argues that the overemphasis on trade and
investment liberalization has prompted the restructuring of various industries
and employment sectors and has given rise to race-to-the-bottom issues. By
extension, this restructuring has affected the lives of hundreds of thousands
of workers and economic immigrants across the region. She notes that social
protection and integration has yet to acquire a regional character, particularly
with regard to migration and labour standards - which obviously previously
remained within the purview of nation-states. Similarly, commenting on the
Southern African Development Community (SADC), Viviene Taylor (2006)
notes that, in light of the scale of poverty and social exclusion in the region,
there is a new urgency to move away from the belief that regionalism should
only be limited to issues of economic integration, trade negotiations and
security.
Commenting on the European experience, Monica Threlfall (2006)
discusses how the governments of the EU Member States have been able
to combine autonomy on social policies with the advantages that burden-
sharing, policy learning and gradual convergence of policy outcomes can
bring. The author also stresses the fact that the European Union offers a
number of examples of creative methodologies for inter-state bargaining based
on consensus-seeking or on multilateral surveillance, such as benchmarking
and the open method of coordination.
In addition, the brainstorming roundtable on 'Regional integrations
and social dimensions' produced a series of papers that aimed to take
advantage of the presence of high-level decision-makers and researchers in
order to put forward new ideas on how to better address the social demand
for regional social policies (Almeida, 2006; Deblock, 2006; Delmas-Marty,
2006; Garabaghi, 2006a; Hugon, 2006; Sangare, 2006; Tenier, 2006).
Even if these papers do not explicitly address the issue of the science-
policy nexus as an object of theoretical, empirical or methodological reflection,
they are of interest to this report in that they were presented and debated
within the confines of a dialogic space, the explicit purpose of which was to
foster encounters between researchers, policy-makers and members of civil
society. The particular context of the speeches reveals itself in certain textual
marks that allude to the way that the stakeholders in question (policy-makers,
researchers and members of civil society) understand the link between science
and policy. Accordingly, some contributors promote normative visions or
goals, while others appear to be proposing broad policy directions - without
examining however, in this instance, how to better convey these proposals
to the decision-makers. Some of the contributions also seem to be critical of
current governmental practices and priorities, since these do not appear to
be in phase with research findings or normative commitments.
The discussion was ultimately translated into a series of policy proposals
included in the recommendations produced at the end of the symposium.
BOX 2. Recommendations of the High-Level Symposium

on the Social Dimensions of Regional Integration
A. It is recommended that injecting a social policy dimension into regional trading
arrangements should become an important part of a strategy to create a more
socially responsible globalization.
B.The importance of the social policy dimension of regionalism should be given
prominence in the meetings of the new Standing Committee established to
facilitate collaboration between the UN and each regional grouping. It is therefore
recommended that this standing committee is shadowed by a Social Policy/Social
Development Standing Committee that brings together the Regional Social Policy/
Social Development Secretaries and the UN Department of Social Policy and
Development together with representatives from the ILO, WHO and UNESCO.
C. It is recommended that UNESCO take the lead in convening an inter-regional social
policy dialogue process involving officials from regions with responsibility for social
policy. This dialogue of officials should engage with the inter-regional dialogue of
civil society. This process could include meetings and the establishment of a web-
based database of regional social policies.
D. A regional social policy monitoring, policy analysis and policy research process
needs to be established to offer policy advice to the above inter-regional dialogue
process. It is recommended that UNESCO liaise with UNRISD, UNU-CRIS and
GASPP to secure funds for a regional social policy monitoring and policy analysis
programme. Such a programme would liaise with the inter-regional policy dialogue
process proposed above and could inform the UN Regional Standing Committee.
In sum, by bringing different institutional and social players together

to identify policy gaps on the social dimensions and the consequences of
regional integration, the organizers' intention was to set up research and
policy agendas that correspond to current preoccupations, thus overcoming
'communication gaps' between academia, decision-makers and civil society
organizations. This strategy aimed to provide the basis for setting up research-
policy networks that include both policy-makers from regional integration
bodies and research institutions specializing in regional integration.
'Disentrenching' the debate on regional integration

in West Africa: the case of the MOST national seminars
in ECOWAS member-states
In the same vein, the workshop "The nation-state facing the challenges of
regional integration in West Africa: case studies', organized by the MOST
Programme's Dakar Office, approached the nexus by bringing together
researchers, political and economic decision-makers, and representatives
of civil society organizations. The explicit purpose was to facilitate the
communication of the relevant stakeholders in order to address the challenges
faced by the West African nation-states involved in the Economic Community
of West African States' (ECOWAS's) integration project.
Since their independence, West African countries have pursued both
the consolidation of the nation-state inside the borders inherited from
colonization and the achievement of regional integration as a means of
overcoming their dependency upon the former colonial powers. The apparent
paradox is that, even though regional integration is certainly acknowledged by
the social and political actors as one of the major issues in the development of
West Africa, the different protocols signed by the states at the ECOWAS level
have yet to meet people's expectations. This trend was further exacerbated by
the various civil wars that have affected the countries of the region over the
years, which have forced ECOWAS to focus on security and peacekeeping
rather than on furthering integration.
The question that arises is how, in such a difficult context, it is possible
to harmonize national priorities and regional integration objectives. The
complexity of the issue requires an examination at three different levels: first
at the national level so as to shed some light on the social, economic and
political implications of the choices made by each nation-state with regard to
regional integration; then at the neighbour-country level in order to identify
the impact of bilateral relations in the regional integration process; and finally
at the regional level with a view to making more explicit the vision each state
has of its integration within ECOWAS.
The workshop presented and discussed the outcomes of the first five
sessions of a series of national seminars on regional integration in West Africa
that UNESCO's MOST Programme organized between 2005 and 2008 in
ECOWAS Member-States (Benin, Ghana, Mali, Burkina Faso and Gambia).
The results of two of the seminars discussed during the IFSP workshops (Benin
and Mali) were published between 2006 and 2008 in a large collection of
books that makes these social science-policy dialogues available to the general
public. Even if the contributions do not explicitly engage in a theoretical
or methodological reflection on the interconnection between research and
policy, the whole venture is instrumentally steered towards articulating the
social science-policy interface by building up a dialogic space. In what follows,
the contents of the volumes dealing with the cases of Benin and Mali are
examined briefly.
The volume devoted to the case of Benin (Igué, 2006) puts forward
the result of a dialogue among relevant actors on the effects that the post-
colonial balkanization of West Africa has had on the challenges of poverty,
peace, security, development and governance. The central point is that
the African states suffer from the artificial character of their borders, and
that accordingly, the main priority of integration should be to enable the
creation of self-sustained poles of development and to foster trans-border
relations among people who enjoy close socio-economic and cultural ties.
Some of the issues discussed include the history of the different integration
initiatives in the region and the obstacles that have heretofore undermined
the closer integration of the West African states, the negative impact that the
balkanization of West Africa has had on the region's prospects for economic
development, the complex character of the sociocultural background of the
region and the opportunities it offers for integration, and the limits of the
different strategies undertaken so far to overcome the periodic famine crises
that affect the region.
The volume focusing on the case of Mali (Sanankoua, 2007) puts
emphasis on the structural problems that hold the West African nation-states
back and prevent them, especially Mali, from achieving regional integration
(war, poverty, lack of governance structures and territorial infrastructures, and
in the case of Mali, the consequences of being landlocked). The volume deals
with various issues, including the history of the different integration initiatives
and the structural problems that have undermined them (nationalisms,
different ideologies, lack of democratic institutions, colonial heritage), the
need to intensify the formal economic ties that bind the nations of the region
together, the role of trans-border languages from a linguistic and cultural
perspective, and the role of women's movements in West Africa.
This multidisciplinary reflection on the theme of regional integration
in West Africa aims to enhance the dialogue between researchers, political
and economic decision-makers and civil society organizations so as to better
understand what is at stake in the ongoing regional integration process

(Sanankoua, 2007). Indeed, the most salient characteristic of the approach
taken here by the organizers is that all the different social and human sciences,
and not only economics and law, which are traditionally privileged, are
of great value. This explicit assertion of the utility and pertinence of the
social sciences in toto acquires a new meaning in the context of democratic
transitions that free universities (along with other institutions, of course)
from the authoritarian shackles of the past. Indeed, as stated by Sané and
Boubacar in the prologue to the volume on Mali, this situation is likely to be
an opportunity to reinforce and systematize the dialogue between researchers
and decision-makers. The idea is that, when making a decision, politicians
should have the opinions and alternatives resulting from empirical research
in front of them. At the same time, researchers need to be aware of national
or regional priorities in order to steer their research programmes (Sanankoua,
2007).
The approach taken here by the MOST Programme Office in Dakar is
based on the idea that, at the end of this organized process of dialogue, the
concerned actors will have come to accept the legitimacy of the following
choices: first, setting up a mechanism that perpetuates the dialogue at the
national level; second, creating a West African research centre for regional
integration in order to make this kind of reflection long-lasting; and finally,
organizing an international conference that will draw on the outcomes
obtained so far.
In sum, these series of encounters are examples of concrete strategies
to develop new common frames of reference and ways of communication
among social scientists, policy-makers and civil society. They aim to foster the
creation of new territorial structures, and in general, bolster the development
of economies surpassing the traditional boundaries of nation-states.
'Disentrenching' a debate traditionally restricted to public powers and
opening it up to researchers and members of civil society ultimately points to
new pathways for overcoming the obstacles that undermine the integration
process. It becomes obvious that these important dialogue initiatives are
interesting examples of the 'bringing together' endeavour undertaken by
UNESCO's MOST Programme; an attempt that aims to narrow down the
different kinds of gap between research, policy and civil society.
By way of conclusion, it seems that the bringing together of relevant
actors acquires particular significance once the heterogeneity of content that
characterizes the fields of social scientific research and policy is recognized.
Indeed, the concepts and preoccupations prevalent in one field are not
understood or embraced by the actors in the other field. In this light, a

strategic and perpetual 'bringing together' of différent concerned actors
immediately acquires a heightened importance, even more so in the African
context where the challenges are multifaceted and urgent, and where the
relative fragility of national institutions hinders the success of concerted
processes of cooperation.
RESEARCH-POLICY DIALOGUE IN POPULATION

AND MIGRATION POLICIES
International migration patterns have become a major issue in the analysis
and management of social transformations. In a context of economic
globalization, flows of people have diversified and now concern practically
every country, whether as a sending, transit or receiving region. For UNESCO,
the challenge raised by international migrations concerns the vulnerability of
migrants and the violation of their human rights, as well as the ways in which
population movements may benefit both origin and destination countries.
Here again, a good example of the quest for an enhanced dialogue
among the stakeholders was the workshop 'The institutionalisation of the
dialogue between population research and development policy in Africa',
organized by the Department of Social Development of the Government
of South Africa. This workshop examined the social science-policy nexus
by assessing the progress made so far in the effective implementation of the
Programme of Action of the UN International Conference on Population
and Development (ICPD) held in Cairo in 1994. The ICPD Programme of
Action was based on the consensus that the growth of the world population
has created unwarranted demands on limited resources and therefore
needs to be reversed. It stated that, rather than continue with traditional
approaches that depend mainly on coercion, any strategy to stabilize world
population growth and achieve sustainable development should address
issues such as reproductive rights; the rights of vulnerable groups such as
women, migrants and people with HIV/AIDS; access to health services for
sexual and reproductive health care; family planning; gender inequality;
and universal adult literacy. In order to implement the ICPD Programme of
Action, governments, research communities and NGOs have been called on
to enhance their linkages in specific economic, cultural, social, religious and
environmental contexts.
With this in mind, the workshop brought together renowned population
and migration scholars, political decision-makers and NGO representatives to
discuss and draw lessons from the different experiences of institutionalization

of dialogue mechanisms in the interface between population research and
development policy.
Addressing data gaps and research use in migration policy

in Africa: the case of the African Migration Alliance (AMA)
One of the most interesting case studies on dialogue initiatives between
population research and development policy was the one presented by
Catherine Cross, senior researcher at the Human Sciences Research Council
(HSRC) of South Africa. It dealt with the experience of the African Migration
Alliance (AMA), a network for migration researchers established to help fill
research-policy gaps. Population migration on the African continent is a
critical area which demands further work in data gathering and in designing
effective policies. Against this backdrop, the challenge assumed by the AMA
is to collect comprehensive data and analyses on population movements, and
to transfer this into policy-accessible formats.
During the AMA 'kick-off international workshop, held in Pretoria
in March 2005 with sponsorship from South Africa's Department of Social
Development, some of the best migration scholars brought forward and
commented on the aspects of sub-Saharan African migration which they
consider the most significant. The AMA workshop dealt with recent and
critical changes in the level of migration flows on and off the continent. The
messages stemming from the workshop were directly addressed to policy-
makers; they highlighted the importance of population movement for the
development of policy work, and drew attention to unexplored facets of
African migration. The main critical issues that emerged related to migration
data sources, data collection and governmental perceptions of migration
flows.
Catherine Cross compiled the presentations made during the AMA
workshop into a volume entitled Views on Migration in Sub-Saharan Africa,
published by HSRC Press in 2006. Building on the workshop's conclusions,
the book produced 16 steps towards a joint research and policy agenda.
Catherine Cross's presentation in the IFSP drew on the conclusions and
recommendations of the AMA workshop in order to take stock of the gaps
between policy and research in African migration (Cross et al., 2006).
The key conclusion of the AMA workshop concerning the nexus was
that the aspects AMA scholars see as most significant stand in contrast to
the issues being recognized as critical by African policy authorities. Whereas
policy priorities focus especially on the contributions the African diaspora
can make to development, the AMA scholars' approach had more to do with
the driving factors, causes, composition and destinations of immigration. It
was also less specifically focused on the regulation of cross-border migration
and economic developmental goals. However, the workshop also concluded
that both policy and academic actors agree that accurate data collection in
relation to migration is a key goal; essential to the framing of effective policy,
if we are to overcome popular stereotypes and the 'mythology about migration
in policy circles' (Cross et al., 2006, p. 246).
In what follows, attention will be drawn to the tension between myth
and rationality in academic inquiry and policy responses to migration. This
question was particularly developed in Loren Landau's contribution to the
AMA workshop, which was published in the edited volume (Landau, 2006).
Taking a more reflective stance on the dynamics shaping the nexus, Landau
moved beyond the challenges of data collection and analysis to examine the
factors that influence the production and utilization of social scientific research
in the fields of migration, displacement and humanitarianism. Thus, Landau
aimed to identify the difficulties policy-oriented researchers are faced with
when it comes to penetrating the myths that influence government responses
to undocumented migration, and when explaining the factors that lead to
ineffective migration policies in Africa.
In the case of South Africa, Landau found that pre-established opinions,
organizational constraints and cognitive limitations all promote certain
policy myths that hinder more realistic and efficient policy responses based
on scientific recommendations. Although the argument builds on the South
African case, many of the observations are of possible wider importance.
According to Landau, scholars, especially those considering issues of
displacement and humanitarianism, are aware of the wish to meet academic
standards while simultaneously exerting an enlightening influence over
policy. However, Landau notes that nothing guarantees that the analyses
will be used towards the promotion of the interests of the dispossessed and
the vulnerable. Indeed, for Landau, there is often an inverted relationship
between the sophistication of an analysis and its influence on decision-
makers. Although we might reasonably expect this from pure research, we
must note that even commissioned research often fails to make an impression
on policy.
The core of the argument put forward by Landau is that decision-
making and research are both deeply embedded in cognitive and value systems
that direct the scope of the research and the aims of policy. Even though they
are not irrational, they often lead to sub-optimal policy responses. The point
is that these deeply held beliefs shaping policy often go unquestioned, and
are difficult to dislodge regardless of evidence to the contrary. What is more,
many of the same myths also influence research paradigms, problématiques
and goals. They also influence how researchers frame their questions, as well
as what findings are deemed to be interesting and worthy of publication.
Building upon neo-institutionalist accounts of knowledge use, Landau
identified four key factors that influence policy-making and the production
and use of research: cognitive limitations, bounded rationality, political
legitimacy and myth. First, cognitive frames or paradigms determine what
researchers and policy-makers identify as problems worthy of attention, thus
preventing more critical opinions or approaches from surfacing. Second,
organizations tend to accept plausible solutions and policy proposals without
carefully considering the full range of alternatives. Third, organizations often
collect data and commission research in order to legitimize predetermined
choices and recommendations. Finally, both researchers and policy-makers
often operate under the influence of deeply held attitudes.
Landau argued that, in the fields of migration, asylum and humani-
tarianism, these limitations are even more likely to trump informed analysis,
for several reasons. First, information is scarce and difficult to collect from a
practical point of view. Southern Africa's shortage of trained demographers
and migration specialists is only partly to blame. Indeed, the region's
highly porous borders make it all but impossible to track movements. If
conventional wisdom is difficult to dislodge even when confronted with
the most scientifically compelling counter-evidence, the lack of regularly
collected data further reduces the chances of effectively challenging policy
presumptions.
Where 'hard' information is absent, difficult to collect, or carefully managed by

public (or private) agencies, rumour, paranoia, and political pronouncements
often replace verified causal explanations. Indeed, without hard data, socially
and politically derived hypotheses are the only possible bases available for policy
formulation. Since much academic work on displacement and humanitarianism
relies on data collected by governments and aid agencies, research is rarely able
to escape these hazards while maintaining its academic rigour.
(Landau, 2006, p. 225)
Second, accurate information on immigration and migration is not easily

processed through standardized bureaucratic or political channels. It is
difficult to collect and analyse information on migration for many of the
same reasons - its unpredictability, its multiple causes and effects, the desire of
those relocating to remain invisible - as those that make it tricky for planners
to develop empirically informed policy responses.
Third, migration and displacement threaten deeply held values linking
spatial origins with rights and identities. Governments dedicate themselves to
managing people and processes within carefully defined geographic spaces.
Such delimitations of authority and responsibility are not only administrative,
but are often linked to more fundamental definitions of community.
Finally, the close connections between displacement scholars, policy-
makers and aid agencies create mutually reinforcing interests, and thus
compromise efforts to reveal and disseminate critical, evidence-based analyses
on displacement.
When it comes to social scientific research, Landau recommended that
scientists be wary of the institutional and cognitive structures that currently
frame the fields of migration and displacement. When developing research
agendas with a view to making policy proposals, scholars should move beyond
the current accommodating approaches. Simply producing new data is not
enough; they must also take into account what is driving the creation and
propagation of myths. Social science needs to make its results more legible
(for policy-makers) and also to challenge what is already 'known'.
To sum up, the case of the AMA workshop presented by Cross can be
seen as an interesting example of a concrete experience of policy-research
dialogue trying to meet the challenges of international migrations. The AMA
scholars made Africa's migration data gaps a central concern. Evidently,
collecting accurate data to sustain migration mainstreaming into policy is not
always easy. On the one hand, it is essential to address issues of manipulation
of data by governments. On the other hand, as Loren Landau highlights,
the underlying assumptions that define research agendas also need to be
addressed, as well as the practical difficulties the use of data presents. While
scientific data is an essential foundation for effective policy, there are no
guarantees on how the research will be used. We must be constantly aware of
how assumptions that are taken for granted shape both the production and
the consumption of knowledge in a world in which issues of migration and
immigration are highly politicized.
THE KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

Some of the most interesting and groundbreaking workshops displaying
an instrumental approach to the nexus between social science and policy
were 'Providing policy with online access to social science research results',
co-organized by the Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales (CLACSO)
and MOST, and 'Addressing the cognitive complexity of decision-making',
organized by MOST. These two workshops focused on the potential of new
procedural and interdisciplinary approaches to knowledge management to
bridge information supply and communication gaps, paying special attention
to information and communication technologies (ICT).
Knowledge management is an i m p o r t a n t theoretical framework
underpinning instrumental approaches to linking research and policy. This field
has its roots in organizational theory, information sciences and psychology.
At present, knowledge management has become a widespread theoretical
framework that informs strategies for improving policy-making. Looking
at policy-research linkages from a knowledge management perspective
emphasizes the processes and practices through which organizations create,
identify, represent, share, capture and use knowledge wherever it resides.
While knowledge management overlaps with other fields such
as organizational learning in its efforts to improve the performance of
organizations - including of course political organizations - it differs mainly
in that knowledge management stresses the importance of knowledge as a
strategic asset, and thus focuses on creating added value through its sharing
and systematization. Another important feature is that the models and
concerns of knowledge management clearly reflect the origins of the field
in information sciences. Indeed, strategies to manage knowledge stocks and
systems through codification and organization for enhanced accessibility and
use tend to be based on ICT. However, the label 'knowledge management'
encompasses many different approaches to knowledge and knowledge-
sharing, which sometimes contrast quite significantly.
While some knowledge management approaches focus mainly on
knowledge as an object, others tend to see it more as a process. Moreover,
these approaches also vary in the way they frame the fundamental problem
with the research-policy nexus and the strategies to cope with it. Some
approaches define the problem in terms of the limited flow of information,
and therefore highlight the need to enhance that flow by the standardized
codification of research-based knowledge. Others tend to highlight the need
to facilitate personal contact between researchers and policy-makers so they
can share, identify and apply knowledge and experience in order to solve
problems.
Knowledge management has generated a complex and diversified body
of literature, which is in constant development and in dialogue with various
disciplines and fields of study. In its progressive articulation with other bodies
of literature from social and human sciences, knowledge management is
moving away from a rationalistic and linear account of knowledge production,
validation, share and use, to a more context-sensitive and iterative one. The
objective of the two workshops presented here was to take stock of advances
in pure and applied social science and policy analysis and to exploit synergetic
interactions.
The approaches to knowledge management presented in what follows
highlight the fact that research use is a complex social process contingent
upon context. Strategies to improve research use based on this account also
need to be nuanced and context-sensitive. First, we examine the experience
of the Alliance for Global Sustainability (AGS), presented by Nazli Choucri,
Professor at the Political Science Department of the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology (MIT) and chairperson of the Scientific Advisory Committee
of the MOST Programme. Then we study the case of two online tools for
linking research and decision-making - the MOST Policy Research Tool,
presented by Vincent Maugis, and CLACSO's open access digital library,
presented by Dominique Babini and Pippa Smart from CLACSO. Finally,
the case of the GABEK method for knowledge management, presented by
Joseph Zeiger, Professor at the Institute for Philosophy, Leopold Franzens
University (Austria), is analysed.
The linkages between knowledge management

and politics in the context of social transformations:
the case of the Alliance for Global Sustainability
Nazli Choucri's paper 'The politics of knowledge management' (included
in the second part of this volume) discusses the interconnection between
the management of social transformations, knowledge management and
politics, in an era marked by the emergence of cyberspace. Overall, the author
highlights the fact that the global economy is increasingly knowledge-driven,
giving rise to a global race for knowledge. Taking this wider context into
account, Choucri argues that conflicts over core social values are increasingly
manifested politically in terms of what the 'best knowledge' is and what the
most legitimate means of determining who gets what, when and how are.
With the advances in ICT, cyberspace creates new modes of knowledge
management, new possibilities for the provision and dissemination of
knowledge, and inevitably new possibilities for contention. In this sense,
cyberpolitics - politics taking place in virtual spaces - becomes particularly
relevant to the management of social transformations. Through this analysis,
the author seeks to promote the establishment of online knowledge systems

as a means of improving policies, for example in the field of sustainable
development.
Choucri makes three points on knowledge and power, knowledge
content, and the value of knowledge. First, Choucri notes that the connection
between knowledge and political factors, such as power, influence, conflict
and order, is usually acknowledged but hardly ever straightforwardly
addressed. Knowledge is power, and therefore the application of knowledge
is necessary for the realization of this power. Moreover, knowledge contains
values and is therefore political in essence - there is no such thing as apolitical
knowledge.
In the management of social transformations (for example with the
emergence of the sustainability paradigm, where new social values have to be
defined and legitimized, and past experience cannot offer the best basis for
managing present predicaments), knowledge should be understood as both
instrumental (leading to change) and contextual (constrained by conditions).
For Choucri, this is the meaning of evidence-based policy-making: 'the use
of knowledge for the pursuit of policy and the resort to knowledge as a
legitimization mechanism'.
Second, concerning content, Choucri suggests distinguishing between
knowledge-as-content and the content-of-knowledge. Each contributes to
the value of knowledge, but in different ways and for different purposes.
As regards knowledge-as-content, Choucri notes that, since knowledge is
intangible in nature, its acquisition and utilization follow the law of increasing
returns. Therefore, a critical feature of knowledge as an asset is its input
into the nature of economic and social relations. This means that value is
associated with the utilization of knowledge by individuals and/or institutions.
To this respect, the codification of the content-of-knowledge by digitization
is extremely important, since it accelerates every aspect of the knowledge
enterprise.
In relation to the content-of-knowledge, Choucri notes that from a
political perspective, political actors usually acknowledge the importance of
enhancing the value of their message by assigning it the authority 'knowledge'.
This is a legitimization process. On the other hand, from an economic
perspective, Choucri notes that knowledge is seen as a privately produced
public good: that is, a good characterized by non-rival consumption and
non-excludability. However, she claims that the supporting and enabling
conditions of knowledge production are more and more contingent
upon available organizational and social mechanisms, as well as upon the
communication and infrastructure systems in place. Concomitantly, the

evidence of the increasing knowledge-intensity of economic activity reinforces
what has become a new orthodoxy, namely that knowledge matters, and so
does technology; precisely how and in what way remains unclear.
The third point made by Choucri is that knowledge-power relations are
related to the value of knowledge and the knowledge chain. Knowledge value,
in our society, is contingent on its quality, reliability, replicability, portability
and contextual relevance. Choucri notes that the value of knowledge has
different meanings in private and in public settings. Moreover, the value of
knowledge is seldom as explicit or 'extractable' from a knowledge exchange
as the value of a physical product. Central to this issue is that knowledge is
difficult to measure. The point made by Choucri is that, despite the usual
distinction between knowledge 'for its own sake' and knowledge for any other
potential purpose, knowledge as a 'commodity' usually retains some intrinsic
value regardless of context. The issue is then: value to whom? How? When?
Why?
In keeping with this understanding of the value of knowledge, the
knowledge chain consists of the value added to the content of knowledge
created by the institutional and managerial activities and functions that
protect and enhance knowledge-items and thus increase their overall 'worth'.
The generic value proposition is this: the greater the quality of the knowledge
content, the higher the value of knowledge. Therefore, the value of knowledge
is not neutral with respect to the nature of the content. Thus, the value is
shaped by the quality and the volume of content. Here, the knowledge chain,
itself a function of content, is enhanced by an effective linking process. Given
that knowledge is a key factor in the production function in economics,
Choucri highlights the need to learn about knowledge and about how to
generate knowledge of relevance. By extension, the potential for strategic uses
of knowledge has, in turn, shaped new modes of knowledge management,
giving rise to what is now known as 'knowledge-networking'.
Choucri finds that the conception, design, construction and imple-
mentation of a knowledge system to help represent a particular field of
interest are the important elements for the management of knowledge, and
by extension for the establishment of knowledge networks. A knowledge
system is an architectural design that enables us to 'locate' knowledge items
(such as policy-relevant texts). In other words, it is an organized structure
and formal process for generating and representing content, components,
classes, or types of knowledge. In fields that already have an ontology that
acts as a substratum linking the various items, this is a pretty straightforward
exercise. There are otherfields,however, where the foundations of knowledge

are evolving and the challenge is to develop the fundamental categories of the
architectural design. This is the case for sustainability, for example, which is
an intensely political issue.
To illustrate, Choucri uses the case of a knowledge system for sustain-
able development generated by the AGS and an international consortium
of four major universities. The AGS is devoted to the development and
deployment of knowledge for facilitating transitions toward sustainability.
One of the objectives of the Mapping Sustainability initiative is formu-
lating an ontology of sustainability, one that would provide a baseline for
evolving our understanding of this general field. The assumption is that
more knowledge and improved quality will contribute to better policy and
greater wisdom.
Drawing on this experience, the author highlights the value of a
knowledge system. There are at least four specific sources of value. The first
and most important source of value is that a knowledge system provides a
consistent location for organizing knowledge and a coherent framework for
addressing the challenges posed by complexity. Choucri argues that, once
the knowledge framework is completed, it can then befilledwith knowledge
items. The second source of advantage relates to gains from organization. For
example, search engines like Google are used by almost everyone participating
in cyber arenas. However, these do not provide content organization, which
is the function of a knowledge system. The third source of value pertains to
the utilization of the knowledge system. Choucri notes that this allows people
from different parts of the world to converge around common understandings
of the issues at hand, and collaborate for the purposes of sharing knowledge,
developing new knowledge, or even applying knowledge to their own needs.
The fourth type of benefit pertains to the use of existing knowledge - in
terms of theory and evidence - to help facilitate and even guide the re-use of
knowledge so that it becomes relevant.
The author also notes the value of networks and knowledge networking.
She draws attention to the definition of networks provided by network
theory. In social contexts, networks are defined by purposeful interactions,
and since purposive behaviour is a fundamental feature of politics, networks
are political. The added value in every 'incident' of networking lies in its
contribution to the knowledge of the actors and to the enhancement of its
value to them. Knowledge is transmitted through the network, and its added
value is contingent not only on the content itself but also on the efficiency
of the network.
Choucri points out that e-networks (interconnected or interrelated

chains, groups or systems), which by definition allow the multidirectional
provision and transmission of knowledge, are of crucial importance. Access
to such interactive networks facilitates the sharing of preferences between
stakeholder communities and decision-makers. This multidirectional
feedback can also lead to an accumulation of knowledge among stakeholders
and policy-makers, and increase the saliency of certain issues.
Finally, Choucri discusses the concept of cyberpolitics, which is
paramount for the management of knowledge in the twenty-first century.
For Choucri, politics involves conflict, negotiation and bargaining over
the mechanisms - institutional or otherwise - that enable the authoritative
allocation of resources, seeking to resolve contentions over particular sets of
core values. Drawing on the classic works of Harold Lasswell (1951) and Karl
W. Deutsch (1963), Choucri notes that the very knowledge that is required
to make a political determination regarding who gets what, when and how
becomes intensely politicized, as does the process of bringing knowledge to
action.
The development of cyberpolitics reinforces the salience of political
elements in all aspects of social discourse by providing an added venue of
interaction, namely the virtual arena. Cyberspace enables new manners of
developing, shaping and distributing knowledge in real or physical arenas. In
this regard, Choucri notes that the democratization of knowledge provision
raises important questions about quality and reliability which need to be
addressed.
To sum up, we could say that what is at stake in this approach is the
notion that politics in essence involves knowledge, and that the application
of power for allocating resources presupposes and involves politically
contentious knowledge. The advent of cyberspace as a locus of politics creates
particular challenges and opportunities for the creation of an enhanced social
science-policy nexus that contributes to the effective management of social
transformations. Thus, there is a clear need for establishing knowledge bases,
with a political purpose, in cyberspace. At the same time, if knowledge is to
lead to better policies, redefining certain values and offering new directions
in the process, then new ways of knowledge management are needed.
The management of knowledge presupposes a suitable system, namely a
cartography designed according to certain rules and principles. This will
further enable the construction of knowledge e-networks that allow an
interactive, transdisciplinary, comparative access to knowledge, and that
stimulate feedback effects and potentially the sharing of paradigms. As such,
the explicit purpose of the paper is to advocate means for building bridges
between the world of research and that of policy, via the management and
dissemination of scientific knowledge.
Providing policy-makers with online access to social

science research results: the case of the MOST Policy
Research Tool
In his IFSP paper (also included in an updated version in the second part of
this volume), Vincent Maugis details the background, design methodology
and application of the MOST Policy Research Tool. The tool provides online
access to policy-relevant comparative information, and enables users to obtain
customized replies to questions by drawing on selected content from original
documents.
Maugis's paper attests to the internet's potential for moving towards
more effective and evidence-based policies. For Maugis, the internet is the
most powerful tool for the dissemination and discovery of new knowledge
and its application for the advancement of developing nations. However, he
notes that the explosion of information and published material on policy and
international development is both a danger and an opportunity. On the one
hand, a vast quantity of conceptually unstructured, difficult to access and
largely unevaluated material could be of less use for policy analysis. On the
other, the investment of so much knowledge capital could also dramatically
advance new paradigms toward development and sustainability. Thus, Maugis
highlights the need for online knowledge systems and networks that serve
this purpose, allowing for the transfer of knowledge, for the comparison of
different local experiences, and for the convergence of approaches. This is
particularly important for the social sciences since, if their results are to be
useful for policy, they need to be accessible for comparison and verification.
This claim supposes that, without ready access to quality research conclusions,
timely, focused and effective policy responses may be severely impeded at
both the national and the international levels.
The MOST online tool is an example of this kind of online knowledge
system. In 2006, UNESCO's MOST Programme launched a no-fee online
policy research service, which is expected to further n e w modes of
decision-making. This knowledge management service aims to allow for
more efficient and focused policy responses by making comparative social
scientific results available in a form that suits the needs of the decision-
makers. 'Effective' policy is defined here as policy designed by reference
not to c o m m o n sense or ideological preconceptions, but prior practical
experience. In this sense, Maugis notes that evidence-based policy supposes

both a strong comparative knowledge base and effective and transferable
implementation models that can be calibrated with the characteristics of
specific cases. Indeed, a thorough comparison of detailed individual cases
is one practical way of expanding the experience of those engaged in social
action, and thereby better enabling them to judge the possibilities and
constraints of their own specific situations.
Taking the complexity of the objective into account, Maugis states
that a knowledge system for evidence-based and culturally sensitive policies
should be based on a new kind of architecture. A new information architecture
that includes new languages, categories and metaphors to identify and
account for contexts, issues and solutions. A new technical architecture that
is more social, transparent, open, flexible and respectful of the individual
users. And that is oriented toward problem-solving and representation
rather than output and transactions. Finally, a new institutional architecture
with organizational processes that extract the most out of the synergistic
combination of information technology, knowledge, and the creativity and
innovation capabilities of human beings.
The MOST Tool is precisely designed on the basis of this kind of new
architecture, with a view to producing a specific policy knowledge system
around which sets of distinct but interconnected dynamics will emerge:
between research and policy, between the local and the global level, and
between the interventions and the target communities.
The MOST Tool comprises a set of policy documents (or policy
briefs) that are written in a standardized format. Maugis explains that
standardized documents offer a good way to reduce cognitive cost through
the enhanced localization of information. The standardized format of MOST
policy documents results from the mapping of several theoretical studies
and educational material, as well as from guidelines for reporting on best
practices. This mapping is about generating an ontology: that is, a formal
description of the concepts and relationships that can exist for an agent or a
community of agents of the subject matter at hand - social transformations
and policy - according to some select principles. The MOST approach to
the mapping process consists of defining the policy dimensions, organizing
the content of issues concerning social transformations and framing these
in terms of different types or fields, and determining the interconnections
among and between fields and dimensions. When completed, the ontology
consists of key features of the subject matter at hand that are integrated into
a coherent knowledge system.
The tool's knowledge base, consisting of cross-cutting, transdisciplinary,

comparative policy analyses on issues of social transformations written by
expert social scientists worldwide, is updated and enriched as it is used in
the field and as feedback on experiences is made available. The follow-up and
evaluation of the experiences allows for alternative approaches to be assessed
over time, through the tracking and mapping of the applications. Policies
will gradually connect to one another, since initiatives are based on shared
experience (lessons learned, mutual benefits). Finally, the responsiveness
of the interventions to the issues they seek to address is made accountable,
traceable and adjustable.
As a result of this design, the tool delivers user-tailored, issue- and
location-specific policy-relevant material through a specially designed search
function. This is substantially different from most of the databases of best
practices currently available, which generally offer decontextualized options
for replication. Indeed, a failure here may quite well be a success there, and
vice versa. In policy one size seldom, if ever, fits all.
To conclude, MOST has expertise in the main issues of current social
transformation and development analysis, and also has long-established
networks and partners in the research, policy and advocacy fields in the
areas of multiculturalism, urban and local governance, globalization, poverty
eradication, ageing, and regional integration. According to Maugis, MOST
is indeed in the best position to efficiently design, develop and implement
modalities that facilitate policy cooperation, knowledge sharing and
international cooperation, provide a platform for disseminating research
results and policy initiatives from all parts of the globe, and facilitate research-
policy linkages.
Using digital libraries to provide online access to social

science journals in Latin America: the case of the CLACSO
open access digital library
Dominique Babini and Pippa Smart's article 'Using digital libraries to provide
online access to social science journals in Latin America' (2006) addresses
the nexus in terms of the identification of strategies towards safeguarding an
enhanced visibility and accessibility for social science research.
Although social science research within Latin America has certainly
made significant contributions to international academic debates in various
areas, the authors find that its visibility has been impeded by language, print
and distribution costs. Nevertheless, significant research is actually being
published in journals not included in the international indexes. Taking this
into account, the authors claim that the limited visibility of and access to such
Latin American publications is owing to distribution difficulties, as well as to
the fact that they are nearly all published in Spanish or Portuguese.
Against this backdrop, the authors identify and analyse new strategies
for addressing the issue. They claim that, with the progressive introduction
of the internet in Latin American academic institutions and the provision of
virtual library services and e-publishing, the World Wide Web has become
the best alternative means for editors and libraries to provide visibility and
access to their publications. In addition, one of the most interesting features
of the electronic publications produced in Latin America is that they make
part of an open access model: in other words, free online access to articles
traditionally published in scholarly journals. This is partly because the authors
rely on subsidies from a parent organization, and because of their own
need for enhanced visibility. Moreover, open access has been endorsed in
regional events such as Open Access for Developing Countries, where it was
recommended that governments make this a priority in science policies.
Interestingly, Babini and Smart see innovations in these Latin American
approaches that are different from traditional ones - which are predominant
in the United States and Europe - mainly concerning the close connections
between the publication, the parent organization and the librarian community.
Firstly, most institutes with publications make them prominently available
on their own websites or in open archive-compliant websites, which capture
these publications and assist visibility by indexing them in more 'public'
portals. Moreover, many of the journals are also indexed in directories of open
access publications such the UNESCO Social and Human Sciences Online
Periodicals index. Secondly, many Latin American portals hosting collections
of publications provide training and support for participating publishers to
develop standards and visibility, rather than merely operating as a commercial
hosting service.
Finally, while some portals restrict their content to conventional
publishing models, others have been set up to provide a wider range of
information resources to a particular community. Among these cases,
Babini and Smart analyse the successful experience of CLASCO's digital
library. The Latin American Council of Social Sciences is an international
non-governmental institution, integrating 173 social science research centres
from twenty-one countries within Latin America and the Caribbean, with
the objective of promoting social science research and strengthening the
cooperation between institutions and researchers. CLACSO's open access
digital library has proved to be a highly successful collaboration, linking
librarians and publishers and providing a service to both of them through

one interface.
In sum, we can say that the authors show that collaboration between
countries, and particularly between librarians and publishers in Latin America,
can provide innovative solutions to bridging research-supply gaps. The authors
conclude that Latin American academics are embracing the opportunities for
the effective dissemination of research through new technologies, and that
European and North American debates about electronic scholarly publishing
might benefit from a closer observation of the proliferation of e-journals in
Latin America (Babini and Smart, 2006, p. 113).
LINKING RESEARCH AND SOCIAL POLICIES:

EXPLORING CURRENT TRENDS
Looking at instrumental trends in research use, the workshop 'Social policies
for children and youth: the search for dialogue between researchers and policy
makers', hosted by the Gino Germani Research Institute of the University
of Buenos Aires, addressed three main questions on childhood and youth
policies:
• How does research contribute to policy-making in this area?

• What are the best models available for linking research and policy in
this area?
• What are the current trends in the development of strategies for linking
research and policy?
Here we examine a presentation dealing with the issue of the transfer of

knowledge in health policy-making in Canada.
Knowledge transfer from research to social and health

policy-making: the Canadian case
In her presentation (included in the second part of this volume), Solange
van Kemenade drew on her experience as a senior analyst at the policy
research division of the Public Health Agency of Canada to give insight into
the transfer of knowledge to the sphere of social and health policy-making.
The author focuses on the Canadian Government's model of policy-based
research, which enables a fluid and dynamic research-policy interface. This
model sees social research as responding to the demands of policy-making in
order to provide strategic information for decision-makers and thus promote
evidence-based policies. However, according to van Kemenade this model

has some limitations which need to be pointed out.
In the model described by van Kemenade, research is produced through
both in-house and external capacities. Funds are allocated to priority issues
and alliances and cooperation with other ministries or other sectors are
common. The identification of research needs, as well as the decisions on
the allocation of funds, the modality of functioning and the use of results, are
internal to the organization. Overall, there seems to be a continuum between
the conception of research and its application.
This model is illustrated through a case study dealing with a research
project that presents social capital as a determinant factor for health. The
author highlights the relevance of the results of the project for public policy,
but notes an important lag in knowledge transference to policy-making. The
author presents the context of the need for research, the mechanisms and
arrangements employed to execute the project, its development, the results
achieved, its repercussions, the recommendations for the elaboration of
policies and the lessons learned. She points out that goals are achieved with
some difficulty, because of: the independence of the researchers; internal
difficulties in understanding academic language; the need for introducing
adjustments in the way research is articulated and in the translation of
results; and the considerable amount of time needed to take ownership of
the research.
Considering this, van Kemenade puts forward some critical remarks on
best practices in research utilization. She notes that policy-oriented research on
priority issues leaves no room for basic research. It does not allocate funds for
the proper evaluation of results, and tends to ignore the social dimensions of a
project. Furthermore, intermediate actors should be efficient in the justification
and translation of the research project into policy terms. Concerning the
impact, she concludes that the transfer of knowledge from research to policy
is not always successful, and in most cases is difficult to assess. Taking a more
conceptual approach to knowledge use, van Kemenade suggests that reflexivity,
raising awareness and questioning hegemonic paradigms should be considered
as the most important achievements of successful knowledge transfer. For a
context like that of the Canadian Ministry of Health, the author suggests that,
whereas the direction of the project must be internal to the organization, a
combination of in-house and external research capacities can be useful in
achieving successful knowledge transfer.
CHAPTER 2
FOCUSING ON THE CONCEPTUAL USES
OF RESEARCH IN THE POLICY PROCESS
This second chapter analyses workshops that followed more conceptual

approaches towards the nexus between research and policy and which often
went against received instrumental approaches to research use. Workshops
that fall into this category saw the issue not so much as a question of relevant
research having a direct policy impact, but in terms of broader patterns of
socio-political and cultural influence.
These workshops drew on theoretical frameworks that contest the
usefulness of considering social research solely in terms of direct relevance for
and impact on policy-making. This is partly because of the failure of academic
social sciences to achieve visible impact, and partly because of the empirical
difficulty in discerning such an impact when analysing major policy shifts.
These approaches tend to adopt a perspective in which research influences
the conceptual and normative frames of reference at use in the policy process.
However, it is important to note that these conceptual approaches to research
use do not always share the same conception of knowledge. While some
workshops referred to Weiss's rational vision of the 'enlightenment role' of
knowledge (for example, Naustdalslid refers to Weiss, 1977b), others referred
to more constructivist accounts of knowledge production and use (Latour,
1991, 1994).
Some workshops approached the nexus by drawing on notions such
as the référentiel developed by Jobert and Müller (1987), Peter Hall's policy
paradigms (1990,1997) and advocacy coalitions as developed by Sabatier and
Jenkins-Smith (1993). In toto the concepts of framing, frames of reference
or paradigms point out a social space articulated by beliefs, knowledge and

rules in which political and epistemic tensions are managed. In this sense,
it is possible to deal with conflicts that take place within the social fields
constructed by a frame of reference or paradigm. In spite of some differences,
these conceptualizations all focus on explaining the influence of worldviews,
mechanisms of identity formation and intellectual principles of action on
public policy analysis.
WHICH KINDS OF NEXUS FOR WHICH KINDS

OF POLICIES?
The best example of this approach is the volume resulting from the workshop
'Which kinds of nexus for which kinds of policies? A comparative study
of policies in five intervention areas in Chile', organized by the Group of
Chilean Studies (GRESCH). The workshop addressed the role of social science
in policy-making in different policy sectors by drawing on the analytical
framework of the sociology of public policies and social problems. The volume
resulting from the workshop endorses a wider 'conceptual' approach to the
nexus. It deals with larger frameworks resulting from research, which are
implicitly or explicitly present in the whole policy process, especially in the
construction and framing of problems and issues (de Cea and Gárate, 2006).
In the prologue to this volume Raúl Urzúa (2006), director of the
UNESCO Chair on Public Policy, argues that many policy and research
actors embrace what can be defined as an 'instrumental conception' of the
nexus, which deals exclusively with the production of relevant research and
is concerned with its direct impact on a specific policy or programme. This is,
for example, the case for knowledge utilization and knowledge management.
Moreover, Urzúa notes with concern that an instrumental approach to the
nexus also often supposes that social scientists should be involved in the
policy-making process at the formulation, implementation, or evaluation
stages, something which might raise important issues concerning the
autonomy of social science.
Against this backdrop, Urzúa draws attention to a different way of
approaching the research-policy linkages, one that supposes a 'conceptual
use of knowledge'. Drawing on the work of Jobert and Müller, this approach
deals with the theoretical and methodological frameworks resulting from
research that are implicitly or explicitly present in the policy process. This
wider conception of the role of research in policy relies on the idea that policy-
making is determined by a conceptual frame of reference that defines the
FOCUSING ON THE CONCEPTUAL USES OF RESEARCH IN THE POLICY PROCESS 65
cognitive, normative and instrumental dimensions of the issue to be addressed

(Jobert and Muller, 1987; Muller and Surei, 1998).
For Urzúa what matters is the dominance of certain frames of reference
both within the social sciences and policy. In this respect, Urzúa notes that
economics has historically been the most pervasive social science and that
within economics neoliberalism was for a long period the most dominant
paradigm. Conversely, sociology and political science, with all their different
conceptual frameworks, have not attained a comparable intensity in their
capability to influence policies. In this context, the challenge, as Urzúa points
out, consists in adopting a multidimensional approach to social policies which
does not undermine the importance of giving an account of the role of social
processes. For Urzúa, the discipline that best reflects those changes is the
analysis of public policies.
Reform of policy on minors in Chile

An interesting example of this approach is Ceballos's (2006) study, 'The
reform of policy on minors and the rhetoric of rights', which looks at the
recent Chilean reform on policy for minors. The reforms were officially
presented as a substantive advancement towards the full implementation
of the principles set out by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
(UNCRC). Ceballos however seeks to question this apparent 'revolutionary'
orientation. His analysis shows that the institutional frame of reference of
the reform took its cue from the societal directions implemented during
the Pinochet regime. In this light, he suggests that the Rights of the Child
approach that was officially attributed to the reform does not refer to a real
transformation of the social-legal status of childhood. On the contrary, it
turns out to be nothing else than political and bureaucratic rhetoric.
Ceballos's chapter concludes by remarking that scientific thinking
should be independent of corporate, political or professional interests
(Ceballos, 2006, p. 41). Contrary to the bridging strategy of instrumental
approaches to the nexus, the author argues that seeking and fostering
linkages between both realms does not mean putting sociologists in public
administrations or public administrators in sociology schools, but rather
implies moving both realms towards greater disciplinary openness, improved
specialization and enhanced dissemination capabilities. Ceballos finally
observes that, in order to create the sociology of public policy, there is still
another higher hurdle to pass. In Chile, as in many other countries, social
scientists are forced to beg or even to steal to obtain the necessary 'public'
statistics. Accordingly, ensuring free access to all kinds of information
produced by the state is arguably one of the most important preconditions

for building any kind of nexus.
The new cultural expertise in Chile

Moving from childhood to cultural policy, another very interesting study
is outlined in Maite de Cea's paper 'Towards a new institutionalization of
cultural expertise in Chile: the role of the National Council of Arts and
Culture' (2006). This study addresses the linkage between social science
expertise and policy-making by looking at the experience of the National
Council of Culture and Arts (CNCA in its Spanish acronym). It presents this
institution as representative of a new form of cultural management which
shows the recent evolution towards more democratic governance in Chile.
The analysis, as in Ceballos's case, draws on the analytical framework of the
sociology of public action so as to focus on the understanding of different
forms of state intervention in society and the constantly shifting boundaries
between state and society (Müller and Surel, 1998). From this perspective, the
chapter first provides an overview of the evolution of the prevailing frames
of reference in public action in the cultural realm in Chile: that is, the set of
values, beliefs and techniques that structure the realm of public policy-making
(Jobert and Müller, 1987).
De Cea locates the origin and evolution of this cultural institution in
order to draw out some conclusions about what differentiates the CNCA
from a traditional ministry in organizational terms. Despite the fact that both
include experts and policy-makers, the CNCA appears to be in sharp contrast
with traditional centralized government agencies. It is a decentralized, multi-
sector organization that emphasizes the role of citizen participation. Taking
this into account, de Cea moves on to analyse the problem of mediating
between research and policy in the cultural realm by comparing the CNCA
with a French cultural agency, the Observatoire national des politiques
culturelles (ONPC). The French case shows success in the development of
intermediate structures formed by various social actors that can effectively
contribute to the policy-making process.
De Cea concludes by suggesting that, if the CNCA is to meet its goals
as an original governance device designed to configure the cultural realm,
it is necessary to foster social science research focused on cultural policies.
Moreover, establishing a clear line of communication between researchers and
policy-makers through institutional mediation is also a necessary condition to
overcome typical pitfalls such as those having to do with legitimacy problems,
democratic control, the lack of a common language and synchronization.
These institutional devices do not only comprise procedures, but refer to

substance issues, such as participation, representation, opinion, the state-
society nexus and the social science-policy nexus.
The role of experts in reconciliation in Chile

Paola Diaz's 'Analysis of the National Commission for Truth and Recon-
ciliation as an expertise device' (2006) discusses the role of experts in the
process of reconciliation in Chile. The National Commission for Truth and
Reconciliation (CNVR) was created in 1990-91 by the government of Patricio
Aylwin as a device for achieving reconciliation via consensus. The Commis-
sion according to the author relied on two different principles of legitimacy:
social and human sciences expertise, and the moral status of its members.
Using the analysis of frames of reference, the paper clarifies the context of
the international circulation of the concepts of human rights, specifically as
regards the so-called transitional justice in which experts play an essential
role as knowledge brokers. Diaz argues that, as they are transmitted from the
global North to the global South through state agencies, NGOs and think-
tanks, the frames of reference of economic neoliberalism and human rights
present themselves as 'new universal' values.
In a Foucauldian vein, Diaz argues that the CNVR aimed to introduce
scientific rationality in the political process of democratic reconstruction as
a means of producing a truth base for reconciliation. Legitimacy was made
to rely on 'objective' criteria so as to depoliticize the controversy over the
responsibility of human rights violations during the Pinochet dictatorship.
Diaz concludes that the originality of this knowledge-power device is that
it gathers autonomous social and human sciences experts, whose moral
character enables them to act as the porte-parole of the heteronomous political
views of the different actors concerned with the conflict.
As regards the issue of the nexus, this analysis is particularly interesting
since this case concerns a different kind of nexus, one that links social
and human sciences with human rights and the reconciliation policy in a
transitional context. It is evident that the nexus here was built as a political
technology around a very prickly issue. Thus, the nexus was created as a
means of allowing the CNVR to 'enlighten' the country and its authorities on
'what happened' (not only with regard to victims of human rights violations
but also in terms of the establishment of historical and political facts) so as
to make truth-based decisions. Interestingly, as the author points out, the
controversy in Chile is not closed and various concerned actors continue to
contest and denounce the Commission's work.
Overall, the interest of this publication largely lies in the analytical and
conceptual framework it uses to address the nexus, which distinguishes it
significantly from other more received instrumental understandings of the nexus.
This approach sees the nexus in a conceptual manner. However, as is clearly
indicated in the title of both the workshop and the resulting book, the point here is
that there are different kinds of nexuses for different kind of policies. Addressing
these differences becomes an alternative way of fostering a critical stand.
THE 'REGIMES OF POVERTY PRODUCTION':

A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Another example of a workshop building on a conceptual understanding of
research use was 'Poverty-producing policies', organized by the Comparative
Research Programme on Poverty of the International Social Science Council
(CROP/ISSC) and Programme of Studies on Poverty of the Latin American
Council of Social Sciences (CLACSO). The workshop aimed to position the
issue of 'poverty production' as a priority in a multidisciplinary research
agenda. The organizers based the workshop on the idea that it is not common
to speak of the production of poverty, since the wording suggests some kind
of action towards producing poverty. However, they suggest that one way
to further our understanding of the complexity of poverty formation may
be to take a closer look at the practices, discourses and actors involved in
the process. To do so, the workshop addressed the need for developing a
theoretical and methodological framework to carry out comparative and
historical studies of the politico-epistemic regimes of poverty production
and reproduction. For the organizers, this kind of research development is
needed to provide policy action with the necessary knowledge about the actors
and processes that produce poverty.
We now look at the workshop presentations of Carlos Barba, which
give some interesting insights into the social science-policy interface.
Poverty production regimes in Latin America

Drawing on sociological, political science and public policy literature, Barba
presents the concept of'regimes of poverty production'. This concept articulates
different dimensions: intellectual, discursive, socio-political, socio-economic
and sociocultural. Barba first highlights its theoretical and methodological
relevance for comparative studies in public policy research, then he uses it to
characterize the Latin American welfare regimes andfinallyto analyse the social
consequences of the residualization process of these regimes.
Barba claims that international studies on poverty increasingly call for

comparative perspectives, because the information and concepts available are
not sufficient. In this sense, it is argued that some socio-political discourses
and paradigms have a direct influence on the types of welfare adopted by
various coalitions of actors (Hall, 1990; Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1993). For
Barba, these paradigms play a key role in reducing, reproducing or increasing
the proportion or type of poverty in each country. Here, paradigms are shared
or rejected not only by the community of social scientists, but also by social
agents, who actually define which social issues are to be tackled. Their practical
implementation is not just a technical or intellectual issue, but a political
problem. Taking this into account, the author suggests that the challenge lies
in building new social and political coalitions.
FIGHTING AGAINST POVERTY; RESEARCHERS,

DECISION-MAKERS AND CITIZENS
One of the most stimulating cases in terms of the complexity of the approach
to the nexus was presented by the workshop 'Bridges to fight against and
overcome poverty in Latin America and the Caribbean', hosted by the
Fundación Global Democracia y Desarrollo (FUNGLODE) together with
the Dominican Republic's delegation at UNESCO.
In what follows, attention will be drawn to the presentation by Carlos
Milani.8 Milani draws on his experience within UNESCO's MOST Programme
to put forward an analytical and methodological framework, focusing more
on its socio-political nature than on its instrumental aspects.
Engaged social science. A constructivist framework

Milani seeks to approach the research-policy nexus via four analytical levels
which focus on:
• researchers and their methodological and ontological choices

• social science and the historical process of its institutionalization at
the national and the international level
• decision-makers and their interest for social science inputs
• governance structures and processes that organize the contexts
wherein these relationships and key actors evolve (state, international
8 The presentation was published before the workshop, as the conclusion to a volume edited by
Germán Solinís (2005).
organizations, brokerage agencies, social movements, NGOs,

corporations).
At the first level of analysis, Milani suggests that the importance of the
choice of methodological frameworks lies in the fact that the chosen frame-
work conditions the outcome of the research. The process of knowledge
production, conditioned by methodological choices, is inscribed in the
local configurations that legitimize actors, identities and possible methods
of cooperation. He points out that certain kinds of methods (those that
aspire to objectivity and universalism, and are of a quantitative nature, with
practical aims) are more easily useful to policy-makers, since the latter are
usually looking for direct solutions to problems. This tends to lead to the
exclusion of other approaches, and by extension, to the constitution of a
methodological orthodoxy.
Moving on to the second level of analysis, Milani argues that the
institutional development of social sciences can also explain their patterns
of interaction with the world of decision-making. Here, Milani makes a
distinction between a Mertonian kind of institutionalization, in which social
science enjoys great autonomy and is self-administered, and a Mannheimian
one, in which the researchers make up a politically engaged intelligentsia that
seeks to comprehend its own historical and social context. In the first case,
social science is understood by political actors as having a practical use, and is
thus usually appreciated for its usefulness in the quest for more efficient ways
of social engineering. In the second case, the combination of social sciences
and the intelligentsia imprints a revolutionary and creative orientation onto
the idea of intellectuals, who see themselves as creators intervening in the
public space against the abuse of power. Thus, social sciences can be exposed
more directly to democracy, its actors and its processes.
At the third level of analysis, Milanifindsthat there are three basic ways
that can describe the interest of the policy-maker (Knorr-Cetina, 1981). First,
in many instances, deciders are in need of high-quality, specialized expertise,
which means that they have to rely on the services offered by qualified
technocrats. Second, they need social science in order to gauge the impact
that policies might have. This usually involves the scientific establishment of
cause and effect relationships between the policy and the politico-economic
changes. Third, social science research can be considered by policy-makers
as a way of gaining knowledge. In this case, the researcher is a professional
analyst who can contribute to the modernization of the government, the
administration or the level of participation. That is how research can also
contribute to the debate o n the management of the state, the effects of

globalization, social exclusion and unemployment.
Finally, Milani discusses the emergence of governance as a different
system of decision-making (as opposed to government), and the effects it has
had on the interconnection between social science research and policy:
Governance relies more on concertation, negotiation, and the need of dialogue

and less on hierarchical relations, verticality and injunction. It implies the
integration of decision processes into a context of a plurality of actors: state
public actors, private non-state public actors. It is not the organs or the structures
that establish governance, but the procedures, practices and political processes.
(Milani, 2005, p. 23)
Furthermore, he notes that governance has acquired a neoliberal tint as it

has taken place during a time of neoliberal economic restructuring. This
last process has also had an impact on the nature of politics. This, according
to Milani, has led to more narrow forms of democracy, as consensualism
and a managerial understanding of politics have become more prominent.
In this context, researchers are encouraged to think of institutions that can
increase management capabilities, along with mechanisms that can guarantee
the autonomy of decision-making and criteria for the efficient resolution of
conflicts. In the end, this has fostered the tendency, among governments, to
look for the kinds of knowledge (expertise) that aim to improve a problem
that is seen as devoid of any political substance:
Expertise is no more based on the validity of knowledge, the scientific caution

it confers to decision-making, but on its capacity to deal with incertitude and
to create scenarios for an uncertain future, and because it does so within a time
frame infinitely shorter than that of scientific research.
(Milani, 2005, p. 25)
Drawing on Bruno Latour's analytical framework (1991,1994), Milani argues

that the division of labour between the expert and the politician should no
longer rely on the first one evaluating the risk and the second managing it.
Rather, he suggests a more deliberative model:
For example, in the face of a technological or environmental risk connected to

public policy, the different actors (experts and deciders, but also civil society)
would participate at the definition of the problem (problematisation) associated
with the risk in question. The decider then would have the political responsibility
of making up his mind democratically, within the framework of an ensemble of
processes that guarantee follow up and control. This would mean that the public
could participate together with the experts and the politicians in the evaluation
of risks and in the decision-making processes that concern the establishment of
a hierarchy of risks.
(Milani, 2005, p. 26)
Thus, the role of the researcher in such a process would not be to offer ready-
made solutions but to:
pose questions that would provoke a negotiation on the values and the
representation ofpolitical problems ...to offer the means and conceptual tools
that will facilitate the public debate over knowledge .... [this] could become the
objective of research in the social sciences. In the framework of a deliberative
and cognitive democracy, the role of scientists could be double: that of warning
the public against different forms of obscurantism and that of reinventingforms
of knowledge capable of responding to the new forms of collective action.
(Milani, 2005, p. 27)
In this context marked by the impact of governance, the mission of social

sciences is to politicize the scientific objects that populate the public sphere.
Furthermore, they have an important role to play in constructing the norms
appropriate to this democratic space of deliberation, which is, however,
characterized by significant asymmetries in power and influence among the
different actors. The researcher would then become an agent of change, or
would act as a catalyst, enabling people to appropriate the results of research
in order to have a better impact on decision-making.
In sum, Milani's contribution deals with the nexus from a critical
point of view, aiming to weaken the arguments in favour of a mechanical,
instrumental interconnection between the sphere of policy and that of social
scientific expertise. Against this kind of nexus, he endorses a more socially
engaged and reflective social science that aims to raise the public's awareness
of certain policies and practices (via a process of democratic deliberation),
thus leading to social change.
FOCUSING O N THE CONCEPTUAL USES OF RESEARCH IN THE POLICY PROCESS 73
PRODUCTION AND USE OF RESEARCH IN TRADE

POLICY-MAKING IN LATIN AMERICA
Moving from social policies to regional integration and global dynamics,
one noteworthy example of a workshop taking a conceptual approach to
research use was 'Production and use of research in trade policy-making
in Latin America', organized by FLACSO. The workshop proposed to look
at the role that research plays in the formulation of trade policy in Chile,
Argentina, Brazil and Mexico. The workshop built on the fact that, in recent
years, there has been an increasing demand among social actors to achieve a
clearer understanding of the capacities of states as regards the conditions of
insertion in regional and global contexts. The objective was to shed light on
the lessons learned from the revision of the structural reforms, implemented
in Latin America during the 1980s and 1990s, in order to better steer decisions
towards greater economic growth and a fairer distribution of benefits.
The volume gathering the workshop presentations, Knowledge and
Policy in Latin America: Knowledge use in international trade negotiations,
edited by Mercedes Botto (2007a), aims to provide an empirical analysis of
the impact of research in trade policy in the context of regional integration. It
focuses on research produced in Latin America - its approaches, its funding,
its institutional networks, its epistemic communities - and its role and impact
on commercial policies in international negotiations. In national and sector
case studies, the volume's contributions deal with different strategies intended
to bring academic research outcomes into trade policy.
Paradigms of research influence on policy:

from rationalism to incrementalism to mode 2
of knowledge production
This section focuses on the editor's analytical and methodological remarks,
and more specifically on a typology of possible approaches (Botto, 2007b).
Botto's typology distinguishes two main paradigms of research influence
over policy. She points out that both paradigms have important political
consequences given that each one defines the approaches implemented by
different groups of institutions concerned with the funding and use of social
science research in developing countries.
In keeping with the rationalism of Lasswell and Kaplan (1950), who
state that good planning leads to good implementation, the first paradigm
entails a linear conceptualization of the policy process in which researchers
provide scientific evidence to support the rationalization of the process led
by decision-makers (Brunner and Sunkel, 1993). This convergence supposes
that evidence is available and accessible; that the conclusions of research are
'rigorously grounded'; that the outcomes of research arrive 'on time and
in a suitable form' to decision-makers; and that recommendations do not
contradict 'strong political interests'.
According to Botto, this paradigm prevails in the approach of a
group of institutions working within the 'Bridging research and policy in
development' approach. Associated with the Global Development Network
(GDN), a World Bank initiative, this framework assumes that the better
articulation between researchers and decision-makers will lead to enhancing
the quality, efficiency and effectiveness of policies. This kind of social and
political engineering is associated with knowledge management procedures
enabled by the development of ICT and international networks, via which
actors can access available knowledge 'in the global market of ideas'.
The second paradigm, in line with Lindblom's incrementalism, sees
the policy process in less simplistic terms: namely, as taking place in not one
but many different arenas in which different social actors participate using
incomplete knowledge (Lindblom, 1959, 1968). Here, scientific experts are
only one of the actors and their knowledge is seen as one among others.
Accordingly, social science research only has a direct impact on decision-
making if, when competing with other kinds of knowledge, decision-makers
consciously or unconsciously take it up.
This second paradigm is associated with the approach of other
institutions and practitioners gathered around what Botto calls the
'Embedding research and policy' framework. This non-linear approach fosters
the construction of problem-oriented networks of multiple stakeholders by
enhancing the participation of concerned 'knowledge users' in the upstream
definition of policies, and not only in the implementation phase (Gibbons et
al., 1994; IDRC, 2004; Rius, 2003).
Despite the epistemic and political differences of these approaches,
Botto argues that most of the national and international initiatives concerned
with the nexus agree on the need to strengthen local knowledge production
oriented towards problem-solving. Drawing on Guimaràes et al. (2006),
Botto claims that there is a consensus that the more solid and the better
communicated to decision-makers the results of research are, the greater the
chances that this research will be reflected in public policy.
However, Botto nuances these claims by arguing that it is extremely
difficult to attain verifiable conclusions regarding the nexus because of the
lack of local evidence pertinent to developing countries. Botto associates
this with the fact that international organizations play a pervasive role in
both research and policy in developing countries, although she also notes
that in the particular case of Latin America, there are an increasing number
of studies focusing on the role of experts and think-tanks in legitimizing
structural reform during the 1990s. This literature formulated different
hypotheses to explain how and why neoliberal recipes managed to be
imposed as the solution to the debt crises, focusing on the role of ideas,
paradigms and epistemic communities, as well as on the pervasive role of
the World Bank.
The volume's analytical and methodological framework is clarified in
the definition of its approach to main concepts like research, policy decisions,
influence and their subsequent articulation. Academia, research and technical
expertise are used indifferently to refer to knowledge-producing actors and
processes. Botto justifies this by referring to the conceptualization made by the
'New production of knowledge' of Gibbons et al. (1994), which opposes two
modes of knowledge production. In this conceptualization, academia is no
longer the main realm of knowledge production (mode 1). Today, knowledge
is produced by a vast array of actors in different realms (mode 2).
Second, Botto understands knowledge influence in terms of changes in
paradigms, strategies and conjuncture (Hall, 1990; Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith,
1993). Paradigm changes imply decisions to redefine the objectives of public
policy at large - for example trade liberalization. Strategy changes concern
decisions that only affect the instruments of policy, without questioning
the rationale - for example the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA)
or MERCOSUR. Conjuncture changes result from decisions that affect the
incremental utilization of certain policy instruments, without affecting the
policy toolkit - for example keeping an unvarying tariff level.
Finally, since the influence of research is hard to measure, Botto proposes
to deal with this issue by combining an ex ante approach - examining research
on a given policy issue to assess its influence by looking at the transformations
in policy orientation - and an ex post approach - studying changes in policy
to assess the influence of research by contrasting it with influence produced
by other actors (Davies, Nutley and Walter, 2005).
The Latin American experience in linking academic

research to trade policy-making
Building on this theoretical framework, the book addresses the Latin American
experience in linking academic research to trade policy-making during the
last 20 years. In what follows, some of the main points made by the different
contributors are presented in summary form.
The first three chapters are regional studies that look at the common
characteristics in the production and use of knowledge in Latin America,
and at its impact on regional integration processes from a comparative
perspective. First, from the perspective of political economy, Diana Tussie and
Pablo Heidrich (2007) draw on three case studies to analyse the opportunities
that a new context, marked by an increasing demand for the participation of
citizens, creates for the formation of a new epistemic community in the region.9
The first two case studies deal with the role of research in the integration
agenda, and the third case study looks at the technical assistance offered by
the World Trade Organization (WTO). The authors argue that, when facing
the tensions between the market and society, current government trends
privilege pragmatic policies which cannot be interpreted in classical binary
terms such as left versus right, thus opening an opportunity for social science
research to act as a focal point in the mediation of interests and in the creation
of new shared mental schemes.
Second, Daisy Ventura (2007) draws on her experience as a consultant
for the MERCOSUR Technical Secretariat to analyse the role of commissioned
research for decision-making in the region. The author argues that, in the
current context, this kind of research has not contributed to the strengthening
of the MERCOSUR integration process. This has been the result of some
key factors that contributed to making research functional for corporative
interests: a false antagonism between technical bodies and political bodies,
the unavailability of information on certain issues, and the lack of access to
available public information.
Third, using a comparative approach between Argentina, Chile and
Brazil, Mercedes Botto's chapter looks at the role of think-tanks in public
policy by specifically addressing three issues: what kind of research is
undertaken and how it is funded; how the outcomes are communicated to
decision-makers; and how they are utilized. The study concludes that there are
strong similarities between the three countries in the way that the production
and use of research is kept in the hands of the governments. However, it
sheds light on some new trends: the growing use of external consultancy, the
high circulation of staff between research bodies and public administrations,
and the instrumental use of research as a mechanism for mediation between
sectoral interests.
9 An epistemic community in international relations is a network of different kinds of

professionals with authoritative knowledge and skills in a particular issue-area who share a set of
beliefs (which provide a value-based foundation for their actions), a set of notions of validity in
their area of know-how and a set of practices related to the problems of their field of expertise.
On the concept of epistemic communities in international relations, see Haas (1992).
The following two chapters of the book focus on national cases in two
distinct geographical areas and in the context of different integration models.
On the one hand, Blanca Torre (2007) focuses on the Mexican experience in
the context of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) from
the standpoint of international relations. The author follows the progressive
transformations of the role of academic research during the liberalization
process, and concludes that, despite its secondary role compared with that
of corporate lobbies, academic research contributed to enhancing national
governance by ensuring transparency and participation.
Finally, the last three chapters of the book consist of sector studies
focusing on different episodes of negotiations. Mercedes Botto and Cintia
Quiliconi (2008) look at the production and use of local and international
academic research in the negotiations regarding the C o m m o n External
Tariff for MERCOSUR. Their study shows that in Argentina, the negotiation
produced a great deal of academic research not only on technical and
conjuncture issues but mainly on strategic issues, whereas in Brazil this was
not the case. Looking at the content and the impact of research, the authors
conclude that academic research played an important role as a mediation
instance among competing interests.
Mercedes Botto and Juliana Peixoto (2008) focus on the role of
academic research in the Argentinian position during the negotiations on
the regulation of health and education services that took place between 1997
and 2004. Academic research input for the negotiations on regulation issues
was low, however, its impact was significant in the position taken by the
Argentinian Government.
GLOBALIZATION AND INTERCULTURAL LINKAGES:

USING RESEARCH IN INTERCULTURAL POLICIES
Moving the focus to migration and multiculturalism, the workshop
'Globalization and intercultural linkages: the case of migration and
intercultural linkages between Pakistan and Norway', organized by the
MOST Committee of the Norwegian National Commission for UNESCO,
offers another interesting example of a conceptual approach to the nexus.
The workshop brought together migration scholars, practitioners and
policy-makers from Pakistan and Norway to reflect on the importance of
international migration for linking societies with different cultures and
different social and economic conditions. It built on the idea that, even if
globalization certainly makes it easier for migrants to maintain their own
traditions, the pressure to streamline cultures is greater than ever. In this

context, migration from developing poor countries to the developed rich
world has cultural and economic dimensions that create both opportunities
and problems. For the organizers, taking hold of these opportunities and
tackling these problems required an enhanced dialogue between migration
and population scholars and policy-makers.
This next section outlines the final report of this workshop (Norwegian
National Commission for UNESCO, 2006). It offers some insight into the
issues that surround the migration of Pakistanis to, and their establishment
in, Norway, while putting forward an interesting theoretical reflection on the
nature of the use and usefulness of social science.
In one of the presentations Hafeez-ur-Rehman Chaudhry (2006)
argued, against traditional migration theories that put emphasis on the push
factors (exit) and on the pull factors (attractiveness of receiving country), that
there is no single push or pull factor governing the act of migration: 'In fact a
series of factors in combination operate upon the individual simultaneously
and the decision is made by the correspondence of push factors (of normally
rural areas) to pull factors (of the urban areas)'. Another policy-relevant
insight is the one given by Sabiha H. Syed (2006), who noted that the Pakistani
Government and the Overseas Pakistani Foundation, whose mission is to
help the Pakistani diaspora, need enhanced access to case-study research in
order to better understand the ground realities of migration. She contended
that this can lead to a more efficient migration policy, with for instance
the introduction of incentives that will facilitate the more productive use
of remittances (Syed, 2006, pp. 50, 53). She also stated that the debate on
migration should not only focus on the economic dimension (wages, supply
and demand of labour, remittances) but should also acknowledge the possible
social, cultural and political benefits.
The last part of the report, and the most interesting for the exploration
of the theoretical approaches to the social science-policy nexus, takes a
reflective stance on the workshop, and focuses directly on the possible use
and usefulness of research on intercultural linkages.
Bringing a decision-maker's perspective to the discussion, Eva
Haagensen, senior adviser to the Department of Integration and Diversity
of the Norwegian Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion, acknowledges that
policy-makers need to have access to high-quality social science research,
statistics and policy evaluations. But she warned that it is also important for
researchers to acknowledge that research is not the sole and only factor that
forms policy-making: 'Many different factors combine to shape migration
policy, only one of which may be research. Migration research can contribute
to policy development. But often the impact of research is indirect or only
has an influence over the long term' (Haagensen, 2006, p. 102).
Haagensen also referred to two complaints often made by decision-
makers, namely that researchers cannot keep up with the fast-moving policy
world and that social science research seldom provides ready-made answers
to policy challenges. Finally, answering the question of how to improve the
linkage between the two fields, she recommended that:
Policy makers need to be committed to evidence-based policy-making and

researchers need to be aware of policy environments. Researchers and policy
makers need to agree on what counts as evidence and on what evidence is
needed to inform policy. As migration is a cross cutting issue, multidisciplinary
approaches are often required. With respect to the issue of timelines, research
efforts need to be future looking and attempt to anticipate the evolution of
policy agendas. Ongoing dialogue with policy makers ensures that researchers
are aware ofpolicy makers' timeframes and also stay ahead of policy agendas.
Particular attention must be paid to packaging research results so that they
are easily accessible and comprehensible by policy makers ... when evidence is
made accessible it lends itself to a wider audience including civil society and
the general public. This is another important if indirect way for research to
influence policy makers and it also contributes to a more informed and serious
public debate on migration and integration.
(Haagensen, 2006, p. 102)
Further discussing the issues raised by Haagensen, Jon Naustdalslid,

workshop organizer and chair of the Norwegian MOST Committee, provided
some interesting critical insights and offers a useful typology of research
use. Overall, his paper dealt with the issues of the use and usefulness of
social science research for migration policies, especially with regard to the
integration of immigrants. The answer Naustdalslid put forward is cautious,
and allowed for criticism of the instrumental use of research:
Integration is the problem to be solved. The discussion [in the workshop] has
hopefully brought some new insights and perhaps had some relevance for
policy makers. If we ask policy makers how this knowledge is useful, how it
can be applied in practice, we will get some rather elusive answers like 'it may
have given us some insight into the problems ... increased our understanding...
brought interesting facts' etc. [It is] less likely that people would answer: 'now
7 think I have really found the solution to the problem of integration'. This
is not necessarily because the research that is reflected in the contributions to
this workshop is not adequate or of poor quality. This is because social science
knowledge seldom provides such immediate solutions to social problems. Or
more accurately: because social problems seldom lend themselves to simple
solutions based on research only.
(Naustdalslid, 2006, p. 89: bold added)
For Naustdalslid, social science knowledge does not automatically imply a

specific action. However, the non-use of social science research should not
be blamed on researchers, but on the very same nature of social sciences and
their linkages with policy.
To address this issue critically, Naustdalslid proposes a typology of
four models of the use and usefulness of social science research:
• the instrumental or demand-driven/problem-solving model

• the interactive model
• the strategic and the symbolic models
• the conceptual model in which research 'forms our understanding of
social reality'.
Broadly, Naustdalslid's typology shows a progressive contrast between

instrumental and conceptual uses of research. The instrumental uses refer to the
direct linear impact of research on policy and practice, whereas the conceptual
uses deal with the way research is constantly influencing - often in a complex and
indirect manner - how various social actors see and understand the world.
To illustrate the instrumental uses of research, Naustdalslid refers to
the widespread image of 'bridging the gap between cultures'. When building
a real bridge in a specific environment, he argues, we need access to available
research-based engineering knowledge, and need to produce new problem-
oriented research based on basic science (physics, biology, chemistry, ecology,
climate science, etc.). According to Naustdalslid, the problem is that this
scientific problem-solving model is often transferred uncritically to the social
context. Bridging social integration gaps can thus be seen as requiring available
research-based social science knowledge and new basic research in sociology,
anthropology, political sciences and so on, which decision-makers are supposed
to apply to society. For Naustdalslid, such a widespread analogy to describe
the use and usefulness of social science in the policy realm is misleading. The
natural sciences and the social sciences are not commensurable:
Whereas natural sciences study a nature that is not capable of reflecting on

its own experience, the social sciences study people and relationships between
people. Unlike nature, people are indeed capable of reflecting on their own
existence, including on research that is relevant for their own situation .... Or,
to keep the picture: the bridge is constructing itself
(Naustdalslid, 2006, p. 90)
Naustdalslid points out that social science research tends to be seen in this
instrumental manner as a tool that provides direct solutions to problems
according to demands made by decision-makers.
We tend to think about social science in the same way as we think about the
bridge building project -asa technical undertaking where decision makers need
adequate and correct information about social mechanisms and facts in order
to arrive at the best solutions. True it can be used in this way, as a more or less
instrumental tool for decision makers. But if we want to more fully understand
the role and importance of social science research in decision making processes -
its role in forming society - this instrumental conception is too narrow.
In a similar vein, Naustdalslid criticizes the linear expertise model that deals
with the use of knowledge for social problem-solving within a closed system
of problems. He finds that such models uncritically draw on a certain kind of
medical thinking in which the patient is a passive object and 'clinical research'
translates 'basic research' into practice at the demand of practitioners. This
'demand-driven' model is the basis for a widespread way of thinking about the
use and usefulness of social science as an instrument to help policy-makers
and social engineers reach certain results.
Against this backdrop, the 'interactive model' (in which information
for policy-making is produced not only by researchers, but also by planners,
practitioners, interest groups, the media, civil society organizations and so
on) provides a more realistic picture of how social science research and policy
interact in the real world. In this approach, various social actors respond to
social interventions based on social science knowledge, influencing decision-
makers and planners and relating actively to research and knowledge about
society independently of decision-makers. The point made here is that, if we
take into account the responsive character of society, social science research
does not only lead to practical solutions but may also lead to the reconstruction
of problems: it might change the perspective of policy-makers, or that of the
wider public, so as to make them see a 'problem' or draw their attention to a

previously little-noticed phenomenon.
Naustdalslid also notes that the problem with instrumental models of
research use is that they are based on the assumption that research 'makes
a difference': that it actually influences decisions. But research, he argues,
can also be used in a strategic manner. In this third model of research use,
any stakeholder can use research in order to substantiate a decision that
has already been made. Moreover, research can be used strategically and
selectively not only by politicians but also by any other interest group (as in
the case of counter-expertise or advocacy research).
The important point Naustdalslid makes about this strategic model is
that using research in this way calls for openness and public access to research
and research results, so that the use and misuse of research is open to inspection
by all parties. Again, with this, Naustdalslid seems to be drawing attention to
the need to consider the conceptual use of research as part of the whole policy
process, and more widely, as part of the social construction of reality.
Naustdalslid also identifies the symbolic model, in which the focus of
the analysis moves from the instrumentalization of research to the meta-level
of its symbolic use by social actors as the representation of competence. In
this model, which draws on Feldman and March's work on information in
organizations as a symbol (1981), the systematic and goal-oriented use of
information as a ritual gives the impression that there is an appropriate need
for research in decision-making.
This brings Naustdalslid finally to consider a fourth model of the use and
usefulness of research, in which research is used to form our understanding
of reality at the most general and abstract level. This model is particularly
interesting in that it allows us to see the 'conceptual use' of research while
insisting on the fact that research is a complex and lengthy process in constant
interaction with other forms of situated knowledge. As Naustdalslid puts it:
Social science research is forming our conceptions of social problems and

approaches to problem solving in more specific ways. Thus, social science research
has an obvious role in putting specific social issues on the political agenda. One may
argue that social science research into problems ofintegration has been importantfor
identifying specific aspects of this problem, such as language problems, employment
etc. Therefore the way in which social science research conceptualises and analyses
immigration will form our understanding of the phenomenon and actually also
form our conception of whether it is a social problem or not. Hence, research is
important for setting the agenda for the debate, without necessarily providing
immediate solutions to the problems. Many social problems would not have been
visible... had it not been for social science research.
Looking at this typology, Naustdalslid concludes that applied, practice-

oriented social science research is important as a tool for policy-makers, but
research use should be understood as a process in a wider social context,
where social science research outcomes are useful not only for policy-makers
but for various social actors. This understanding of social science research has
two consequences. The first is that its results should be accessible to the wider
public in order to stimulate social debate on certain issues. Accordingly, he
suggests that the dissemination of social science should target civil society
and thus be considered as part of the democratic process.
The second consequence is that we should start acknowledging the fact
that social science does not only provide solutions to problems but may also
highlight alternatives and new ideas:
Social science research does not in itself produce solutions to social problems. The
role of social science is to produce knowledge that decision makers and actors
who try to influence policy decisions may or may not use. More knowledge may
lead to better decisions. It may also point to alternative solutions and bring
new ideas into the decision-making process. However, more research and more
knowledge do not necessarily make life easier for decision-makers by making it
simpler for them to reach decisive conclusions.
THEORETICAL AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

OF A FUTURE SCENARIO FOR MIGRATION
Considering conceptual uses of research, the workshop 'Migration without
borders? Investigating a new scenario', organized by UNESCO's Social and
Human Sciences Sector, was interesting since it approached the theoretical and
policy implications of a future scenario for migration from a scholarly standpoint.
In this scenario border controls would be suppressed and people would be granted
the right to move freely throughout the world. We could say that the 'Migration
without borders' (MWB) future scenario is a theoretical and political endeavour
that falls within the critical tradition of social science, seeking to measure reality
against a more desirable, but not yet existing, state of the world.
The MWB scenario puts forward an alternative future scenario for

international migration and in this way fosters a critical rethinking of current
migration policies and practices. In the volume gathering the workshop
outcomes, Pécoud and de Guchteneire (2007) explicitly aim to promote the
idea of a world where migration is free. According to the logic of the book,
this is a desirable scenario that could (at least at some point in the future)
be put into place, and that, in the present, can inspire solutions to some
pressing problems. Via a multilevel analysis of the ethical, economic, social
and practical dimensions of the issue, the volume reaches the conclusion that
there are no valid grounds for maintaining the present highly restrictive state
of affairs. Thus, the volume does not only make an informed social theoretical
argument with regard to the multidimensional merits of free migration, it
also clearly identifies present-day lacunae in international migratory practices
and policies, and calls for their correction or revision. In doing so, it also
refers to a significant body of social scientific research that can support the
'world without borders' scenario and that challenges established views and
customary approaches in the political arena.
As previously stated, this workshop and the resulting volume offer a
social scientific challenge to current policy choices and practices. The volume
consciously does not set out to examine the factors that might impede or
enhance the utilization of social scientific research by decision-makers, and
thus does not point to a corresponding methodology for achieving this goal.
Accordingly, in this approach, social scientists do not aim to engage with
practical social engineering, but rather to highlight policy problems and
ethical blind spots and offer a well-worded social scientific argument in favour
of a different policy approach (free migration).
Such a future scenario for migration policy may seem unrealistic at
first sight in the light of the current state of the world. However, it could be
argued that this move towards 'utopian thinking' is exactly what makes this
exploration meaningful for the social science-policy nexus. Utopian thinking
does not necessarily imply imagining an impossible perfect scenario that
would eliminate all injustices at once. It is also an intellectual effort to build
a counter-intuitive desirable future on scientific grounds, proposing radical
and positive solutions to current problems. Social science thus provides an
'inspiring vision' that can serve as a meaningful guide towards fairer and
ethically défendable migration policies. In this sense, it can be said that this
work explains how social science 'constructs' societies by creating new ways
of dealing with various social entities and identities.
CHAPTERS
FOCUSING ON SPECIFIC ACTORS SHAPING

THE NEXUS BETWEEN SOCIAL SCIENCE
AND POLICY
This last chapter presents an analysis of workshops that focused on specific

actors and processes shaping the nexus at the national and global levels.
First we discuss two workshops dealing with the concept of influence
over policy. The first one focused on think-tanks as knowledge brokers. The
second dealt with the role of international organizations in global social
change. Next, we examine the outcomes from three workshops that dealt
with cooperation among United Nations agencies, the world of social research
and governments with a view to transforming global governance. We then
consider a workshop that addressed some of the changes that are taking place
as regards the linkages between universities and local governments in the field
of urban policy. This chapter concludes with an analysis of two workshops
that focused on the issue of citizens' participation in both urban policy and
social research.
THE INFLUENCE OF THINK-TANKS IN GLOBAL AND

LOCAL CONTEXTS: A POLITICAL SCIENCE APPROACH
The workshop 'Think-tanks and policies: global dynamics and local
specificities', organized by the Argentinian representatives of the Konrad
Adenauer Foundation and the Institute of Political Science of the Universidad
de la República (Uruguay), addressed the role of think-tanks as one of the
most relevant institutional players shaping the social science-policy interface.
The linkages between research and policy performed by think-tanks are

significantly different from those established by university centres, mainly
because of the quality of the research and the type of interests that underlie
the link. In this sense, these kinds of actor play different roles depending on
different endogenous and exogenous variables: communicating, legitimizing
policy, setting up knowledge networks, supporting specific policies and so on.
The analysis of the influence of think-tanks raises important metho-
dological issues. The concept of'influence' is fundamental to any discussion
about think-tanks and their efforts to become involved in the policy-making
process. In this sense, Abelson's (2002) methodological framework for
measuring and explaining the effective influence of think-tanks in the policy-
making process is quite interesting. Criticizing linear models, Abelson argues
that more holistic approaches are necessary if social science is to take into
account the multiplicity of actors and the processes concerned. Abelson's
approach integrates quantitative data and qualitative indicators of influence
drawn from archive research and interviews in order to encompass the
political and historical context of political decision-making.
Braun et al. (2006) develop another methodological approach in the
volume. These authors focus on policy research institutes in Latin America,
Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe, drawing on the outcomes of a comparative
study prepared by the Global Development Network's Bridging Research
and Policy project. The study uses the Bridging Research and Policy in
Development (RAPID) framework developed by the Overseas Development
Institute in collaboration with the Global Development Network (GDN).
The framework classifies factors influencing the uptake of research
in policy into four categories. These are the external influences, the political
context, the evidence and the links. The study combines an analysis of
endogenous factors such as institutional identity, management, funding
sources and objectives, and exogenous factors, namely macro-political
and structural variables. Such an approach puts special emphasis on the
description of the unstable and fragile socio-economic context of action for
the think-tanks. The authors argue that the alignment of endogenous and
exogenous factors does not always take place and, when it actually occurs, it
happens to be extremely hard to maintain. The fact that the nexus between
research and policy-making is not straightforward but rather complex forces
policy research institutes to constantly assess where the best opportunities are.
The authors conclude that, in developing countries, the broad gap between
research and advocacy actions, carried out by think-tanks, and policy-making
should encourage these institutions to further develop efforts to demonstrate
FOCUSING ON SPECIFIC ACTORS SHAPING THE NEXUS BETWEEN SOCIAL SCIENCE AND POLICY 87
publicly that they are capable of producing evidence and valuable research
which can effectively influence policy-makers.
Using this analytical and methodological framework, other chapters
provide very interesting insights into the dynamics of emerging think-tanks
in Latin American democracies, seeing them as new technocrats with enough
power and legitimacy to overcome democratic institutions in reforming
policy-making.
Finally, one important message from this volume is that endorsing the
improvement of the social science-policy nexus in developing and transition
countries must not be confused with the suggestion that technocracy should
prevail over democratic politics. Garcé and Uña (2006) claim that the active
political participation of citizens is not contrary to the incorporation of
expert knowledge in policy-making. Conversely, the editors of the volume
note that the fragility of democracies increases when elected governments
do not succeed in tackling the complex problems posed by development.
Ultimately, this publication suggests that the challenge is in fostering a more
virtuous scenario of cooperation between think-tanks and political parties
so as to build strong political institutions and competitive party systems.
THE INFLUENCE OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL

ORGANIZATIONS: THE OECD CASE FROM
A FOUCAULDIAN APPROACH
The workshop 'The role of international organizations in global social change',
organized by the Finnish Research Institute for Social Sciences, University
of Tampere, focused on the linkages between knowledge production, power
and global social change by shedding some light on the influence that
intergovernmental organizations exert on policy at the national level. This
workshop aimed at taking the analysis beyond the assessment of a narrowly
defined concept of influence. Hence, our interest in this workshop lies in
its underlying idea that processes of social change in one specific country
are dependent on a complex interplay between international organizations,
NGOs and nation-states, with researchers and consultants playing a major
role. To address this complex interplay, the workshop organizers put forward
an interesting analytical framework, which drew on the Foucauldian concepts
of power and 'governmentality'.10
10 In Michel Foucault's theory (1999), governmentality or gouvernementalité refers to the practices

of governments, their interaction with the people who are governed and the ways people govern
themselves. The concept helps to understand how government practices and the government of
We focus here on the keynote presentation made by Pertti Alasuutari,

director of the Research Institute for Social Sciences, University of Tampere.
In this presentation (published in the second part of this volume), Alasuutari
draws on a research project on knowledge production, power and global social
change dealing with the role of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD) in influencing welfare policy reforms in advanced
market democracies. Looking at the case of the Finnish education policy,
the paper concentrates on the significant modification of welfare policies,
the means by which the neoliberal policies were pushed through (since the
1970s), and the intended or unintended consequences of the new policies.
Alasuutari first discusses previous research on the role of inter-
governmental organizations (IGOs) and particularly the OECD in affecting
global social change. Alasuutari notes that research on the impact of the OECD
commonly only looks indirectly at the role the OECD plays, by analysing the
convergence between the OECD's recommendations and national policies.
In many cases the indicators show that hardly any convergence has taken
place, or that the countries show greater divergence. Some critical assessments
point out that studies of policy convergence among advanced industrial
states are often based on an overly deterministic logic, a static conception
of convergence and an unclear specification of the aspects of policy that are
supposed to be converging. They also recommend that more attention be
paid to domestic politics and to the fact that the policies recommended by
the IGOs do not come out of the blue, but from a dense network of social
relations and material conditions, coupled with different definitions of the
situation.
In keeping with these critical insights on convergence studies,
Alasuutari proposes to approach the OECD case from the perspective of
power relations, using Foucault's governmentality framework, in which
power is seen not only as repressive but also as productive (Foucault, 1972,
1979,1999). Contrary to the Weberian definition of power as 'the probability
that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his
own will despite resistance' (Weber, 1978), Foucault's conception of power
refers to a network of dominance entangled with knowledge and with the
subject positions and identities of the actors involved.
To capture these complex dynamics, Alasuutari intends to study how
discourses amount to institutions and practices, and how different actors'
mentalities adapt to changing conditions. Accordingly, merely studying the
the self are intertwined. Therefore, the concept should not be confused with the act of governing
in a strict sense.
OECD knowledge production and publications is not enough. The ways in

which different actors in a member country are active in defining the OECD
special projects agenda, as well as the way they use or make references to the
OECD reports in justifying or criticizing political decisions, must also be
analysed.
The governmentality framework offers analytic devices to better
understand the formation and change of international regimes because it
brings into focus the micro-field of power relations in everyday governance
tasks. Hence, it is deemed useful in analysing the role of the OECD and its
ability to affect the frameworks, discourses and forms of knowledge within
which policies are perceived and assessed.
The point made by Alasuutari is that the OECD's influence is due
to several intertwined factors. He notes four levels of influence: micro,
ideological, ontological and formative. The micro level refers to the peer
pressure exercised by the community of the OECD on the people who prepare
policies on the national level. This is achieved primarily via the provision of
information and assessments of different policy fields. The ideological level
refers to the fact that references to the OECD from policy-makers are a strong
way to justify a policy change. The ontological level of influence refers to the
OECD's ability to affect the actors' notion of reality. Finally, the formative
level of influence refers to the changes in identity that are an outcome of the
institutionalization of OECD reforms at the national level.
Considering these different levels of influence, Alasuutari then moves
on to discuss the OECD-induced changes in education policy in Finland since
the mid-1980s, pointing out how they are related to OECD recommendations
and special projects. The author notes that, from the early 1980s, the dominant
centralized, bureaucratic welfare system and services began to be criticized.
This led to a transition from a 'planning economy' to a 'competition economy',
with concomitant effects for the management of education in Finland (more
decentralization, less bureaucracy, more privatization and competition, more
consumer/client-focused approaches and emphasis on managerialism rather
than public administration).
Alasuutari claims that the role of many state agencies and administrators
changed from 'normative controllers' to 'consultants' as a result of the reforms.
This means that governmental departments, which used to function under
ministries to give regulations to local state administrators, were changed
into 'development centres' to collect information to counsel the local-level
administrators. The Finnish National Board of Education is an example of this
kind of'development centre', which functions as 'just another consultation

service provider among other consultants that can be found in the market'.
Finally, the paper discusses how the changes were pushed through.
Alasuutari concludes that it is clear that the OECD has had a major role,
primarily as the think-tank where the ideas and outlines of policy reforms
have been discussed and developed.
To conclude, Alasuutari provides useful critical insights into the roles
of IGOs in social change by clarifying, through a Foucauldian approach, the
intertwined measures and dynamics brought about by IGOs - in this case
the OECD - to attain influence. Influence is not a linear process that can
be described by traditional convergence indicators, but a complex process
displayed at different levels (micro, ideological, ontological and formative).
THE ROLE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE IN SOCIAL POLICY

AT THE GLOBAL LEVEL: THE APPROACHES USED
BY SOME UN AGENCIES
The workshops 'The new social and political conditions of human develop-
ment' (organized by the UNDP) and 'A fair globalization: the work of the
World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization' (organized
by the ILO International Institute for Labour Studies, ILO-IILS) introduced
the perspectives of different international organizations in issues relevant
to human development and globalization. The first workshop discussed the
UNDP's experience in connecting national policy-makers, researchers and
civil society to knowledge for human development through Human Develop-
ment Reports (HDRs). These reports focus on an inclusive approach to the
global debates on key development issues, providing measurement tools,
innovative social analysis and policy recommendations.
HDRs play an important role in helping deal with the emergence of a
society in which the state and the market are embedded, in what Calderón,
from UNDP, calls (paper included in the second part of this volume) the
'techno-economy'. As he puts it, if governments in developing countries
are to assume an active role in the process of social transformation, they
need to understand the characteristics of the processes of globalization in a
network society. Over the last decades, a new global order has emerged in
which information and actor networks are likely to be the decisive element.
In this sense, the 'network society' and the 'information society' are important
analytical frameworks describing these transformations. According to
Castells' 'network society' theory (Castells, 1996, p. 236), our societies are
seen as increasingly structured around the opposition of the net and the self.
This is the conflict between the new, networked forms of organization that
are replacing vertically integrated hierarchies as the dominant form of social
organization, and the multiple practices through which people try to reaffirm
their identity.
The concept of the 'information society' raises new issues about the
asymmetries in the material and symbolic patterns of inclusion/exclusion that
globalization generates. The point made by Calderón is that the key issue is not
so much innovation, but how to set it out. This is essentially a political issue.
Possible results depend on the articulation between knowledge, innovation
and policy-making in inclusive actor-networks for pertinent innovation.
In keeping with the analysis of the role of knowledge in global
governance, the workshop on the work of the World Commission on the
Social Dimension of Globalization (WC) presents an interesting case. The
World Commission initiative aimed to create a consensual knowledge base
on globalization' thus overcoming the deadlock stemming from the opposite
visions put forward by the World Social Forum and the World Economic
Forum. The commission's's final report in 2004 followed national and regional
dialogues and global consultations involving more than 2,000 decision-
makers and various social actors, as well as the mobilization of knowledge
networks and research activities. Gerry Rodgers, director of ILO-IILS, stressed
in his keynote presentation (published in the second part of this volume) the
hybrid political and epistemic nature of the challenge of making a common
political statement on globalization. He shows that the World Commission
ultimately built its agenda and set its priorities 'by iterating between
knowledge production and political debate', because, if 'the knowledge base
helped identifying options and establishing the parameters for agreement
in some areas ... it could not ultimately resolve differences in some other
important' ones. In this iteration process, knowledge and policy both limit
and reinforce one another. In sum, Rodgers shows that policy changes need to
be built on a combination of research, advocacy and political action, because
research has impact only when it is part of this broader political process.
From a somewhat similar perspective, the UNRISD and SIDA/SAREC
workshop 'Social policy and equality' focused on the dramatic changes that
contemporary processes associated with global economic liberalization and
the rolling back of the state bring about in the fields of social policy and
equity. These include a change in the relative strength of different actors and
institutions in decision-making processes, a shift in reform objectives and
a shift in the burden of responsibility for social protection (privatization
of basic services). Considering these issues, the workshop dealt with how
research can play an active role in identifying the factors that account for
such variations, and in understanding the ways in which contexts condition
the content, trajectory and impact of policy reform.
For example, Shahra Razavi (Razavi and Hassim, 2006) makes an
interesting case when she focuses on the gender dimensions of social policy
and inequality in three interrelated arenas (the changing nature of labour
markets, the institutional basis for social policy formulation, and the nature
of political contestation around social policy). Her research shows the gender
effects of current social policy models, highlighting certain blind spots of
current policy frameworks. This research shows that years after the United
Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995 which made
various commitments, there had been no major advances in the reduction
of gender inequalities. From this perspective, gender studies seem to play an
important role in uncovering the gendered structure of social policies.
To sum up, these three workshops and their outcomes do not directly
enter into theoretical issues dealing with the nexus. However, they focus on
the production and impact of research (the UNPD Human Development
Reports, the report of the World Commission on the Social Dimension of
Globalization, and UNSRID research projects) from the standpoint of three
different UN agencies following a conceptual approach. All these cases are
presented as processes that display cooperation among United Nations
agencies, the world of social research and governments in order to transform
governance schemes.
A NEW ROLE FOR UNIVERSITIES IN

URBAN-ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Today, there has been a reconfiguration of the linkages between universities,
administrations, policy-makers and economic elites within the frame of
nation-states. Public universities have traditionally been the sites par excellence
of science. However, during recent years, our societies have been witnessing
a process of transformation of the ways in which scientific knowledge is
produced. The point is that this process entails a substantial revision and
subsequent transformation of the mission of universities and their core values.
As regards this issue, an interesting example is the workshop 'University
and local government in the metropolitan environmental management',
organized by the Master's in Metropolitan Environmental Management
(GAM in its Spanish acronym), Faculty of Architecture, Design and Urbanism,
University of Buenos Aires. The workshop focused on the role of universities

in the sustainable management of metropolitan areas, and identified some
of the most salient issues regarding the interaction between university-based
experts (mainly from architecture and urban planning departments), local
government policy-makers of metropolitan areas, and citizens.
This workshop suggested that an emerging challenge consists in
reinforcing the nexus between universities and their social and territorial
environments through the development of research agendas linked to local
and national concerns. In this sense, it is important to view universities from
a more integrated perspective where different social actors create positive
synergies to articulate the missions of university and society. Accordingly,
universities can be one of the best institutions to generate the knowledge that
enriches the formulation of public policy.
We look here at three articles resulting from this workshop: first, the
presentation by Carlos Lebrero, workshop co-organizer, "The knowledge
commitment and the management of the city' (included in the second part
of this volume); then the presentation by Maria Ruth Amarai de Sampaio
'Metropolitan environmental management and the contribution of the
university' (also included in the second part of this volume); and finally, an
article by Nicolas Baya-Laffrte, workshop co-organizer.
In his article, Carlos Lebrero discusses some of the various complexities,
contradictions and possibilities in the effort to create links between the spheres
of knowledge and policy with regard to urban environmental management.
Particular attention is given to the environmental paradigm and the conflicts
and tensions between the priorities of management, the environment, and
individuals and communities. The author argues for an integration of these
various issues, and gives suggestions for how holistic knowledge can be
achieved.
Lebrero remarks on the complexities that arise as a result of the
contextualization of local ideas in culture. In cities, social knowledge on
urban issues is informed by beliefs and myths that are deeply embedded in
the culture of particular groups, giving it a cohesion which often surpasses
rational explanation, and which results in a multiplicity of outlooks and
desires within a given spatial context. It is precisely in the juxtaposition of
social demands and the search for effective management that the critical issues
to be resolved can be identified.
Development in the city poses obvious limits to environmental
prospects. Within the environmental paradigm of urban governance, new
forms of knowledge present complexities requiring inventiveness and
innovation in management. However, given that the foundation of the urban

environmental conscience rests on criticism of the uncontrolled exploitation
of the planet's resources and consideration of the city as a heterotrophic
ecosystem, these subjects conflict with individual and community interests,
and clash with management development.
According to the author, knowledge for urban management can be
realized through the dialectic between local spatial relations and economic,
social and environmental issues, resulting in new formulations of proposals
for governability. The demands of the city dynamic call for strategies and
methodologies that allow management to be developed with a multiplicity
of views and with new syntheses. It is crucial that these formulations take
into account the complexities of each problem in order to be able to grasp
the entire situation and achieve a holistic overview of the relevant issues.
The notion of time, meanwhile, is a crucial element to management
in any respect. With regard to urban management, timescales run from
situations demanding an immediate response to circumstances that allow
for the development of strategies for the long term. The importance of this
is that time influences perception of a given problem, the focus of it and the
particular methodology to be applied. This view of improved management
structuring deriving from a dialectic interpretation of reality also raises doubts
about the capacity of foresight in urban development.
In sum, Lebrero argues for a holistic approach to management,
and emphasizes the need for trans-disciplinary methodologies that enable
traditional limitations of disciplinary knowledge to be broken down and the
pitfalls of reductionism to be avoided. The assimilation of professional teams
from a variety of disciplinary backgrounds and viewpoints is compatible with
this aim. Development links between social actors, policy and knowledge
should also be established to achieve an urban environment that incorporates
the variables of the environment. The article concludes with a call to seek a
new institutional framework in order to attain a mode of development that
integrates research and knowledge-seeking with management.
In her article 'Metropolitan environmental management and the
contribution of the university,' Maria Ruth Amarai de Sampaio discusses
the consequences of the uncontrolled expansion of metropolitan urban areas
in the city of Säo Paulo. In particular, the focus is on the environmental
damage caused by the proliferation of illegal settlements and shanty-towns
in areas that provide the water supply to the metropolitan region. The aim
of the article is to 'stimulate, guide and improve academic practices which
can help point out problems, construct hypotheses, seek alternatives, [and]
find viable solutions to multiple obstacles and conflicts,' such as the issue of
watersheds.
The preservation of the Guarapiranga and Billings reservoirs area is
by no account a new problem for the state and municipal authorities in Säo
Paulo, but the increasing number of people living in these unstable areas
means it becomes more critical all the time. In most cases, sewers from
the housing drain straight into tributaries of the water reserves, effectively
causing the water quality to deteriorate and increasing the cost of treatment
for contractors.
Sampaio examines a selection of work produced by the Architecture
and Urban Faculty of the University of Säo Paulo over the past twenty-five
years, demonstrating the faculty's contribution to analysis of the problem.
With regard to research-policy linkages, as the author notes, these studies
also indicate orientations that might become public policies.
Analysing these studies, Sampaio illuminates several interesting
issues, including the inherent tensions between environmental projects
and the interests of urban dwellers and communities, and the destructive
environmental consequences of a lack of alternative housing for low-income
families and individuals. She also elucidates some of the solutions that have
been proposed, such as a rehousing policy to relocate inhabitants away from
environmentally critical areas, and sustainable urban solutions for poor, illegal
and environmentally inadequate housing that are able to endure juridical
regularization.
An important concern made evident by these studies is the urgent
necessity of a dialogue between environmental and urban agendas, and the
need to adopt a holistic vision of the situation, incorporating all the various
dimensions. The conflict between urban and environmental planning clearly
creates a complicated situation in which it is difficult to arrive at correct
solutions. Nevertheless, failing to appreciate this necessity runs the risk of
letting further degradation occur, both environmental and social.
The article ends with a note of caution, pointing out that there are
many obstacles to overcome if we are to implement effective strategies,
including engaging public authorities in longer-term commitments. Despite
the seriousness of the issues pointed out in the studies made by the university,
public power has been extremely slow to mobilize.
Drawing on the workshop presentations, Baya-Laffite (2009) concludes
that introducing environmental knowledge into traditional universities means
that the university must play a new role in the nexus, intervening not only
as a knowledge production agent but also as a mediator between academic

knowledge and political decision in the urban realm.
Through five case studies, the author analyses the factors explaining
the success or failure of efforts to put knowledge for urban environmental
management in the right policy contexts via the interaction between university-
based experts and other actors. The point is that the arguments offered by
the academic experts in problematic contexts are not automatically accepted
because of their logical coherence and relevance to the facts. Instead, they
need to compete and barter with the views of other social actors participating
in the resolution of social problems.
However, university interventions are still associated with precision,
objectivity and intellectual rigour. These expectations are historically rooted
in the conception of the university as an autonomous institution of scientific
knowledge: that is to say, one that is governed by a different rationale from
that of politics. The analysis of the interfaces and boundaries between the
university and government shows the need to study the networks of actors
that emerge around any given issue. This aims to map out how these issues
raise questions, both social and technical, based on specifically local means
of constructing the city.
According to the author, recent developments in the field of science
and technology studies (STS), such as the empirical programme of studies on
the 'triple helix' of university-industry-government relations, offer valuable
conceptual tools for studying the specificity of the role of the university as an
agent of knowledge production useful for local government.
The article ends by drawing attention to the fact that one of the
remaining challenges for the university is to recognize and interact with
external non-academic knowledge. This shows that there is still a need
for developing a new contract between science and society. Knowledge
co-production between academia, government and civil society is a crucial
aspect of sustainability policies. From this point of view, the university could
act as a sounding board for new forms of knowledge, thus articulating the
actions of different public and private actors for sustainable development.
However, the author warns that the degree of formal and informal articulation
between the university and its social and territorial environment will depend
on the role assigned to the university in a more global view of society. Thus, the
challenge involves not only the academic community and local government,
but society as a whole.
THE CO-PRODUCTION OF KNOWLEDGE, CITIZEN

PARTICIPATION AND GENDER PERSPECTIVES
In this last section, we analyse the output from two workshops focusing on
participatory and gender approaches to the nexus.
In many scientific and policy milieux, there is a strong tendency to
consider that the opinions of non-expert publics are dogmatic. Unsurprisingly,
this persistence is in keeping with the widespread idea that in order to tackle
any problem in the social realm there is a need for more and more thorough
scientific knowledge. However, as we have mentioned, endorsing evidence-
based policies of this kind raises inevitable questions. There is likely to be a
persistent tension in democratic societies between making political decisions
on the basis of the public's experiences, beliefs and values, and deciding on
the basis of scientific evidence. This issue goes hand in hand with questions
over governance, citizen participation and the co-production of knowledge.
From a functional point of view, the societal disconnection of both
researchers and decision-makers from the people the research is about is
likely to be the reason for the failure to implement policies effectively. Hence,
many research and policy actors have encouraged 'action-research', 'public
understanding of science' and, more recently, 'public up-stream engagement'.
The knowledge thus produced is of a different nature from the one produced
through institutional social science. NGOs, neighbourhood organizations,
slum dwellers, women, service users, consumers and patients are the most
common actors involved in shaping this side of the interface. In this sense,
there are strong claims for developing more bottom-up and user-driven ways
of utilizing situated knowledge, especially in the realm of social and urban
policy. The policies, endorsed by many governments and organizations over
the last decade, of fostering citizen participation and the involvement of
stakeholders in both the social research and the decision processes seem to
be a step in this direction.
The urban and environmental realms are, in this sense, privileged
areas for bringing about participative approaches. Urban and environmental
problems - along with all of their scientific and technical baggage - are no
longer the exclusive domain of experts, but have become issues of public
debate, in which other types of actors and knowledge intervene, and in which
scientific and governmental institutions are challenged to adopt a more open
and reflective approach. Moreover, the urban realm is one of the most fruitful
fields of intervention for the management of collective interests through
the development of strategies of cooperation and association by different
stakeholders at different levels.
Examples of workshops focusing on citizen involvement in the

urban realm, and also touching on gender issues, were 'Social science in
urban policies: knowledge for action, knowledge in action', organized
by an international network of research institutions, and the workshop
'Community participation of women, social practices and policies', jointly
organized by MOST and the Graduate Institute of Development Studies
(IUED) in Geneva.
Expert and lay knowledge in urban policies

Social knowledge influences decision-making more and more in the field
of urban policy. Nevertheless, many of the problems that prevent its more
widespread utilization still persist. 'Social science in urban policies: knowledge
for action, knowledge in action' presented the work of a comparative
international network led by Françoise Navez-Bouchanine which focused
on the social science-policy nexus in urban development from a hybrid
scholar-practitioner standpoint (Navez-Bouchanine, 2006).
Via an analysis of the roles of lay citizens, scientific experts and
decision-makers, the volume examines the link between social knowledge
(and not only science) and urban policy. To carry out this analysis, the authors
draw on grounded case studies and on an extensive and diversified social
science and urban studies literature.
Overall, the volume develops two converging lines of work. On the
one hand, it addresses the question of reflexivity, and the ability of both
social science scholars and practitioners to articulate knowledge and decision-
making. On the other, it focuses on the importance of lay knowledge in the
definition of public policies in the urban realm, and on the way in which
researchers and practitioners can help enhance it. Special emphasis is put
on the question of the role of citizen participation in deliberating on socio-
technical issues in the urban realm.
In the introduction to the volume, Navez-Bouchanine argues that
during the last twenty years, the 'social' has moved into the centre of
urban discourse, and by extension of urban projects. Thus, more and more
institutions appeal to sociological or anthropological analysis in order
to better design their projects. The dominance of expert social science in
this quest for efficient policy is well established. Nevertheless, at the same
time, there is a growing tendency to recognize the importance of 'ordinary'
knowledge - the knowledge of local stakeholders - for the purposes of policy.
This trend had gone hand in hand with the increasing importance attributed
to the development of new participatory methods.
Against this backdrop, Navez-Bouchanine notes that many problems

still remain despite this benevolent tendency. Practitioners criticize the
rigidity of academics. The latter, on their part, point to the lack of rigour
and the ideological character of decision-making. Technicians and managers
protest against delays in the implementation of programmes when social
scientific results 'complicate' matters. Researchers complain that their
recommendations are not being followed through. What is more, the
incorporation of lay knowledge into policy and scientific decision-making is
still at an embryonic stage, and remains more or less a sporadic phenomenon.
In order to shed some light on the factors impeding a better inter-
connection between social knowledge and policy, Navez-Bouchanine explores
three perspectives on the nexus.
First, from the point of view of the researchers, the problem is that
social sciences are far from having a common position with regard to policy
and practice. They often do not even share the same interest towards the
different kinds of social knowledge. Considering this, Navez-Bouchanine
differentiates between two kinds of social science. Approaches by those who
wish to reveal injustices and social aporias fall into the first category. The quest
for knowledge, strongly oriented towards intellectual reflection, is essentially
focused on the search for what is omitted. In the second category, we find
those who reject the distinction between theory and practice. Experience,
subjectivity, action and interactions are highlighted here; the norm is to
specify practices and the contexts within which they can take place. This
dichotomy has led many social scientists to consider social science as removed
from political implications and consequences. This type of science sees no
value in policy recommendation and in corresponding research.
Second, considering the perspective of decision-makers, Navez-
Bouchanine comments that knowledge is often seen in terms of the available
stock of knowledge, which is supposed to have practical effects. This implies a
particularly positivistic understanding of social science as a tool for offering
solutions to problems. Nevertheless, in the field of urban policy, things are
not always so clear-cut. Since social sciences are rarely involved from the
outset in the design of projects, a certain degree of misunderstanding between
policy-makers and researchers always remains. In essence, the gap between
the two different kinds of'languages' persists. This gap tends to increase when
the researchers exercise no control over the implementation of the project.
Finally, considering the perspective of the beneficiaries of policies,
Navez-Bouchanine argues that there has been a growing tendency to resort
to participatory methods as a means of better calibrating projects since the
1970s. Nevertheless, these methods often do not address issues of hierarchy

and power inside local communities. Moreover, they frequently neglect
issues concerning the establishment of an environment of trust among the
stakeholders (and especially between public authorities and civil society).
Having analysed these perspectives, Navez-Bouchanine discusses two
different ways of linking social knowledge to decision-making, while at the
same time pointing to their limits.
The first approach involves 'in-house social science'. The growing need
for policies based on social knowledge has forced national institutions, NGOs
and IGOs to create their own research units. However, this 'intrusion' of social
sciences has met with resistance from within the organizations, and has often
fallen victim to organizational inertia. In addition, in many cases the experts
have had to make concessions in terms of scientific rigour and precision in
order to be able to communicate.
The other approach involves cooperation between actors, or a coalition
of actors. This approach refers to partnerships, formal or not, that are
constructed on the basis of common perceptions and aims with regard to
certain policies or projects. One of the interesting facts about these approaches
is that the cooperation takes place at the primary level of conception, and can
thus last till the goal has been reached. Moreover, this kind of coalition allows
for more flexible interconnections between stakeholders, infusing some with
elements of pragmatism and others with cognitive tools. Nevertheless, these
coalitions are voluntary and quasi-precarious, and tend to dissolve as soon
as important partners withdraw. Additionally, the different temporalities
specific to each of the professions and approaches pose internal problems
that call for some form of arbitration.
In sum, the volume makes the case that, even if progress has been made
in linking social science and policy, there are still huge obstacles to overcome
for enhancing the role of non-expert knowledge in decision-making at the
urban level. The importance of citizen participation as a source of innovation
in the urban realm and beyond has become clear. However, despite their
major impact on society, citizen participation and the co-construction of
knowledge still require an appropriate and thorough study by social science.
The urban realm offers the best example of this divergence, where the absence
of coordination between academia and public policy translates into a lack of
strategic thinking.
Gender perspectives and participatory action-research

at the urban level
The workshop 'Community participation of women, social practices and
policies' built on the outputs from ten years (1995-2005) of a participatory
action-research project, 'Cities, environment and gender relations', supported
by MOST (Hainard and Verschuur, 2005). The project used a gender-based
perspective to deal with the responses provided by neighbourhood organizations
to the growing inequalities and deterioration of the environment caused by the
process of urbanization in seven developing countries. Drawing on the project
outputs, workshop presentations aimed to give an insight into the possible
community and policy alternatives to dealing with poverty and its consequences
on the everyday life of women living in slums and degraded habitats.
This workshop produced two articles that were published by the
International Social Science Journal: 'The city, the environment, and gender
relationships seen through Latin American eyes' by Isabel Rauber, Alvaro San
Sebastián and Norberto Inda (2008) and 'Neighbourhood movements, gender
and social justice: the cultural reinvention of politics by women' by Christine
Verschuur (2009). Both articles give valuable insight into the uses of the gender
perspective in Participatory Action Research (PAR). According to the authors,
this approach helps us to understand how female-male asymmetries structure
the perception and concrete organization of social life, and in particular the
representation and utilization of the environment and the urban space.
In this approach to the research-society nexus, the search for answers to
various questions has a direct transforming meaning for social actors as it helps
them strengthen their self-awareness and self-reliance. The starting point of
the PAR undertaken by the authors focused on evaluating the experiences and
knowledge of women and men through interaction with their own experiences
and knowledge. The goals of the PAR process were to learn about and further
develop the knowledge and understanding of how social, community and
family relationships take place between men and women, and how women in
particular deal with them in everyday life. From this perspective, the 'other',
traditionally understood as the 'object' of research, acquires a substantive value:
an active subject without which any action of knowledge or of learning over
action is unthinkable. It is about a mutually constitutive relationship between
researchers and research subjects. For the researchers, constituent processes
of conscience, empowerment and organization from the bottom, and popular
education are important because, in a deregulated, fragmented world, only self-
aware human beings will be able to bring about alternatives for an equitable
social life and social justice.
CONCLUSION
This report is the result of a process initiated by UNESCO's MOST

Programme with a view to achieve a better understanding of the theoretical
and methodological intricacies involved in the links between social science
research and policy. Specifically, this report aims to capitalize on the scientific
output from the first International Forum on the Social Science-Policy Nexus
that took place in Argentina and Uruguay in 2006. It purports to produce
a 'state-of-the-art' overview which would help the MOST Programme think
about the ways in which the research-policy nexus can be improved. The IFSP
brought together social scientists, policy-makers and civil society actors from
all regions into an enabling space for dialogue, with a view to establishing
and/or finding common languages and frames of reference. Through almost
100 workshops, the Forum explored the linkages between policy and research
in different thematic areas, inaugurating a concerted process of innovation.
One of the most salient characteristics of the IFSP was the variety of
approaches to the nexus it displayed. In this report, the diversity of the issues
and framings addressed was explored, systematized and analysed, primarily
in order to draw out a 'map' that would help identify the main approaches.
In this respect, attention was paid to the fact that the IFSP defined the
nexus not as an object of theoretical reflection as such, but rather as a practical
objective to be attained through dialogue infivethematic areas. However, the
exploration of the IFSP material successfully identified an important number
of workshops and contributions that gave some insight into the theoretical
underpinnings of the links between science and policy.
As a prerequisite, the analysis of the material was to be free of any prior
assumptions regarding the nature of the nexus. Indeed, the report consciously
strove to avoid any such definition. The research questions, analysis and
conclusions were based on the conceptual elements and typologies that

sprung from the material itself. On the basis of an exhaustive examination,
the workshops' approaches to the nexus were successfully identified and
decomposed into their constitutive conceptual elements; the master narratives
defining them were thus rendered explicit.
This examination was based on a series of heuristic questions which
allowed different analytical entries to the conceptual elements to be identified.
Thus, different conceptualizations of knowledge, knowledge production and
research use were examined. Moreover, we examined the different models
and typologies of the policy-making process. Ultimately, a more complex
question was addressed: whether social science research matters at all in the
policy process - and if so, in which way - and what strategies can be proposed
for enhancing the linkages within different policy sectors.
The different typologies and conceptualizations of knowledge
production, validation and use, on the one hand, and of the policy process on
the other, are strongly linked to different ways of understanding and dealing
with the issue of the impact of research on policy. More specifically, many
workshops tended to establish a key distinction between more rationalistic
approaches, often based on instrumental definitions of knowledge use, and
more constructivist approaches, focusing on 'conceptual' uses of research.
While more rationalist approaches often assume that research evidence can
have a direct and measurable positive impact on specific policies, conceptually
oriented approaches argue that research is constantly being used in the policy
process in indirect ways. Moreover, the first kind of approach often takes for
granted that policies that are informed by research-based evidence actually
ensure strategies that are socially better, whereas the second kind tends to
question, and sometimes reject, the very idea of fostering evidence-based
policies in such an instrumental manner.
Thus, the most important conclusion resulting from this analysis of the
IFSP material seems to be that in the first reading the linkages between social
science research and policy-making seem to be understood in two different ways.
On the one hand, social science and policy are seen as separated by
different kinds of gaps that can however be bridged instrumentally. Social
science research is often seen as an enterprise that can provide the necessary
rational knowledge with which to solve the complex problems that emerge
in the context of social transformations. The link is mainly seen in terms
of striking the right balance between 'supply' and 'demand'. However, it is
commonly acknowledged that this should not only be a matter between two
exclusive communities because both research and policy need to be connected
CONCLUSION 105
to social demands. Accordingly, the challenge many point out is that the
objectives that guide this instrumental utilization of social science should be
in line with the needs of the policy beneficiaries, and above all, with the core
values of society. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that the uses of research
are accountable, democratic, and connected to the demands of the people.
Enhancing linkages implies bringing actors together, fostering the creation
of hybrid fora that include civil society, and facilitating access to research
evidence through ICTs.
On the other hand, social science and policy are seen as having different
rationales, but at the same time as being constantly interconnected within
the policy process. From this perspective, social science research appears as
an activity that provides a kind of more general, conceptual knowledge, and
whose usefulness and relevance as regards policy needs is contingent and
unclear. In the same vein, the policy process is not seen in a linear fashion,
but as iterative. The knowledge produced by social science is thus likely to
influence the manner in which different actors identify, define and address
the different issues thatfillthe public sphere. Consequently there cannot be a
direct, mechanical linkage between research and policy and - most probably
- there should not be one. Enhancing linkages does not necessarily imply
bringing together actors or connecting them using new technologies, but
rather means fostering greater disciplinary openness, questioning hegemonic
paradigms and raising awareness.
These conclusions suggest that, with regard to the call for an enhanced
use of research evidence in policy-making, theoretical and practical choices
made by both research and policy communities can go in very different ways.
Indeed, the main approaches taken by the IFSP workshops show that both
research and policy actors are moved by divergent sets of values, norms and
ideas about what is socially desirable or undesirable, effective or ineffective,
when dealing with the articulation of research and policy.
Nevertheless there is a great space for more complex, hybrid approaches.
Moden rational strategies for enhancing the research-policy linkages aim to
establish a common agenda for research and policy through dialogue so as
to ensure both the policy-relevance of research and its policy-uptake. Other
strategies highlight the potential offered for more effective decision-making
by knowledge management, paying special attention to ICTs. Perhaps the
most interesting point here is that, if knowledge is to lead to better policies,
redefining the values of society and offering new directions in the process of
social transformation, then it needs to be managed through an adequate system
that takes into account the fact that policy involves politically contentious
knowledge. Against the backdrop of a body of literature that pays scant or

inadequate attention to the maxim 'knowledge is power', new theoretical
developments at the crossroads of knowledge management and political
science address head-on the essential link that exists between knowledge
and political factors, such as power, influence, conflict and order. In view of
this, new, more transparent, participative approaches are often proposed as
a means of addressing accountability and empowerment.
Additionally, constructivist approaches to the nexus endorse
approaches that emphasize the influence of cognitive and normative elements
in public policy-making. Normative and cognitive frames are important for
explaining how actors understand and define the role of social science in
policy-making processes. The concepts of paradigm, frame of reference and
advocacy coalition are central to this approach. These concepts point out a
space articulated by beliefs, knowledge and rules in which social tensions can
be managed. Some of these more wide-ranging and reflective approaches also
focus on finding possible ways for enhancing the participation of concerned
'knowledge users' in the upstream definition of policies. From this perspective,
experts are only one class of actors who participate in complex issue-oriented
policy networks. The emphasis here is on how science enters the public debate
and not just the policy realm.
Thus, this 'map' of the approaches taken by the different IFSP workshops
should be understood as an attempt to present the diversity of views on the
nexus in a systematic manner. However, theoretical frameworks and debates
are in constant interaction, dialogue and evolution. For this reason, the
heuristic differentiation of the various approaches made in this report has
some unavoidable limitations.
Crucially, the different workshops hardly ever put forward approaches
that fit entirely within either of the two major categories described throughout
this systematization. Moreover, almost every workshop that was analysed
- including those that openly embraced evidence-based policies and the
instrumental uses of research - questioned technocratic, positivistic and linear
typologies of research use, and proposed to move towards more participative,
context-sensitive and iterative models. Even if instrumental accounts of
knowledge are important and widespread, none of the workshops openly
claimed to endorse a linear positivistic model of research use in the policy
process. More or less, every workshop acknowledged the complexity of the
issue and the need to overcome old, narrow models and typologies.
This suggests that, in spite of some irreconcilable elements to be
found within the conceptual frameworks used by the different workshops,
CONCLUSION 107
there was in many cases a strong tendency to blend and balance different
analytical components rooted in different theories. The new political accounts
of knowledge management, and the widespread concern of some advocates
of evidence-based policy with the co-production of knowledge, are good
examples of this trend.
Along with this variety of approaches, some common trends across
many workshops were identified. For example, attention is commonly drawn
to the fact that an effective strategy to enhance the linkages between social
science and policy should be underpinned by a theoretical and methodological
framework that takes into account the interplay of different social actors.
Therefore, in such a theoretical framework, concepts of science, politics
and authority should be considered together with those of citizenship,
empowerment and accountability.
Against narrow and unproblematic conceptions of research use and
its impact on policy-making, new, more reflective approaches propose
wider ways of seeing and dealing with social science. Interpretive framings
of research use envisage the potential for social science research to be used in
interactive social ways. These highlight the fact that research is reconstructed
alongside other forms of knowledge in the process of its use.
To conclude, it can be said that this analysis of the IFSP shows
that social science research, as a scientific enterprise, can provide both
abstract, conceptual knowledge about society and concrete, instrumental
knowledge, enabling - directly and indirectly - action that constantly
recomposes the world we live in. Science and politics certainly appear to
have different rationales. However, we should not forget that, like any other
kind of scientific enterprise, social science is made by human beings living
in historically and culturally situated societies. Looking at the historical
process of their emergence and institutionalization, it is not hard to observe
that the boundaries between the two realms are constantly being redefined.
From its origins, social science has been linked to different institutional and
political actors. Power relationships and political and economic interests
are central in the institutionalization of the social scientific enterprise.
Social science has been both critical and functional for all kinds of power,
leading to emancipation and people's empowerment, or conversely, to
enhanced social surveillance and governmental control. We should not
forget that the term 'social science' encompasses the words 'social' and
'science'. Reflecting on their constant relation and separation is a necessary
precondition for developing effective strategies that enhance research use
in policy-making.
PARTII
COLLECTED DOCUMENTS
THE POLITICS OF KNOWLEDGE
MANAGEMENT11
Nazli Choucri
INTRODUCTION
Early in the twenty-first century, everyone recognizes that the global
economy is increasingly knowledge-driven. If there is a cliché that most aptly
characterizes the competitive features of the world economy today, then it
is the global race for knowledge. Winston Churchill is reputed to have said:
"The empires of the future are the empires of the mind.'
The purpose of this paper is to highlight some factors central to
knowledge management, taking into account the role of politics and conflict in
the provision and deployment of knowledge. These factors pertain to specific
attributes of'knowledge', the role of networking, the value of knowledge and
networking, and the impacts of cyberspace. While scholars and observers alike
can differ on the actual role of knowledge, everyone agrees that we have already
embarked on a transformation of such pervasive importance that it may be
compared to the agricultural revolution (which occurred independently in
different parts of the world around 8000 BC) or of the industrial revolution
(which occurred in eighteenth-century Europe).
We proceed from the assumption that conflicts over the core values in
society are often manifested in terms of political contentions over the 'best'
knowledge and that which is most legitimate', in determining who gets what
when and how. The struggle can often be intense. Clashes of values carry
11 This paper was presented in the workshop 'Addressing the cognitive complexity of decision
making' organized by UNESCO MOST.
specific meaning for the contenders. Differences in meaning generally situate

and define often-conflicting positions in the 'playing field'.
With advances in information technology, the growing density of
cyberspace and enhanced efficiencies in information management, the
management of knowledge is rapidly assuming the status of core competence
for institutions and enterprises, key to the performance of governance at all
levels, and central to the efficacy of individuals. The forging of cyberspace
continues to enable new possibilities for knowledge generation, provision
and sharing, and greatly expands the potentials for knowledge diffusion,
distribution and deployment.
All of this creates new modes of knowledge management, and
inevitably, new possibilities for contention. Especially important, however,
is the emergence of cyberpolitics, a newly coined term, which refers to
extending the arena of politics beyond the conventional domain of 'real'
social interaction into new and uncharted arenas of 'virtual' interaction.
We must begin by noting key attributes of'knowledge', as a reminder of
the challenges and complexities at hand. All forms of knowledge have value.
The knowledge 'industry' itself is important, as are all knowledge-producing
institutions, agents, individuals and the supporting social mechanisms.
Nonetheless, we must acknowledge that knowledge is power, a timeless
truth coined by Francis Bacon. By the same token, shaping the content of
knowledge is itself a source of power. When power is evoked, politics is a
necessary corollary.
THE KNOWLEDGE FACTOR

According to Webster's Dictionary, to 'know' is to 'hold something in one's
mind as true or as being what it purports to be', which 'implies a sound logical
or factual basis'. It also means 'to be convinced of something. By extension,
knowledge refers to the:
fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through

experience or association; acquaintance with our understanding of a science,
art, technique, condition, context, etc [including] ... the range of one's
information and understanding to the best of abilities in place [as well as] ...
the fact or condition of being aware of something ... therefore, what is 'known
is that which is 'generally recognized'.
THE POLITICS OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT 113
More often than not, knowledge comes with variable degrees of uncertainty.
This coupling is fundamental to determining what we know and what we
do not know - and the implications for decision and choice. Invariably, it is
wise to recognize the uncertainty, and resort to the well-known notion that
'caution is the better part of valour'.
Knowledge and power

The connection between knowledge and political factors, such as power,
influence, capability, war and peace, is generally acknowledged but seldom
addressed head-on. 'Knowledge' has served largely as an implicit 'variable' in
social interactions or in relations between nations, and been accorded little
if any specific strategic importance. At the same time, however, everyone
appreciates the obvious: that if knowledge is power, then the application of
knowledge is necessary for the realization of this power.
The power of knowledge is, fundamentally, the power of leverage and
influence derived from the provision, access, diffusion and expansion of
knowledge - as well as its utilization. This composite leverage is contingent on
the interaction between the content of knowledge and the value of knowledge
- and both are significantly enhanced by knowledge-networking practices
made possible through innovative uses of cyber venues. During periods of
social transformation, the deployment of knowledge is usually associated
with efforts to define the new value for society and to expand its legitimacy.
And if the value issues and related objectives are not fully articulated and
if prevailing social interactions are fraught with uncertainty, then past
experience is not the best basis for managing present predicaments. In such
cases, knowledge becomes both instrumental (that is, leading to change) and
contextual (constrained by conditions). Parenthetically, the formulation of
evidence-based policy is precisely that: the use of knowledge for the pursuit
of policy, and the resort to knowledge as a legitimization mechanism.
The issue of content is rather complex. We propose here an important
distinction, the distinction between knowledge as content, and the content
of knowledge. Each contributes to the value of knowledge, but in different
ways and for different purposes.
Knowledge as content
The literature on knowledge - broadly defined - tends to use a set of terms
interchangeably, such as human capital, intellectual capital, manpower,
human resources, manpower resources, and combinations thereof. Some
distinctive factors are obscured in this process, and their ramifications are lost.
Among the important factors are the nature of knowledge as an intangible,

the codification of content capturing the meaning of knowledge, and the
utilization of knowledge by individuals and/or institutions.
Among the most fundamental attributes of knowledge as an intangible
is that its acquisition and utilization follow a law of increasing returns. This
means, literally, that the more knowledge is obtained and used, the greater
is likely to be the return on its deployment, and the value associated with
its 'utility' to the individual (or group) user. As a result, a critical feature
of knowledge as an asset is its input into the nature of economic and social
relations.
By now everyone recognizes the contributions of advances in
information technology to the entire process of knowledge creation,
production, distribution and diffusion. Digitization accelerates every
aspect of the knowledge enterprise. Similarities are being drawn between
the properties of'knowledge' and those of'environment' - not only in terms
of their elusive nature, but equally importantly, in terms of the challenges
in capturing their essence for a wide range of purposes - as an instrument
of leverage and power, as an asset and a resource, and as an instrument of
policy, for example.
Content of knowledge
It goes without saying that the content of knowledge is highly variable in
nature, character, scale and scope. From the perspective of economists,
knowledge is a privately produced public good. This means that knowledge
supplied to one person is available to others at no added cost (that is, in a form
of non-rival consumption), and the producer of knowledge cannot prevent
anyone else from consuming it (so it has the property of non-excludability).
This attribute is a property of knowledge; it does not mean that knowledge
is produced or owned by the public sector.
In a strict sense, while it is privately produced - by individuals - the
supporting and enabling conditions are more and more connected to, and
contingent upon, available organizational and social mechanisms, as well
as the communication and infrastructure systems in place. We can never
underestimate the critical role of investments in human capital - or in any
aspect of knowledge development, provision and diffusion.
Concurrently, of course, the compelling evidence of the increasing
knowledge-intensity of economic activity in industrial countries reinforces
what has become close to a new orthodoxy, namely that knowledge matters
and so does technology. Precisely how and in what way remains unclear.
In this connection, the concept of the 'knowledge economy' has gained

considerable circulation. As Dominique Foray notes in The Economics of
Knowledge, a knowledge economy is one in which 'the proportion of
knowledge-intensive jobs is high, the economic weight of information sectors
is a determining factor, and the share of intangible capital is greater than that
of tangible capital in the overall stock of real capital' (Foray, 2004, p. ix). By
definition it is also one in which there is enhanced access to knowledge in all
of its forms, and to knowledge bases.
In practice, however, there is a symbiotic relationship between know-
ledge and politics. Political actors at all levels, and in all contexts, recognize
the importance of the political message and its content. Enhancing the value
of content by assigning it the authority of 'knowledge' is itself a process of
legitimization.
Further along we shall note some issues central to sustainable
development as a domain of knowledge. By definition, these issues are also
those relevant to knowledge for managing social transformation. With the
emergence of sustainability sciences, a new area of human knowledge is now
formally acknowledged. While its scale and scope are still very broad, the
focus on nature-society interactions constitutes its core, as indicated in State
of the Planet, 2006-2007 (a publication from Science magazine: Kennedy et
al., 2006).
THE VALUE OF KNOWLEDGE

Clearly all of these issues discussed are related to notions of value, and more
specifically, the value of knowledge. We turn first to the matter of value, and
then to the knowledge connection.
The concept of value

Conventionally, value is defined as 'fair return or equivalent in goods, services,
or money for something exchanged' {Webster's Collegiate Dictionary). It also
means worth of some kind, as well as being of some importance. But the terms
and conditions of that 'value', and its units or measure, are not implied in
the core concept. The value of knowledge, and the specifics of its content,
have different meanings in private and in public settings. For example, in
many private contexts knowledge is connected to economic gain, and market
prices and conditions; in public settings it is viewed in terms of facilitating
the provision of services for meeting social needs, and implementing policies
to improve social and public well-being. The value of knowledge is seldom
as explicit or 'extractable' from a knowledge exchange as is the value of a

physical product.
Central to this issue is that knowledge of itself is extremely difficult
to metricize or measure. So, too, the value of the same 'piece' of knowledge
may have different value for different individuals, firms, agencies or nations.
Despite the usual distinction between knowledge 'for its own sake' and
knowledge for all other potential purposes, knowledge as a 'commodity'
usually retains some intrinsic value irrespective of context. If that is the case,
then we could ask, 'Value to whom? How? When? Why? - as well as how
much, and of what kind?'
The knowledge chain

We put forth here the concept of a knowledge chain in the nature of a
proposition. The proposition is that the knowledge chain consists of the value-
added to the content of knowledge created by the institutional and managerial
activities and functions that protect and enhance knowledge-items and thus
increase their overall 'worth'.
Given that knowledge can no longer be viewed simply as a 'residual' -
companion to the proverbial 'technology factor' in the production function in
economics - it is now recognized that it is central to economic performance,
and in some sectors is a driving force. The global race for knowledge, noted
earlier, leads us to understand that learning how to garner the power of
knowledge requires us to learn about knowledge, and about how to generate
knowledge of relevance.
By extension, the potential for strategic uses of knowledge has, in turn,
shaped new modes of knowledge management, giving rise to what is now
known as 'knowledge-networking' - a verb, a noun, an adjective, and a new
mechanism for generated added value. When the transmission of knowledge
is undertaken via e-venues, e-networking becomes not only the conduit at
hand, but also the mechanism through which this particular conduit itself
enhances the value of knowledge to the actors. Conversely, if the conduit
is interrupted or if it is inefficient, ineffective or irrelevant, then the value-
enhancing effects are damaged accordingly.
The generic value proposition is this: the greater the quality of the
knowledge content, the higher the value of knowledge - all other things being
equal. Simple as this logic appears, nonetheless it points to an important issue:
that the value of knowledge is not neutral with respect to the nature of the
content. Thus, the drivers of value are shaped by the quality and volume of
content.
To some extent, the analogy with the supply chain in the material
world is especially instructive. In the context of production, manufacturing
and/or delivery of goods or physical services, efficiencies in the supply chain
are important in reducing costs and enabling more rapid transformation of
raw materials into manufactured products. With the increasing knowledge
intensity of economic activity, an analogous logic holds with respect to the
knowledge chain. The concept of the knowledge value chain signals that more
'worth' is added at each segment of the process (or transaction). Clearly,
the knowledge chain is not as well understood or as central to the idiom of
economic performance as is the supply chain. In some contexts the nature of
the supply chain itself has changed, given the increasing role of knowledge
and the value of its content. Of relevance here is that the knowledge chain,
itself a function of content, is enhanced by effective conduit. Depending on
the issue area, the value-difference between conduit and content can even
blur.
KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS FOR SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION

While different visions of alternative futures may rest on different theoretical
and philosophical foundations, the reliance on knowledge in any form requires
some systematic attention to the content of knowledge as well as knowledge
as content. Both are contingent on the conception, design, construction and
implementation of a robust knowledge system to help represent a particular
domain of interest.
Knowledge systems
The knowledge system is basically the 'architecture' for the framework within
which to 'locate' the knowledge-items. In well-developed areas of knowledge,
usually the ontology serves that function. In domains where the foundations
of knowledge are evolving and where part of the challenge is to develop the
very fundamentals as well as the derivatives, then the first task is to address
head-on the need for a knowledge system. In practice, the framework provides
the basic guidelines for organizing and managing knowledge.
More specifically, we can define a knowledge system as an organized
structure and formal process for generating and representing content,
components, classes, or types of knowledge. Defined by its architecture,
the knowledge system is generic in form, but specific in its domain content;
reinforced by a set of logical relationships that connect knowledge-items;
enhanced by a set of iterative processes that enable evolution, revision,
adaptation and change; and subject to pre-defined criteria of relevance,

reliability and quality.
There is a greater consensus about what does not constitute sustain-
ability than there is about the basic concept itself. Sustainability is not
unfettered growth, it is not maximization of output, it is not materialization,
massification, spatialization, disaggregation, or centralization - to note only
the most obvious features signalled in another context by John Seely Brown
and Paul Duguid in The Social Life of Information (2000). And yet the issue
itself is intensely political in the most conventional sense. By the same token
there is more consensus about the basic meaning of change - in theory and
in practice - than there is about the specifics of social transformation.
An international effort to generate a knowledge system for sustainable
development has been completed under the auspices of the Alliance for
Global Sustainability (AGS), which consists of four major international
research universities: MIT (USA), Tokyo University (Japan), Eidgenössische
Technische Hochschule Zürich (the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology,
Zurich) (ETH) and Chalmers University (Sweden). The AGS is devoted to
the development and deployment of knowledge for facilitating transitions
toward sustainability.
The results of these initiatives and related knowledge deployment
efforts are reported in Mapping Sustainability: Knowledge e-networking and
the value chain, which I organized and edited with an international team
of collaborators (Choucri et al., published by Springer in 2007). Among
the objectives of Mapping Sustainability was to formulate an ontology of
sustainability, one that would provide a baseline for evolving understandings
of this general domain.
The international community is already committed to the pursuit of
trajectories toward sustainable development. It also recognizes the importance
of managing social transformation. Thus, everyone generally expects that
more 'knowledge' and improved 'quality' will contribute to better policy and
greater wisdom. For this reason, the creation of a baseline for sustainable
development as an evolving knowledge domain is an important initiative.
The value of a knowledge system

Based on our experience with Mapping Sustainability, we now highlight (with
some confidence) the value of a knowledge system and the specific benefits
that render added value. We focus on four factors.
The first and most important source of value is that a knowledge
system provides a consistent venue for organizing knowledge and a coherent
framework for addressing the challenges posed by the proverbial devil of

complexity and the associated details. Once the knowledge framework is
completed, it can then be populated with knowledge items. These items may
originate, or reside, in physical or virtual contexts (or both), but will be more
readily accessible once within the framework.
The second source of added value is perhaps more practical in nature.
It relates specifically to gains from organization. For example, the power
of search engines, notably Google, is well appreciated, and they are used
by almost everyone participating in cyber arenas. Google provides retrieval
services on a large scale, and it does so very well. At the same time it does not
provide content organization, nor does it seek to do so. A knowledge system
(and its ontology) serves this important function.
The third source of value pertains to the utilization of the knowledge
system. In the case of Mapping Sustainability the knowledge system itself is
the core feature of global knowledge networking activities. This allows people
in different parts of the world to converge around common understandings
of the issues at hand, and collaborate for purposes of sharing knowledge,
developing new knowledge, or even applying knowledge to their own
needs.
The fourth type of benefits created by the development of a knowledge
system pertains to the uses of existing knowledge - in terms of theory and
evidence - to help facilitate and even guide the re-use of knowledge as relevant.
The general tendency to focus on the uses of knowledge underestimates the
power inherent in its re-uses.
We must stress that knowledge re-use is very important. Given that
greater attention is given to the generation and provision of knowledge than
to its uses and re-uses, a valuable asset remains under-utilized, generating
opportunity costs of unpredictable scale and scope.
KNOWLEDGE NETWORKING AND THE VALUE

OF NETWORKS
Webster's Dictionary defines a network as an interconnected or interrelated
chain, group or system. More rigorous is the definition provided by network
theory (also known as graph theory), which has influenced many scholarly
disciplines even when the intellectual debt is not always explicit.
The transformational impact of networks is generally acknowledged as
one of their most important features. In all countries, in all parts of the world,
networks influence and even shape production, experience, power and culture.
The value of networks

The concept of 'network' has achieved common currency in a wide range of
disciplines, with attendant variations often subtle and implicit in the meaning
attached, as well as in its uses, theoretical and empirical. The added value in
every 'incident' of networking lies in its contributions to the knowledge of
the actors and to the enhancement of its value to them.
The intangible, in this case, is the knowledge transmitted through the
network, and the added value is contingent not only on the content itself
but on the efficacy of the network. Therein lies the source of advantage,
that the network allows for multidirectional provision and transmission of
knowledge. In those terms, a network is substantially more than a portal. The
latter is basically unidirectional in its transmission capacity and intent. Unlike
networks, portals are inert in that they are usually not designed to support
multidirectional interaction functionalities.
In social contexts, it is common to consider networks to be defined
by purposeful interactions, whereby the goals of the actors are central to the
definition of the network. Purposive behaviour is a fundamental feature of
politics.
Knowledge e-networking
Based on our experience, reported in Mapping Sustainability, and on the
attendant global knowledge networking system, we expect an effective
knowledge e-networking initiative to consist of: a computer-assisted organized
system of discrete actors characterized by knowledge-producing capacity,
combined through the use of common organizing principles, whereby actors
retain their individual autonomy, so that networking enhances the value of
knowledge to the actors, and contributes to the expansion of knowledge.
Jointly these seemingly incompatible properties of networking generate
patterns of interaction, which then create multiplier effects throughout the
entire system.
We now turn to the multiplier effects, which extend the reach and
impacts of a networking system. Accordingly, we believe that e-networking
is an e-operational mechanism for enhancing the value of knowledge
through the diffusion of its content, and through the feedback obtained by
this diffusion. Therefore, e-networking serves as the fundamental enabler of
knowledge-based communication in a globalizing world. In so doing, it also
contributes to new knowledge.
In this context, the term 'new knowledge' refers to the emergent demand
for, and development of, knowledge about matters that were not previously
salient. This brings us once again to knowledge as a facet of power, as an input

in economic activity, as a source of value added, and most important of all,
as a domain of understanding.
Given that the diffusion of knowledge e-networking functionality
makes it possible to engage in multiparty, asynchronous and multidirectional
interaction, it thus facilitates the flow of knowledge generated bottom-up.
This means that the knowledge originates at the grass roots, for example, and
flows toward domains at the leadership levels (at the top, so to speak).
Such a trajectory greatly enhances inputs into decision and choice
both within and across societies. Moreover, access to interactive knowledge
networking functionalities empowers stakeholder communities to express
their preferences and make explicit their inputs into decision-making. At the
same time such practices give decision-makers access to multiple stakeholder
communities.
Despite the large literature on various facets of knowledge management
and the diversity of tools and techniques, the fact remains that both design and
implementation are shaped by the goals and the purposes of the knowledge
initiative itself. Early in the twenty-first century, we also recognize the
importance of cyber access for the management of knowledge. Almost by
definition, we find it necessary to address the influence of the cyberpolitics
surrounding this issue.
CYBERPOLITICS - NEW KNOWLEDGE IMPERATIVES

Politics everywhere involves conflict, negotiation, and bargaining over the
mechanisms, institutional or otherwise, that enable authoritative resource
allocation, seeking to resolve the contentions over particular sets of core
values and their definition. Indeed, the very knowledge that is required to
make a political determination regarding who gets what, when, how becomes
intensely politicized, as is the process of bringing knowledge to action - in
the market or in the political arena. This classic formulation of politics is due
to Harold Lasswell, in his important book entitled Politics: Who gets what
when how (1936). It provided the foundations for the field of political science
within the social sciences.
Other scholars have expanded this view and introduced two important
aspects: the role of compliance, and the functions of enforcement. The core,
however, remains that put forth by Harold Lasswell.
Politics, as the process through which the authoritative allocation of
values in society is forged and implemented, becomes especially complex
when we factor in the ubiquity of the pursuit of wealth and the pursuit of
power. This is particularly important as we consider the role of knowledge in
society and the ways in which its deployment shapes the very fundamentals
of who says or does what, to whom, when, why and how.
The politics of knowledge

Some of the most serious political contentions in any society surround the very
concept of growth, and the extent to which it can or should be constrained in
some way to take account of past lessons. It is difficult for anyone to argue for
limiting growth in developing countries. By the same token, no one wishes to
argue for limiting the growth of the private sector and constraining financial
or other gains. Concurrently, everyone recognizes that past patterns cannot
persist, and that the costs of unrestricted economic growth are too extensive
to be borne with impunity.
The dilemma is this. While there is a codified body of knowledge
surrounding the definition and dynamics of economic growth, there is no
equivalent for any formally accepted and recognized view of transformation
and change other than growth (or decline). The notion of 'sustainable
development' emerged as a counter to the dominant trend, but its knowledge
base is yet to be developed and its fundamentals are yet to be codified.
At the same time, however, the knowledge economy (as noted earlier)
may not necessarily be a sustainable economy or one that facilitates the
management of social transformation. This situation provided the basis for
introducing the notion of 'sustainable growth' into the evolving political
discourse surrounding sustainability, but this notion also remains ambiguous
- if not contradictory - in its very logic.
Cyberpolitics
First introduced in a thematic focused issue of the International Political
Science Review (2000), the concept of cyberpolitics refers to the conjunction of
two processes or realities - those pertaining to human interactions surrounding
the determination of who gets what, when, how, and those enabled by the uses
of virtual spaces as new arenas of contention with modalities and realities of
their own. In many ways the single most influential study providing important
foundations for what we now consider as cyberpolitics may well be Karl W.
Deutsch's The Nerves of Government: Models ofpolitical communication and
control (1963), which focused on communication, feedback, equilibrium and
related concepts in an effort to articulate the body politic 'with its nerves - its
challenge of communication and decision'.
Despite differences in perspectives worldwide, there is a general

scholarly understanding about the meaning of 'polities', the second part of
the newly coined term. It is the uncertainties and ambiguities surrounding the
first part of the term, 'cyber', and the nature of human interactions in virtual
spaces, that distinguish the joint term of this newly constructed semantic.
The cyberpolitics of knowledge management must be viewed in two
contexts which jointly represent complex feedback systems. The first context
pertains to the societal uses of cyber venues for purposes of influencing the
norms and procedures governing management of knowledge in cyberspace.
The second context relates to ways in which the configuration of cyberspace
enables new ways of developing, shaping and distributing knowledge in real
or physical arenas.
In other words, the causal logic is this. One set of influence flows from
the 'real' world to the virtual domain. The other set of influence flows from
the uses of'virtual' functionalities that shape the diffusion and management
of knowledge routed throughout the 'real' or physical domain.
In addition to directionality, each side of this causal logic is dominated,
if not shaped and managed, by different actors and interests, driven by
different purposes and motivations. As a result, the overall nature of the
knowledge industry is becoming increasingly complex in both real and virtual
venues.
The development of cyberpolitics reinforces the salience of political
elements in all aspects of social discourse by providing an added venue
of interaction, the virtual arena. We are already witnessing the impacts of
the virtual on knowledge formulation and codification. The jury is still out
with respect to the net effects. Again, knowledge is more widely available
and accessible, but the democratization of knowledge provision raises
important questions pertaining to quality and reliability. At the same time,
however, evidence shows that Wikipedia is neither better nor worse than the
Encyclopaedia Britannica in the quality of its content. This finding is alarming
or gratifying, depending on our perspective.
We must also consider the unrelenting technological changes shaping
the nature of the cyber venues. Not only is hard technology changing, so are
the supporting managerial and organizational systems, and they are changing
more. We have already observed major changes in the knowledge industry
and in knowledge provision processes.
Finally, we take note of increasing returns, a concept noted earlier.
This concept has assumed considerable importance in relation to knowledge,
the knowledge economy, the knowledge industry and all knowledge-related
initiatives. It is especially relevant throughout the causal logic sketched above.

Moreover, the weightless interactions associated with cyber venues reinforce
these dynamics.
Concepts and complexity

As a process, the management of social transformation is driven in part by the
goal of reframing, even replacing economic growth as the dominant value of
human activity. Many of the definitional issues raised earlier signal politics
in process, so to speak, with the authoritative outcome still to emerge. To
the extent that cyber venues strengthen the configuration and circulation of
ideas, their instrumental functions are obvious.
There is a powerful disconnect between the analytical representation of
unrestricted economic growth, and the requisites essential to the formation
and management of sustainable development. This disconnect is becoming
apparent even in domains of'high polities'. In April 2007, the United Kingdom
- in its capacity as president of the UN Security Council - formally argued
that climate change threatens the security of all states, and that the Security
Council should acknowledge the importance of moving away from the carbon
economy. This argument was the first instance on which the threats to the
human condition induced by climate change were brought to the UN Security
Council as a security threat on a global scale. The knowledge base that points
to such threats is persuasive in its scientific basis, but highly contentious in
its political and social implications.
From a political perspective, cyber venues strengthen and reinforce
dominant cleavages on most issues. However, we posited earlier that when
the issues themselves are vague in their formulation, the same dynamics that
reinforce contentions operate in a way to help consolidate emergent and yet
unformed views.
Institutional knowledge
The interconnections between cyberpolitics and the politics of institutional
development are already structured around politically created fault lines. For
our purposes, two features of knowledge content in the domain of sustainable
development are especially relevant. The first is that content is knowledge-
bearing; in other words, every item considered as relevant to sustainable
development must contain some specific meaning and provide added value
to overall understanding. The second feature is that the subject matter, the
content itself, is amenable to intellectual organization - should that not
already be the case.
In any context and for any purpose, we must converge on a formal

definition of what constitutes knowledge. For any substantive domain of
interest we need to define a formal rule or set of rules to delineate the relevance
of any category of knowledge, or any particular knowledge item therein.
To the extent that we can develop a viable, perhaps even an integrated
and coherent, knowledge base for the 'management of social transformation',
we will be able to build selectively upon, reframe and select features of the
corpus of economic growth theory developed over long periods of time. At
issue are the ways in which we characterize the vicious cycle of continued
environmental degradation and threats to social systems and their viability, and
potentials for transformation into a virtuous cycle reinforcing environmental
resilience and strengthening propensities toward sustainability.
ENDNOTE
We conclude this paper by putting forth some brief, but important, observations.
• Politics is ubiquitous: it is everywhere. There is no such thing as

apolitical knowledge. At best, we can hope for knowledge provision
and development with explicit rather than implicit values, goals and
attendant assumptions.
• All knowledge content is not created equal. Some has greater value than
others. The value is contingent on the quality, reliability, replicability,
portability and contextual relevance.
• The value of a knowledge management system is directly connected
to its framework (and ontology), irrespective of the underlying goals
of the initiating institution.
• The most challenging knowledge systems to design and develop are
those that seek to address multidisciplinary issues or to represent
societies under conditions of change.
• Knowledge management of the changes in the content of knowledge
is especially daunting when the content of knowledge itself concerns
the nature and characteristics of social change.
• Policy, as politics, is ubiquitous. But the context and the conditions are
always distinctive. Knowledge systems focusing on policy issues can
seldom assume that 'one size fits all'.
• The emergence of sustainability sciences as a new knowledge domain
provides a major opportunity to address social change in an integrated
way, taking into account interactions with nature and environmental

parameters.
• The forging of cyberspace enables the development of cyberpolitics, thus
reinforcing the salience of political elements by providing an added,
virtual mode of interaction, augmenting venues and opportunities for
engaging in the politics of knowledge.
• The decentralization of knowledge provision, enabled by cyberspace,
creates new challenges for all modes of knowledge management. By
definition, this challenge seriously undermines the traditional model
of knowledge development and sharing, which is one dominated by
central coordination. Distributedness as a mode of operation and
coordination is gradually superseding central control.
• Driven by mission, all institutional knowledge must be viewed in
the context of the goals and objectives of the organization and its
constituencies. This is as true of education and research institutions
as it is of governmental and intergovernmental organizations.
REFERENCES
Choucri, N., Mistree, D., Haghseta, F., Mezher, T., Baker, W. R. and Ortiz, C. I.
(eds.). 2007. Mapping Sustainability. Knowledge e-networking and the value
chain. Dordrecht, Netherlands, Springer.
Deutsch, K. W. 1963. The Nerves of Government: Models ofpolitical
communication and control. New York, Free Press.
Foray, D. 2004. The Economics of Knowledge. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.
International Political Science Review/Revue internationale de science politique.
2000. Special issue: Cyberpolitics in international relations/CyberPolitique
et relations internacionales: Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 243-330.
Kennedy, D. and the editors of Science (eds). 2006. Science magazine's State of
the Planet, 2006-2007. Washington, D.C., American Association for the
Advancement of Science/Island Press.
Lasswell, H. D. 1936. Politics: Who gets what when how. New York, Whistlesey
House.
Seely Brown, J. and Duguid, P. 2000. The Social Life of Information. Boston, Mass.,
Harvard Business Press.
A KNOWLEDGE SYSTEM FOR MANAGING
SOCIAL TRANSFORMATIONS12
Vincent Maugis
KNOWLEDGE AND POLICY

The significance of the internet as a powerful tool for sharing knowledge
was emphasized as early as 1999 by the former chief economist of the World
Bank, Joseph Stiglitz, who advocates as his main thesis the approach to 'scan
globally, reinvent locally'. In other words, the global knowledge acquired from
the existing repositories such as major libraries, databases and other sources
must be internalized, rediscovered and made accessible for translation to local
conditions if it is to be usefully applied for policy and development (Stiglitz,
2000). Precisely, online knowledge systems and networks in the broad area of
international development are dedicated to the sharing of existing knowledge
and the discovery of new knowledge, and its application for the advancement
of developing nations and regions. The key to their popularity and initial
success is the realization that all participants, both developed and developing
countries and institutions, can and should learn from each other, and can
and should cooperate to benefit the capacity for relevant knowledge creation,
aggregation and exchange (Nath, 2000).
The MOST Programme at UNESCO has recently launched a no-fee online
policy research service, which is expected to further new modes of decision-
making, based on actual evidence from realities on the ground. As a matter of
fact, the increasing need for relevant knowledge to inform international and
national decision-making has overtaken current capacities of access, retrieval,
12 This paper was presented in the workshop Addressing the cognitive complexity of decision
making' organized by UNESCO MOST.
organization and interpretation. The explosion of information and published

material on policy and international development is both a danger and an
opportunity. The danger is that a vast and accelerating quantity of conceptually
unstructured, difEcult to access, and largely unevaluated material has less utility
for research and policy analysis. Conversely, there is a clear opportunity for
the investment of so much knowledge capital to dramatically advance new
paradigms for embarking on trajectories toward development and sustainability.
This is a particularly acute problem for the social sciences. If social sciences
results are to be useful to policy, they need to be accessible for comparison
and verification. Without ready access to quality research conclusions, timely,
focused and effective policy responses may be severely impeded at both national
and international levels (UNESCO, 2006).
The knowledge needed to design effective policy must thus be made
available to decision-makers in forms they can use. The currently fashionable
call for 'evidence-based' policy specifies what constitutes 'effective': policy
designed by reference not to common sense or to ideological preconceptions
but to prior practical experience. Evidence-based policy, in other terms, assumes
both a strong comparative knowledge base and effective and transferable
implementation models that can be calibrated based on the characteristics
of particular cases. Thorough comparison of individual cases examined in
detail is indeed one practical way to expand the experience of those engaged
in social action, and thereby to equip them better to judge the possibilities and
constraints of their own specific situations (UNESCO, 2007).
Given the complexity of the objective, there is a need for new systems
based, among others, on a new information architecture that includes new
languages, categories, and metaphors to identify and account for contexts,
issues and solutions; on a new technical architecture that is more social,
transparent, open, flexible, and respectful of the individual users; on a new
application architecture oriented toward problem-solving and representation,
rather than output and transactions (Lang, 2001); and on a new institutional
architecture with organizational processes that extract the most out of the
synergistic combination of information technology, knowledge and the
creativity and innovation capacity of human beings (Raghavan, 2007).
CONTRIBUTIONS TO POLICY-MAKING
The MOST tool has been designed to produce a specific policy knowledge
system around which a set of distinct but interconnected dynamics are to
emerge - between research and policy, between the local and global levels, and
A KNOWLEDGE SYSTEM FOR MANAGING SOCIAL TRANSFORMATIONS 129
between the interventions and the target communities. The tool's knowledge
base will update and enrich as it is used on the ground and feedback on
experiences is made available; the follow-up and evaluation of the experiences
will allow for alternative approaches to be assessed over time, through the
tracking and mapping of the applications. Policies will link gradually to one
another, since initiatives are based on shared experience (lessons learned,
mutual benefits) and finally, the responsiveness of the interventions to the
issues they seek to address is made accountable, traceable and adjustable. This
is substantially different from most of the available databases of best practices,
which generally propose decontextualized options for replication (Maugis,
2003). Indeed, a failure here may perfectly be a success there, and vice versa.
Precisely in policy one size seldom, if ever, fits all.
The tool delivers user-tailored, issue- and location-specific, policy-
relevant material through a specially designed search function. It is freely
accessible in multiple languages, starting with English, French and Spanish,
with a view to expanding to the rest of the UN working languages. Its focus is
on enabling easy access to high-quality, comparative social science research
for decision-making. This service should enable new policies to be the 'best
possible' of options: evidence-based and linked to location-specific dynamics
(context-sensitive), and also documented with assessments of similar
experiences (best-informed). The primary objective is to enhance potential
for successful implementation and outcome, ensuring action will be better
tailored to suit the specific needs of the populations concerned.
This interactive tool is modelled on a classic legislative research
service to perform policy-oriented information research, analysis, processing
and custom writing. Such services do indeed exist and work well in most
industrialized countries, for example in the United States (the Library of
Congress Research Service: Congressional Research Service, 2003, 2004,
2005), the United Kingdom and the Nordic European countries. Needless
to say, however, most of the less developed countries simply cannot afford to
implement such services. It is also to be noted that current policy information
research focuses mainly on knowledge production and dissemination, and
that information technology and knowledge management research and
development focus mainly on industry and business applications.
With expertise in the main issues of current social transformation and
development analysis, and with long-established networks and partners in the
research, policy and advocacyfieldsin the areas of multiculturalism, urban and
local governance, globalization and poverty eradication, ageing, and regional
integration, UNESCO's MOST Programme does indeed seem best placed to
efficiently design, develop and implement such modalities that facilitate policy
cooperation, knowledge sharing and international cooperation, provide a
platform for disseminating research results and policy initiatives from all parts
of the globe, and facilitate research-policy linkages (UNESCO MOST, 2001).
DESIGN METHODOLOGY
The basic innovation of this tool consists in using the complementarities of a
generic policy analysis frame (a template for all documents in the database)
and dedicated thematic analysis frames (specific criteria describing each
document) to access the very content of the documents ('policy briefs'). This
knowledge mapping at once enables knowledge contextualization and content
customization (extracting and recombining select template sections across
various documents) to better serve cross-comparison.
Knowledge mapping
The original template for MOST policy briefs results from the mapping of
several theoretical studies and educative materials (Collins, n.d.; Gil, 1981;
Jansson, 1999a; Richan, 1996; Segal and Brzuzy, 1998), documents by policy
institutions (Brookings Institution, Columbia International Affairs Online,
Joseph Rowntree Foundation, OECD and UNRISD) and guidelines for
reporting on best practices (UN-Habitat, Agora 21). Knowledge mapping
is about generating an ontology (a formal description of the concepts and
relationships that can exist for an agent or a community of agents: Gruber,
1993) of the subject matter at hand - social transformations and policy -
according to some select principles. When completed, the ontology consists of
key features (or descriptors) of the subject matter at hand that are integrated
into a coherent knowledge system (Choucri et al., 2007). Our approach to
the mapping process consists of:
1. Defining the policy dimensions, characterizing the issues arising in

specific contexts, on the one hand, and the range and nature of policy
experiences to date, on the other:
Policy dimensions:
• Context and issue
• Policies and programmes
• Research results
• Recommendations
• Operational aspects.
2. Organizing the content of social transformations issues and framing

these in terms of different types or domains - from the most general
level of aggregation to the most specific granularity for individual
components or component manifestations thereof.
Content-dependent issues
As particular types of issues, these are content-dependent and require that a
dedicated knowledge model be produced for each thematic application (for
example, 'Strengthening of socio-economic capacities through human rights
to eliminate poverty'; 'Analyses and proposals of measures to combat violence
against women based on human rights'; 'Experiences in the prevention of
organized youth violence').
Comparability is achieved through the resulting matrix of descriptors,
allowing for fairly sharp analyses. This scientifically sound policy analysis grid
has been tested with various knowledge-producing entities from different
research areas; it can be adjusted to serve the needs of virtually any domain
or subject area.
Knowledge networking
Within the policy briefs, each section of the template acts as an individual
knowledge item (a document as such). Each knowledge item is unique as it is
described by its own specific set of dimensions, domain(s) and geographical
location(s). Moreover, all knowledge items are complementary as they are
interlinked through the matrix of descriptors. The tool's operational base is
thus the network of all knowledge items, and the system's utility increases
with each new submission of a policy brief, as each new knowledge item is
linked with other corresponding knowledge items (margin contributions).
Once critical masses of content are achieved for specific subject areas, database
analysis should also make it possible to identify trends and concomitances in
the subject matter at hand, as well as gaps and redundancies in the availability
of the corresponding knowledge (Raghavan, 2007). Finally, each knowledge
item can be extracted from any document and collected across all (or selected
sets of) documents in order to produce customized reports.
FUNCTIONALITY
Functionality design for the MOST tool directly originates from a study
by the Global System for Sustainable Development (at the MIT Political
Science Department: http://gssd.mit.edu) aimed at providing foundations
for developing and implementing a next-generation knowledge networking

strategy. Ten major knowledge systems in the area of international
development were analysed in terms of focus (institutions, activities and
systems objectives), content (knowledge framework characteristics), delivery
(access and retrieval mechanisms) and outreach (search-engine outcomes).
The results obtained from analyses of different levels and linkages provide
better understanding of the nature of such knowledge systems (content and
context, and connectivity) as well as their relative position and behaviour
within their environment (ecology); and also make it possible to identify
redundancies, gaps to befilled,potentials for synergy or niche focus (Maugis,
2004).
The MOST tool offers value-added functionality specifically tailored for
policy advice to decision-makers. It seeks to provide users with optimal policy
information, enabling them to assess the relevance of the available policy
options through comparative knowledge exploration and the production of
customized reports based on the content of the policy briefs. Reports constitute
compilations of focused experiences from around the globe, containing
only relevant information selected by the user, integrating context-specific
dynamics and also pointing to the relevant data. These can be produced and
updated easily in only a couple of clicks.
As more collections of policy briefs are published, the usefulness and
performance of the tool will be improved, in particular in relation to access
to knowledge (including the aggregation of complementary materials) and
'social' functionality for the enhanced participation of communities of practice
in knowledge development. Furthermore, a future phase of research and
development should seek to combine knowledge-mapping and networking
methods with the application of more sophisticated, complementary
computer-based methods (semantic analysis and agent-based modelling)
for the analysis and representation of social and policy systems and processes
at various levels or scales of complexity. This should help to address some
cognitive challenges specific to governance, where practical questions include,
for example, determining common goals for conflict resolution and working
in cooperation; identifying possible measures based on aims; suggesting most
appropriate measures and assessing side-effects prior to implementation;
and identifying which goals are most important, and which results may be
replicable and transferable (Maugis, 2006).
To access the MOST policy research tool, visit http://www.unesco.org/
shs/most/tool
REFERENCES
Agora 21. 'Fiche-type' for submission to Agora 21's 'Bonnes Pratiques pour
le Développement Durable' (database), http://www.agora21.org/rra/
(Accessed 22 June 2010).
Brookings Institution. Policy briefs, http://www.brookings.edu/series/brookings-
policy-brief.aspx (Accessed 22 June 2010).
(eds.). 2007. Mapping Sustainability: Knowledge e-networking and the value
chain. Dordrecht, Netherlands, Springer.
Collins, S. n.d. Problems in international political economy: globalization (course
requirement at Washington University).
Columbia International Affairs Online. Policy briefs, http://www.ciaonet.org/
(Accessed 22 June 2010).
Congressional Research Service. 2003, 2004, 2005. Annual Reports. Washington,
D.C., US Library of Congress.
Gil, D. 1981. Unraveling Social Policy: Boston, Mass., Schenkman.
Gruber, T. 1993. What is an ontology?, http://www-ksl.stanford.edu/kst/what-is-
an-ontology.html (Accessed 22 June 2010).
Jansson, B. 1999a. Becoming an Effective Policy Advocate. Pacific Grove, Calif.,
Brooks/Cole/Wadsworth Press.
Jansson, B. 1999b. Social Welfare Policy: From theory to policy practice. Belmont,
Calif, Wadsworth Press.
Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Findings, http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/
linking-research-and-practice (Accessed 22 June 2010).
Lang, J. C. 2001. Managerial concerns in knowledge management. Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 43-59.
Maugis, V. 2003. The potentials of best practices. Working paper, Center for
e-Business, MIT, Boston, Mass.
Maugis, V. 2004. Knowledge networks in sustainability and development: key
findings from domain mapping. Working paper, Global System for
Sustainable Development, MIT, Boston, Mass.
Maugis, V. 2006. Addressing cognitive complexity in policy-making. Paper
presented at IFSP, UNESCO.
Nath, V. 2000. Knowledge networking for sustainable development. Sustainable
Development Networking Program (SNDP). www.cddc.vt.edu/knownet/
articles/exchanges-ict.html (Accessed 22 June 2010).
OECD. Policy briefs. http://www.oecd.org/findDocument/ (Accessed 22 June
2010).
Raghavan, A. 2007. Strategies for re-engineering global knowledge e-networks.

Choucri, N., Mistree, D., Haghseta, F., Mezher, T., Baker, W. R. and Ortiz,
C. I. (eds.), Mapping Sustainability: Knowledge e-networking and the value
chain. Dordrecht, Netherlands, Springer, pp. 151-76.
Richan, W. C. 1996. Lobbying for Social Change. Binghamton, N.Y., Haworth
Press.
Segal, E. A. and Brzuzy, S. 1998. Social welfare policy, programs, and practice.
Itasca, 111., F. E. Peacock, pp. 59-74.
Stiglitz, J. 2000. Scan globally, reinvent locally: knowledge infrastructure and the
localization of knowledge. D. Stone (eds.), Banking on Knowledge: The
genesis of the Global Development Network. London, Routledge, pp. 24-43.
UNESCO. 2006. International Forum on the Social Science-Policy Nexus,
brochure. Paris, UNESCO.
UNESCO. 2007. From research to policy to action. Working paper, Paris,
UNESCO.
UNESCO MOST. 2001. Bridging Research and Policy, Annual Report. Paris,
UNESCO.
UN-Habitat. Submission Guide and Reporting Format for the UN-Habitat Best
Practices Database.
UNRISD. Research and policy briefs, http://www.unrisd.org/ (Accessed 22 June
2010).
RESEARCH AND POLICY-MAKING IN THE
FIELD OF HEALTH ATTHE FEDERAL LEVEL
IN CANADA13
Solange van Kemenade
This paper discusses various aspects of the policy research model, a widespread
model within the Canadian Federal Government. One of the advantages of
this model that has been observed is that it helps researchers in the social
sciences (as well as in other disciplines) work more closely together with
policy-makers, thus efficiently promoting the transfer of research findings
to the sphere of the development of social policies, particularly in the field
of health policies.
I begin this paper with a brief description of the model favoured
by Canadian Government institutions, particularly in the field of health.
Subsequently, with the help of a concrete example, I provide an explanation
of the kind of research available and required for the projects in question,
and the actual influence these research findings have on decision-making, a
complex process which is not always consistent with the research findings.
13 This paper was presented in the workshop 'Social Policies workshop for young children and
youth: the search of a possible dialogue between researchers and the political community'
organized by Instituto de Investigaciones Gino Germani (IIGG), Facultad de Ciencias Sociales,
Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBA), Argentina. The author thanks Maria Raquel Macri and
Silvia Guemureman, researchers at IIGG, UBI, for their invitation. Thanks also go to UNESCO
for funding our participation in the Forum; and to Alberto L. Bialakowsky for his comments on
this paper.
THE RESEARCH MODEL FOR POLICY-MAKING

One of the roles, if not the main one, of research in the ministries and agencies
of the Canadian Federal Government is to provide strategic information to
strengthen and promote evidence-based decision-making.
Policy-making is then supported by strategic policy research. Policies
developed in the federal domain serve to define priorities (what should be
funded?), investments (how much should be invested?), target populations
(what groups?) and the kind of services and programmes that should be
supported, among other decisions. Policy research within the government
can be defined as the capacity to systematically and analytically address
the medium- and long-term issues in a timely manner within a research
framework, rather than focus on daily or short-term needs. Policy research
helps identify emerging policy issues, and provides impartial evidence that
informs the policy process (Almeida and Bascólo 2006; Townsend and
Kunimoto, 2009).
It provides reflection and responses to questions that should be
considered when a policy is implemented or when a new one is developed.
For example, which individuals or groups are targeted by this policy? What
are the potential effects of this policy? Has the effectiveness of this measure
really been proved? The kind of research that is preferred and funded is
therefore not basic research, as that kind of research is generally the preserve
of universities and specialized centres.
One of the particularities of the model is that it enables researchers and
policy developers to work closer together, thus contributing to a relatively
free-flowing, productive interchange. In fact, the ministries and federal
agencies have research units, generally called 'policy research divisions',
where there are research and policy analysts working together. The transfer
of knowledge, although easier than it might be in other circumstances, can
sometimes be hindered for various reasons, discussed later in this article.
When the internal capacity is insufficient to respond to needs in terms of
production of knowledge, the Canadian ministries and government agencies
go to external resources using contractual methods. In such cases, contracts
are issued to university researchers or consultants for cooperation in the
specific area required.
Priority areas are usually defined by internal needs in terms of
research. In other words, if a policy needs to be evaluated, research is
centred on this priority. For example, how and with what tools the required
evaluation will be carried out are assessed. If it is a question of developing
a social policy, research will be on identifying best practices in this area, at
RESEARCH AND POLICY-MAKING IN THE FIELD OF HEALTH AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL IN CANADA 137
both national and international levels. Or we might resort to a meta-analysis

of policies or interventions in the policy area concerned, to evaluate its
effectiveness.
We now present some research on social capital which was coordi-
nated by the Strategic Policy Research Division (SPRD), where we work, to
show how the model functions. (At that time SPRD formed part of Health
Canada. In 2005 it became part of the new Public Health Agency of Canada.)
In the following sections we describe how the need arose for producing
knowledge on this subject, which resources were used, the findings and the
repercussions of the project, as well as how this knowledge was transferred
to the most useful areas for policy development. Finally, we give some
thoughts on the restrictions encountered throughout the project, as well
as some ways to overcome obstacles that can turn the world of research
and the world of policies into two separate institutions with no channels
of communication.
THE MODEL IN ACTION: THE PROJECT ON SOCIAL

CAPITAL AS A DETERMINANT OF HEALTH
Need for research

In 2001, the SPRD decided to conduct research on social capital. The main
aim was to increase strategic information on the link between social capital
and health in order to incorporate the concept into the development of
health policies. It should be pointed out that the Federal Ministry of Health
(Health Canada) funded community programmes in the field of preventive
health, and the concept of social capital provoked considerable interest. These
programmes have the aim of promoting early child development, healthy
eating for pregnant women in deprived sectors, early cognitive and motor
function development of aboriginal children, as well as a wide variety of
programmes to prevent chronic and infectious diseases (cancer, diabetes,
HIV/AIDS, mental health) (van Kemenade, 2003).
SPRD's interest in this concept was motivated by the growing evidence
of the positive repercussions of social capital on people's physical and mental
health. Although since the 1950s some studies such as that on the community
of Roseto (Wilkinson, 1996; Putnam, 2000) and later, in the 1970s, the study
on Alameda County (Berkman and Syme, 1979) (both carried out in the
United States) already showed a positive correlation between social and
health networks, in the 1990s the concept of social capital became generalized,
embracing not only social networks and their resources but also other
components, which varied depending on the theoretical perspective and
definition of the concept. It became clear that a growing amount of research
was showing, for example, that:
• morbidity and mortality rates were lower among people who had social
networks or some form of social support
• the most effective responses in natural disaster situations came from
the most cohesive communities
• societies with a higher level of social capital also benefited from a
sustainable social and economic development.
Our division's work on social capital and its potential use in the development
of social policies was favoured by the national as well as the international
context. Indeed, several initiatives of the Canadian Government, such as the
Policy Research Initiative (PRI), a kind of think-tank which sets out research
priorities, undoubtedly encouraged the appropriation of the concept in the
policies field.
On the international level, several initiatives like that of the World Bank,
OECD and Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) agreed to disseminate
the concept and to generalize its use in several problematic areas, particularly
linked to development, ethics, voluntary work and governability.
Capacity and resources

The project ran from 2001 to 2006. During that period it went through
different phases and used different resources. Although during the first stage
research was developed by in-house researchers from the ministry, in the
second stage the SPRD worked together with researchers from the University
of Ottawa. Researchers from the ministry also joined an inter-ministerial
network on the subject, launched by the PRI (www.policyresearch.gc.ca/page.
asp ?pagenm=rp_se_index).
Development
The focus of research was in the use of social capital in a context of
policy development (community programmes), and it also worked on
methodological issues with regard to the measure of social capital. Our
division provided methodological and theoretical support for a team from
Statistics Canada who carried out a national survey on the subject (General
Social Survey, cycle 17, carried out in 2003: www.statcan.gc.ca/dli-ild/data-
donnees/ftp/gss-esg/gssc-esgcl703-fra.htm). Our team later carried out an

analysis of the data.
Findings
The research carried out by our division, as well as the rest of the work
undertaken in the federal sphere, generated a consensus at inter-ministerial
level on how to define and measure social capital. Thus, for example, we can
state that the definition of social capital based on the perspective of social
networks (network approach) was adopted by consensus, at the federal level,
within the government departments working on this issue. This consensus was
reached through strategies of group reflection and discussion seminars with
national and international experts. With regard to the measuring of social
capital, the same perspective of social networks tends to favour particular
indicators, but this matter basically depends on the available sources of
secondary data, and this data was not always collected within the same
conceptual framework.
Internally, our division gained more precise knowledge of the subject
and its relation to health. The original idea was reaffirmed on the importance
of social support networks to maintain and improve health. A review of
published articles provided yet more evidence. Our division contributed
to the definition of indicators for national surveys and to the evaluation of
community programmes. We also carried out an analysis of the General Social
Survey on Social Engagement, cycle 17.14 The division also created awareness
among civil servants, analysts, assessors and consultants working for the
ministry on the importance of the concept and on ways of incorporating it
into policies and programmes. Different methods were used: presentations
during the lunch-hour ('brown-bag sessions'), internal seminars, and policy
briefings for decision-makers, among others. Our division also organized
workshops with international guest speakers, and the proceedings were
published. Short articles available on the internet, research papers and an
internal ministry publication (Health Policy Research Bulletin) in September
2006, devoted entirely to the link between social capital and health, were other
means of knowledge transfer used in this project. We should point out that a
14 Cycle 17 of the General Social Survey managed to obtain information on a number of activities
in which Canadians take part: for example, social relations with the family, friends and
neighbours, their participation in official organizations, political and voluntary activities, their
values and attitudes, their level of interpersonal confidence and with respect to institutions. It
was the first national survey (it covered ten provinces) to gather information on this subject.
For further details on this survey, see Enquete sociale genérale de 2003 sur l'engagement social,
cycle 17: un aperçu des résultants (89-598-XIF), available on the Canada Statistics website: www.
statcan.ca/bsolc/francais/bsolc?catno=89-598-X&CHROPG=l
reflection on the role of the state in building social capital was also published
in a review of the PRI (van Kemenade, Paradis and Jenkins, 2003).
The project's repercussions

The consensus generated on the definition and the means of measuring social
capital was extended to thefieldof application of the concept in public policy-
making.
In the field of health, in particular, the idea of social capital as a
determinant of health as well as the outcome of public health policies
or programmes achieved general acceptance, thus allowing for a closer
analysis of the programmes funded by our ministry. In addition, the project
contributed to a better identification of indicators that should be incorporated
into programme evaluation tools. Thus there were close links established
with another project being conducted within the ministry, whose aim was
to homogenize evaluation tools for the community programmes funded by
our organization.
Finally, the findings of the analysis of the General Social Survey,
cycle 17, on social capital enabled progress to be made on the identification
of areas of application, as well as on the identification of the most vulnerable
people who should be given priority consideration when policies are drawn
up. The division is often sought out for its experience on this subject, both
nationally and internationally.
How the research findings were translated into useful

advice for policy-making
On balance the project, including the findings of the data analysis, constitutes,
from our point of view, progress towards our goal of contributing to an
accumulation of evidence around the positive influence that social health
networks have on the population. As mentioned earlier, there is a growing
demand to anchor public interventions on strong evidence. In other words,
this demand follows the need for more effective and transparent accountability
of public funds.
First, the research on social capital, fostered reflection on how to
incorporate the concept into both the plan and the evaluation of social
policies. We arrived at the conclusion that social capital is only a means to
attain certain strategic objectives, and should not be considered as the main
aim of a policy (PRP, 2003). From this perspective, we can think of policies
that use social capital to encourage the social development of children, or that
tend to reduce the rate of diabetes of a particular section of the population.
Recommendations stressed the importance of maintaining community

programmes and/or launching others in the fields of:
• health promotion, prevention of chronic and infectious diseases,

mental health
• social economy programmes and other social innovations, responsible
kinds of consumption, local and community development, social
housing programmes
• programmes that facilitate the involvement of different kinds of
volunteering and civic participation
• self-aid programmes.
These policies can also help strengthen social capital whether encouraging
social interaction opportunities which could promote the development
of social networks (public spaces, parks and squares, neighbourhoods,
institutions, or community life in general) or facilitating access to resources
(information, programmes and so on). Our division stressed the fact that
policies which tend to strengthen social capital should be considered seriously
in the field of health, given that 50 per cent of the causes of death are of
social origin and linked to behaviour. On the other hand, the development of
social networks has a preventive effect, thus contributing to the avoidance of
curative interventions, which are increasingly complex and burdensome. In
effect, social networks are essential mediators and moderators which can ease
people's difficult circumstances, helping them to stay healthy (Catell, 2004).
Analysis of the data of the General Social Survey, cycle 17, was
fundamental to the consolidation of strategic knowledge on this subject.
In the first place, it enabled us to confirm the hypothesis of a positive link
between social capital (by the presence of social networks) and Canadians'
health. This converges with the findings of similar analyses carried out in
other developed countries. Second, the research facilitated identification
of the kinds of networks that are important for maintaining health, and
the importance given to resources provided by these networks. Thus, for
example, we deduced from the survey the importance of support tools with
regard to emotional support in everyday life. Third, it confirmed the positive
influence of certain network dynamics such as reciprocity in maintaining a
good state of health. Our team concluded its recommendations by pointing
out the importance of a synergy between networks with weak links (those
established with organizations) and strong links (close family networks) to
counter situations of exclusion, avoiding the institutionalization of vulnerable
or elderly people and so on. Our final report on this analysis contains more
exhaustive thinking, other orientations that could be applied to the drawing
up of policies and programmes, and examples of existing programmes based
on a social network perspective (Bouchard, Roy and van Kemenade, 2005b).
THE MODEL'S LIMITATIONS

The SPRD has carried out a positive evaluation of this project, and considers
that the goals set at the outset were attained. However, support for the project
was not always forthcoming. Some of the issues revolved around the time it
took to arrive at the point of transferring knowledge, while the time needed
for the production of knowledge was sometimes longer than that spent in
policy-making and the policy realm in general. On the other hand, in some
cases, the team had to face limited understanding of the project on the part of
civil servants at high management level in the organization, trained in other
fields, who had to justify the need for and importance of the project. There
was, for example, little enthusiasm for funding the analysis of the General
Social Survey, a project which was, however, encouraged by intermediary civil
servants who had training and experience in social science research. There
were internal difficulties in the understanding of academic terms, which in
general were judged to be too abstract and complex, and removed from the
world of policies.
We identified the need to make adjustments in the dynamic and in the
presentation of the research and the transfer of the findings, together with the
constant need to question the concrete application of the project's findings
in the policy field. Furthermore, in the course of the project, there were
clearly internal positions over the project in question that were not always
reconcilable. One major difference centred on the role of the ministry and the
agency with regard to research in general. We learned that there was not just
one unique, coherent, sound viewpoint with regard to the ministry's mandate
in thisfield.While some civil servants think that the ministry holds no specific
role with regard to research, others seem to accept and unreservedly support
policy development research. Another major divergence within the ministry
lies in the emphasis placed on medical-biological aspects to the detriment
of social ones, despite tacit acknowledgement that health is determined by
social factors (social determinants). This point of view is further illustrated by
a barely equal distribution of resources allocated to social science research.
RESEARCH AND POLICY-MAKING IN THE FIELD OF HEALTH ATTHE FEDERAL LEVEL IN CANADA 143
TOWARDS BEST PRACTICES

Despite the above constraints, we believe that this experience can contribute
to thinking on successful communication practices between researchers and
policy developers, leading to more effective decision-making in the field of
social policies, including those targeting children and youth. The model,
despite its constraints, may serve to inspire initiatives in governmental and
intersectoral areas. In fact, our experience showed us that in a governmental
context, the combination of research capacities (internal and external) seems
to be an adequate formula. However, it is recommended that the project
director be appointed internally, with effective leadership and a capacity for
critical analysis in order to understand the research process.
Our experience showed us that the following elements should be
present in the context of emergent projects:
• They should respond to a pre-existing need and to a governmental

priority.
• They require a favourable national and international context.
• Intermediate directives should be agents of effective transmission in
the justification, explanation and translation of development and of
the research findings (they should take over the project).
• Consequently, good internal marketing strategies are needed to obtain
the desired support.
• Time is a scarce resource for those responsible for decision-making;
messages should be brief, clear and attractive.
• Knowledge transfer and the use of findings in public policy-making
may be of varying scope, and not all research can be turned into a
policy.
With regard to this last point, other factors condition the use of knowledge
in drawing up policies. It is well known that, for example, financial, political
and immediately relevant factors can determine this use. Consequently, the
production of knowledge can contribute to awareness-raising among the
political class and civil society in general; it can promote a more intensive
utilization of a concept, or a theoretical position; it can induce more intensive
reflection on a particular problem or area; it can question beyond the current
paradigm. All these are important points gained from research processes
without necessarily having been translated into policies.
REFERENCES
Almeida, C. and Bascólo, E. 2006. Use of Research Results in Policy Decision-
Making, Formulation, and Implementation: A review of the literature. Cad.
Saúde Pública, Rio de Janeiro, 22 Sup: S7-S33. http://www.scielo.br/pdf/
csp/v22s0/02.pdf (Accessed on 6 September 2007).
Berkman, L. and Syme, S. L. 1979. Social networks, host resistance and mortality: a
nine-year follow-up study of Alameda County residents. American Journal
of Epidemiology, No.109, pp. 186-204.
Bouchard, L. M., Roy, J-F. and van Kemenade, S. 2005a. An analysis of social
capital and health using a network approach: findings and limitations.
Horizons, Policy Research Initiative, February 2006, Vol. 8, No. 2.
http://policyresearch.gc.ca/page.asp?pagenm=v8n2_art_18 (Accessed on
3 August 2006).
Bouchard, L. M., Roy, J-F. and van Kemenade, S. 2005b. What impact does social
capital have on the health of Canadians? Conclusions drawn from the 2003
General Social Survey, Cycle 17, Policy Research Initiative, November 2005
(010). http://policyresearch.gc.ca/page.asp?pagenm=pub_wp_abs#WP0010
(Accessed on 3 August 2006).
Cattell, V. 2004. Social networks as mediators between the harsh circumstances
of people's lives, and their lived experience of health and well-being.
C. Philipson, G. Allan and D. Morgan (eds), Social Networks and Social
Exclusion, Sociological and Policy Perspectives. Aldershot, UK, Ashgate.
Carden, F. 2009. Knowledge to Policy: Making the most of development research.
Ottawa, Sage/IDRC. Available from: http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-135779-201-
l-DO_TOPIC.html (Accessed on 23 June 2010).
Health Canada. Community Programs, http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/dca-dea/
programs-mes/index_f.html (Accessed on 3 August 2006).
Projet de recherche sur les politiques (PRP). 2003. Atelier sur le capital
social: les concepts, la mesure, et les incidences sur les politiques, http://
recherchepolitique.gc.ca (Accessed on 3 August 2006).
Putnam, R. 2000. Bowling Alone. The collapse and revival of American community.
New York, Simon & Schuster.
Townsend, T. and Kunimoto, R. 2009. Capacity, Collaboration and Culture:
The future of the Policy Research Function in the Government of Canada.
Ottawa, PRI, Government of Canada.
Van Kemenade, S. 2003. Los programas comunitarios destinados a la infancia en
Canadá: Nuevos contextos de intervención y nuevos desafíos profesionales
en el área social. Cahier de recherche du Centre d'étude et de recherche
en intervention sociale (CÉRIS), Sección en español no 2, Université du
Québec en Outaouais.
Van Kemenade, S., Paradis, S. and Jenkins, É. 2003. Can public policy address
social capital? Horizons, Policy Research Initiative, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 31-5.
http://policyresearch.gc.ca/page.asp?pagenm=v6n3_art_07 (Accessed on
3 August 2006).
Van Kemenade, S., Roy, J.-F. and Bouchard, L. 2006. Focus on vulnerable
populations: a closer look at social capital and health. Health Policy
Research Bulletin, September, http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/sr-sr/pubs/hpr-rpms/
bull/2006-capital-social-capital/index-eng.php
Wilkinson, R. G. 1996. Unhealthy Societies: The afflictions oj inequality. London,
Routledge.
THE GOVERN/MENTALITY OF
CONSULTANCY AND COMPETITION:
THE INFLUENCE OF THE OECD15
Pertti Alasuutari
INTRODUCTION
When sociologists discuss social change, they often approach it from a systemic
and evolutionary perspective. When using concepts like modernization or
globalization, theorists of social change often ignore the question of how or
why development has taken a particular direction. Instead, they concentrate
on pointing out a new emergent era or age, such as postmodernity or reflexive
modernization, showing how it can be identified and discerned from previous
phases, and analysing how it has changed or will change society.
In this way social change acquires a somewhat mystical character: it
is seen as if it were a stone that is already pushed in motion, rolling down
a hill with accelerating speed. This kind of theorizing is concerned with the
consequences of the motion, not with the factors that explain it, because the
change and its direction are seen as somehow natural and inevitable.
Consider the notion of modernization. In its various guises it entails
more or less openly the assumption that economic and technological
development in a given country gradually leads into a similar social
system, characterized by a market economy, democracy, individualism and
differentiation. Talcott Parsons's modernization theory is an extreme example
of such thinking. In the aftermath of the Second World War, Parsons and his
15 This paper was presented in the workshop 'The role of international organizations in global
social change' organized by the Research Institute for Social Sciences, University of Tampere,
Finland.
followers developed the idea that contemporary market democracies, most

notably the USA, represent the end stage in an evolutionary course, and that
their features can be used as criteria in assessing the relative modernity of
the so-called developing countries (Parsons, 1951, 1966; Shils, 1970; for a
critique see Alexander, 1994). After the heyday of Parsonian modernization
theory, theories of modernity have often assumed a much more critical stance
toward the consequences of modernization, but the underlying assumption
that social change leads to similar phenomena throughout the globe or at
least in the most affluent societies has proven very persistent.
It is obvious that economically advanced societies have converged
in several ways. That does not however prove that the social and cultural
direction in which world societies are moving is predetermined, or that
history has a goal. Instead, it can be suggested that this is because people (in
this case particularly through governments) make their own history: in their
policies governments adopt models from other countries, and they also make
multilateral agreements. IGOs play an important role in affecting the policies
that states adopt.
For instance, when we think about the history of the post-Second
World War era, the OECD has played a key role in defining the direction
that the so-called Western European and world market economies were
to take in their development. The OECD grew out of the Organisation for
European Economic Co-operation (OEEC), which was set up in 1947 with
support from the USA and Canada to coordinate the Marshall Plan for the
reconstruction of Western Europe after the Second World War. Created as an
economic counterpart to NATO, the OECD's mission has been to advocate
the market economy. The OECD has not only given its member countries
statistical information about their performance as compared with others and
recommendations about how to improve. By making multilateral agreements,
applying peer pressure to member countries' governments (Pagani, 2002),
and by less evident means such as establishing the measures used in gathering
comparative statistical information, the OECD has set the standards for
desirable social development, and thus contributed to defining what being
a modern society and modernization mean, and so to the future direction
of global socio-economic change. In other words, the OECD has greatly
contributed to the path-dependent trajectory that developed and developing
countries have followed.
Against this background it is clear that to better understand the
dynamics of global social change, it is not sufficient to start off with the
unearthing of a new era and how it is assumed to change society. We need
THE GOVERNMENTALITY OF CONSULTANCY AND COMPETITION: THE INFLUENCE OF THE OECD 149
to go to the roots of global changes and also study how states influence each
other, how policies are put into practice in a particular country, and how the
forms of governance adopted change people's practices and mentalities.
This paper is a contribution to such an approach to social change. It
introduces the starting points of the research project 'Knowledge production,
power, and global social change: the interplay between the OECD and nation
states', which is in its initial stages. In order to improve our understanding
about the role of IGOs in global development, in the project we analyse the
OECD as a prime example. Although the OECD has no formal jurisdiction
over its members, let alone other states, it has been quite successful in directing
forms of governance adopted in advanced market democracies. In this paper
I particularly concentrate on the significant modification of welfare policies
and the resurgence of 'neoliberal' policies that has taken place since the 1970s.
What are the means by which these changes were pulled through, and what
intended or unintended consequences have the new policies had? The recent
changes in Finnish education policy are used as a case example.
The paper is organized in the following way. I first discuss previous
research on the role of IGOs, and particularly the OECD, in affecting global
change. Then I introduce Foucault's governmentality approach as the
theoretical framework used. I then move to discussing the OECD-induced
changes in Finland since the mid-1980s. The primary focus is on education
policy. By way of conclusion, I discuss how the changes were pulled through
and how inclusive the changes have been.
PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON THE IMPACT OF THE OECD

Previous research about the impact of the OECD shows that there is a need
for research that better captures the nature of IGOs like the OECD. There
are several studies about the developmental trends in a policy area in OECD
countries (for example Alfranca and Galindo, 2003; Curtis and Murthy, 1999;
Huber, 1999; O'Connor and Brym, 1988) or about policy convergence in
OECD countries (e.g. Arcelus and Arocena, 2000; Armingeon and Beyeler,
2004; Carree, Klomp and Thurik, 2000; Epstein, Howlett and Schultze, 2003;
Freeman and Yerger, 2001; Gouyette and Perelman, 1997; Huber, 1999; Koski
and Majumdar, 2000; Maudos, Pastor and Serrano, 2000; Montanari, 2001;
Strazicich, Lee and Day, 2004), but these studies analyse the role the OECD
plays only indirectly. Most of these studies do not even pose the question
whether OECD activities have had an influence on the developments reported.
Second, even when the idea is to test the impact of the OECD by analysing
1 50 MAPPING OUT THE RESEARCH-POLICY MATRIX
whether national policies converge, the results are far from conclusive.
In many cases, the indicators used show that hardly any convergence has
taken place, or that the countries show greater divergence. In addition, the
mechanisms that would explain either convergence or divergence have not
been studied.
A recent ambitious, well-theorized and well-researched study about
the OECD and European welfare states (Armingeon and Beyeler, 2004) is a
good example of the problems social researchers face when trying to assess the
impact of an IGO like the OECD. The aim was to assess the impact of OECD
ideas concerning national social policies on national welfare reforms. That was
done by contrasting the OECD recommendations with the reforms realized in
Western European welfare states. Although the researchers found remarkable
concordance between OECD recommendations and national policies, they
rejected the hypothesis of a strong and direct impact. That is because, first,
if there is concordance it could be due to other international organizations,
such as the European Union, pursuing similar ideas. Second, in many cases
the reforms are caused by domestic challenges. Third, some policy changes
may result from new constellations of domestic political power. Finally, there
has been a change in economic paradigms, not only at the level of the OECD
but also on a national level.
Critical assessments of policy convergence studies and of theories
and empirical studies of international institutions point out the challenges
for future research and theorizing. According to Bennett (1991), studies of
policy convergence among advanced industrialized states are often based
on an overly deterministic logic, a static conception of convergence and
an unclear specification of the aspects of policy that are supposed to be
converging. In a similar vein, Martin and Simmons (1998) criticize previous
research for focusing on proving that institutions matter, without sufficient
attention to constructing well-delineated causal mechanisms or explaining
variation in institutional effects. The critics recommend that more attention
is paid to domestic politics rather than treating the state as a unit (Bennett,
1991; Botcheva and Martin, 2001; Cortell and Davis, 1996; Garrett and
Lange, 1995; Kastner and Rector, 2003; Martin and Simmons, 1998). That is
because, if IGOs affect global social change, they do it by influencing social
and political developments and decision-making in national states, and there
need to be mechanisms for such influence. On the other hand, the policies
which the IGOs expect or recommend the national states to implement do
not come from out of the blue; the issues on the agenda are brought there
by representatives of nation states. The totality is a dense network of social
THE COVERNMENTALITY OF CONSULTANCY AND COMPETITION: THE INFLUENCE OF THE OECD 151
relations and material conditions, coupled with conflicting and converging

definitions of the situation.
THE GOVERNMENTALE FRAMEWORK

To capture the complex nature of IGOs in global governance, we approach
the case of the OECD using a perspective developed by Michel Foucault, who
approaches governance from the perspective of power relations. Power, in this
sense, refers to a network of dominance entangled with knowledge and with
the subject positions and identities of the actors involved (Alasuutari, 1996,
pp. 18-22; 2004a, pp. 34-5; 69-70; Foucault, 1972,1979, 1980). It means that
power is not conceived of narrowly as 'the probability that one actor within
a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will despite
resistance' (Weber, 1978, p. 53). Instead, power is seen in a broader sense
as productive, not only as repressive (cf. Heiskala, 2001). Second, to capture
the complex dynamics involved we need to study the interplay between the
OECD and a member country or countries. It is not sufficient to only study
OECD knowledge production and publications, we must also consider the
ways in which different actors in a member country are active in defining the
OECD special projects agenda, and the way they use or make references to
the OECD reports in justifying or criticizing political decisions in both official
documents and the media.
On the other hand, to understand how policy models adopted from
an IGO such as the OECD change societies, we need to study how discourses
amount to institutions and practices, and how different actors' mentalities
adapt to changing conditions. The relevance of Foucault's governmentality
framework (Dean, 1999; Rose and Miller, 1992) for this kind of analysis was
apparent in my previous studies about the post-war era in Finland. In those
I was able to show how three socio-cultural periods in post-war Finnish
society, the 'moral economy' from the end of the war until the mid-1960s,
the 'planning economy' from the mid-1960s until the mid-1980s, and the
'competition economy' after that, have been so pervasive particularly because
the dominant discourses of each period have been incorporated with practices
that have produced mentality changes within the population (Alasuutari,
1996; Alasuutari and Ruuska, 1999). A more recent study (Alasuutari, 2004b)
pointed toward the role of the OECD in these changes: in justifying the new
legislation passed as part of the move from resource governance to market
governance, the preambles of the relevant bills used other OECD countries
as the self-evident reference group.
In the new project, the governmentality framework will be useful in

analysing whether the role of the OECD is due to its ability to affect the
frameworks and discourses within which national economies and economic
and social policies are perceived and assessed, including the criteria by which
the OECD countries are compared with each other. In this continuously
ongoing process, including different subject positions from OECD civil
servants all the way to voters, political parties and NGOs, dominant discourses
are materialized in organizational forms, which in turn give rise to new
discourses and forms of knowledge.
Foucault's theory, which emphasizes the productive role of power
relations, has particularly inspired research that analyses the way in which
individuals are constructed as subjects, and how their mentalities are formed
in various institutions of territorialized polities. Foucault himself studied
the birth of the clinic (1975), the prison (1979), the asylum (1973) and the
formation of the discourses of sexuality (1980, 1985,1988). Scholars inspired
by his approach have studied, for instance, alcoholism (Alasuutari, 1992),
the museum (Bennett, 1995) and the 'psy' disciplines (Rose, 1996). There is
relatively little research that applies Foucault's governmentality framework
to the study of international politics, but previous research shows that it
is well suited to analysing global governance (Bryant, 2002; Dillon and
Reid, 2000; Elyachar, 2003; Lipschutz and Rowe, 2005; Walters and Haahr,
2005). Keeley (1990) argues that Foucault's work gives us analytic devices to
better understand the formation and change of international regimes. In a
similar vein, Merlingen (2003) argues that the governmentality framework is
particularly suitable for studying IGOs because it brings into focus the micro-
domain of power relations, thereby highlighting what mainline IGO studies
fail to thematize. According to him, they exercise a molecular form of power
that evades and undermines the material, juridical and diplomatic limitations
on their influence: 'Our understanding of IGOs remains incomplete if we do
not pay attention to the effects of domination generated by their everyday
governance tasks and projects of improvement' (Merlingen, 2003, p. 377).
FORMS OF THE OECD INFLUENCE

Within the governmentality framework, we approach the role of IGOs like
the OECD from a holistic perspective. Instead of assuming that the influence
of the OECD is due to a single main reason, I suggest it is because of several
intertwined measures. In the OECD influence I suggest we can distinguish
four levels. They are the micro, ideological, ontological and formative levels.
THE GOVERNMENTALE OF CONSULTANCY AND COMPETITION:THE INFLUENCE OF THE OECD 1 53
By the micro-level influence, I refer to its role as an international

governmental organization that arranges meetings and training for
administrators and politicians. In that role it forms a community among
people from different countries, and in that way exerts peer pressure on the
ones who prepare and decide about reforms in nation states. It also makes
administrators' work easier by providing ready-made models for new, tested
practices.
Building such peer pressure is achieved through different methods.
One motivating factor is that the initiative for special projects comes from the
member countries themselves. In other words, at least a substantial number
of member countries' representatives have already agreed that a particular
theme is an important challenge for future research and development. When
the members are then given information about the situation in different
countries and agree on the future goals and means by which to pursue
them, representatives of individual countries are committed to advance the
organization's recommendations in their own countries. As the Finnish
OECD civil servants emphasize in the interviews, countries are particularly
committed if the initiative comes from their own country and they have
their own representative on the board of a project. For a representative of an
individual country it is also hard to defy the views of the majority because
they have respect for the expertise of their international colleagues.
By the ideological level, I refer to the valued principles that contribute
to the importance of OECD's views within a country. For instance, in order
to respect OECD's views the actors involved need to feel a need to win or
maintain the acceptance of other member countries. The OECD obviously
has a good image as an elite club of countries that are 'modern', or socially
and economically advanced.
This can be clearly seen in Finland, which joined the OECD in 1969.
As a country located between two power blocs, belonging to the OECD was
important also because of the country's international image as a country
that belongs to the West, not to the socialist bloc. That is why OECD
recommendations were a powerful means to advance a policy. This can
also be seen in the fact that in the Finnish discussion about the OECD it is
occasionally suspected that policy-makers themselves request that a specific
complaint be filed or recommendation made by the OECD team of experts.
Be that as it may, it indicates that the OECD is a strong way to justify a policy
change.
National pride is also a factor that promotes the implementation of the
OECD's recommendations. When a comparative study shows that a country
is doing worse than others by certain criteria, countries want to improve their
performance to keep up with 'international competition'.
By the ontological level, I refer to the OECD's ability to affect the
actors' notions of reality. For instance, the OECD creates the criteria and
indicators by which countries and their performance are described, compared
and assessed as societies, thus forming an epistemic community. Based on
the concepts that the OECD uses and creates, it also produces research that
supports the policy recommendations it gives. The OECD also makes use of
and affects the dominant, popular philosophy of history - that is, notions
about inevitable global trends and about the direction taken by development.
By the formative level, I refer to the long-term effects of the convergence
that the OECD has brought about. Because of the same concepts and
indicators used in assessing states of affairs, and due to harmonized standards,
rules and practices, similar dynamics of social change take place in OECD
countries. For instance, there are similar changes in forms of subjectivity and
identity formation, which make the same reform policies relevant and further
accelerate convergence.
RECENT REFORMS IN FINNISH SOCIETY

To study in practice how these different levels of OECD influence work, let
us now take a look at recent changes in Finnish society. After that, I point
out how they are related to OECD recommendations and special projects.
From resource steering to market steering

As was mentioned in the introduction, the advanced market societies have
seen a significant modification of welfare policies and the resurgence of
'neoliberal' policies since the 1970s. In Finland these changes started from
the early 1980s onward, and in a previous study I have characterized them as
a shift from 'planning economy' to 'competition economy'.
The changes started first at the level of public discourses within which
public administration and welfare services were assessed. From the early 1980s
onward, the big centralized welfare systems and institutions were increasingly
criticized for neglecting their clients' needs and wishes. Simultaneously, in
the late 1980s it was often demanded that the role of bureaucratic systems
in providing welfare services should be replaced by privatized or by other
deinstitutionalized services. In public discussion, the users of welfare services
were increasingly pictured as a consumers, or customers, not as hospital
patients or clients of public services.
In some areas institutional changes started from the mid-1980s onward.

For instance, the deregulation of the public service broadcasting was started
in 1985 when it became possible to establish commercial radio stations.
However, major changes did not start until the late 1980s, with the creation
of state enterprises out of many former government agencies. Between 1989
and 2001, fourteen state enterprises were created (OECD, 2003a, p. 95). Most
of them have now been turned into state-owned companies, many of which
have been privatized.
From an institutional viewpoint, the changes have been threefold.
Firstly, the privatization of services that used to be part of the state has
shrunken the public sector economy and the number of state employees. The
number of state employees was 213,000 in 1985; in 1996 it was only 122,000.
A similar development has taken place in local communes, but unfortunately
I do not have the figures available.
Second, related to privatization of services, competition policy
became a centrepiece of economic reforms. Price controls were abolished,
cartels revealed and ended and monopolies banned. The economics-based
competition policy was part of a general shift from collective corporatism to
a more individualist market order. The list of measures taken by the Finnish
Competition Authority is impressive, and illustrates how extensive the change
since the early 1980s was. Here are some examples:
• abolition of price control (1988)

• liberalization of crude oil and petroleum product imports ( 1991 ) ; this
was the outcome of a joint working group of MTI and OFC, established
in 1989 on OFC's initiative
• liberalized entry into trucking, by eliminating the needs test for
licensing (1991)
• liberalization of the kiosk business ( 1991 )
• liberalized entry into the hotel and restaurant industries (1991)
• abolition of the sugar import monopoly (1992)
• abolition of needs testing in scheduled domestic air traffic (1993)
• increased competition in telecommunications (1994)
• abolition of needs testing from driving school operating permits
(1994)
• liberalized entry into motor vehicle inspection (1995)
• adoption of the Electricity Market Act ( 1995)
• abolition of the University of Helsinki's almanac monopoly (1995)
• abolition of the state-owned monopoly's exclusive right to import,

export, produce and wholesale alcoholic beverages (1995); Alko
retained its retail monopoly, though (OECD, 2003c, p. 35).
Third, the reforms have meant a move in the public sector from resource
steering to market steering. The role of the public administrative system in
steering development has become smaller. In its stead there is a steering
system in which real and quasi markets and the competition legislation aimed
at strengthening market competition have an important role.
As an integral part of the reform, the role of many state administrators
has changed from normative controllers to consultants. Several state
departments that used to function under different ministries, with the task
of giving regulations to local state administrators or to local commune public
servants, were changed into 'development centres'. Their role is no more
to give instructions or regulations or to control the functioning of public
administration, but rather to collect information from and to consult the local-
level administrators. The power to decide how public services are organized
is delegated to the local level. The development centres in different branches
of public administration produce reports about the ways in which services
are organized in different parts of the country, thus providing local-level
civil servants and political decision-makers with the possibility of comparing
experiences from different arrangements. The development centres not
only collect existing information; they also organize and fund experimental
projects in which new practices are tested. In other words, they take part
in research and development of public services and public administration.
Recommendations about good ways to organize a service are often given by
publishing lists of 'best practices'. Development centres also organize more
or less state-subsidized training for public servants, such as administrators
or school teachers.
The case of Finnish education policy

Opetushallitus, the Finnish National Board of Education (NBE), is an example
of the development centres mentioned above. Founded in 1991, the NBE is
an expert body responsible for the development of educational objectives,
contents and methods in basic, general upper secondary, vocational and adult
education and training. NBE prepares and adopts the core curricula and is
responsible for the evaluation of the Finnish education system. According to
its own 'mission statement', the board 'supplies development, evaluation and
information services regarding education to owners and managers of schools,
THE GOVERNMENTALITY OF CONSULTANCY AND COMPETITION: THE INFLUENCE OF THE OECD 1 57
teachers, policy makers and working life'.16 As an organization, it gets most

of its resources from the state budget, but a statute lists services for which it
must charge afixedprice and services for which it is to charge a market price.
Thus, in part, the NBE is, at least formally, just another consultation service
provider among other consultants that can be found in the market.
There is no separate inspection department for schools in Finland.
The steering of the education system is decided by the government and the
Ministry of Education. However, several matters have been entrusted to
the providers of education. Their operations are steered through the core
curricula and the objectives laid down in legislation. Feedback concerning
the operations of the education system is collected by means of statistics and
evaluations.
For the purposes of the state's regional administration, Finland is
divided into six provinces. Each province has a provincial state office led by
a governor. Local administration is managed by local (municipal) authorities,
which have self-government and the right to levy taxes.17 The municipal
power of decision is exercised by the elected municipal council. The council
appoints the municipal executive board and the specialized boards. There
is at least one education board or equivalent body elected by the municipal
council in each municipality.
In line with the general trend discussed above, development of the
educational system is organized by implementing special projects aimed
at improving the performance of the system in areas where the results of
evaluations have shown the need. The main tools with which the Ministry of
Education advances its goals are management by results and performance-
based financing. At the moment, the Ministry of Education lists seven
development priorities:
• information society
• education in mathematics and natural sciences
• language teaching and internationalization
• raising the standards and quality of education
• cooperation between education and working life
• initial and continuing training for teachers
• lifelong learning.
16 See http://www.oph.fi/english/frontpage.asp?path=447, accessed 23 June 2010.

17 There are 448 municipalities in Finland. They vary considerably in size; the smallest municipality
only has 700 inhabitants, whereas the population of the largest exceeds half a million.
Many special programmes aimed at improving performance in these areas are

international research and development programmes launched by the OECD.
At the moment, Finland takes part in seven research themes, which deal with,
for instance, the transition from education to working life (OECD, 2000),
the challenges of lifelong learning for early childhood education (OECD,
2001a) and for adult education (OECD, 2003b), the link between public policy
and career guidance (OECD, 2004fr), and effective teacher training (OECD,
2004c).
THE ROLE OF THE OECD IN THE RECENT REFORMS

It is not always easy to say precisely how much the OECD has influenced the
changes in Finland discussed above. There are also other players involved,
particularly the European Union, which makes laws and directives that
contribute to the transformation toward neoliberal policy. We must also bear
in mind that most of the major reforms are based on new legislation passed
by the Finnish parliament.
Yet it is clear that the OECD has had a major role, primarily as the
think-tank where the ideas and outlines about policy reforms have been
discussed and developed. For instance, the OECD Public Management
Programme (PUMA) was quite influential in affecting public-sector reform
efforts in some English-speaking and Scandinavian countries in the late
1980s and 1990s. The main objectives of this programme were to make
public services more efficient and more responsive to clients. Second, started
at the time when the Soviet centralized system proved feeble, the reforms
were directed at 'managerializing' the public sector. The well-established
term 'public administration' started to sound unappealing, and it became
fashionable to talk about public management. Many countries reduced their
reliance on centralized regulation, giving managers autonomy in exchange for
better accountability. A number of countries significantly reduced the cost of
public services by divesting activities and by using non-government service
providers. Governmental processes moved away from the external control of
cost, input and process to internal control and management by performance
(OECD, 2002).
Third, the OECD recommendations on member countries' competition
policy have been quite closely related to PUMA. This is particularly the case
when we think about the OECD's Regulatory Reform Programme, which is
aimed at helping governments improve regulatory quality - that is, reforming
regulations that raise unnecessary obstacles to competition, innovation and
growth, while ensuring that regulations efficiently serve important social

objectives. The Regulatory Reform Programme has also been crucial in
changing Finnish society from the late 1980s onward.
As was already implied, the changes in Finnish education policy
are also closely related to OECD special programmes. The Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA) could be called their flagship.
It has been considered one of the core projects launched by the OECD's
Directorate for Education. The PISA study measures the learning skills among
15-year-old students nearing the end of their compulsory education. Finland
has performed extremely well in the surveys conducted, and on the basis of
this it might be assumed that Finland has not felt that much need for any
major reforms for its education policy. However, that is not the case. The
PISA surveys and other performance evaluations are an integral part of the
new education policy based on management by performance.
TOWARD A NEW NEOLIBERAL GOVERNMENTALITY?

Several things in the Finnish public administration are now quite different
from the decades before the 1980s. The public sector is not only smaller as a
result of marketization and privatization, the administrative structure and the
steering system have been reformed considerably on many levels and in many
sectors. The practices at the operational level are no more dictated by orders
given by state departments of different ministries. Instead, the power and
responsibility for deciding about the practices of the branch in question have
been delegated to a lower level. The former central governments have been
abolished and replaced by consulting organizations or development centres
such as the NBE. They may still have official tasks in the administration but
their main method of governance is to offer consulting services.
According to this new idea of public governance, public administration
is based on management by results and accordingly, incentive wages: staff
agree about their goals and how to reach them, and are assessed by their
bosses. Money is the most important tool of management, because if, say, the
ministry wants to steer development in a particular direction, it can achieve it
by weighting the result indicators accordingly, or by allotting an earmarked
sum of money to be divided between the lower-level units who take part in
a special project.
Formally the steering system is coming to the close of a complete reform,
although the development and fine-tuning of the new system continue. In the
reformed steering system the state officials who assign the budget money are
buyers, who order the service products from the producers of their sector.
For instance, the officials of the Ministry of Education order school teaching
services or university diplomas from regional producers, which are either local
communes or state-owned institutions, as are all the Finnish universities. The
parties make agreements about the quality of the products, and unit prices or
other pricing criteria. The directors of the regional units have corresponding
negotiations with their subordinate officers, and the same model is extended
all the way to the lowest step. In the education system, it does not even stop at
the level of individual teachers, because the model is applied also to university
students, schoolchildren and even to preschool. Although the last part of the
system is still being developed and has not yet been implemented throughout,
the plan of the ministry is that students and pupils should agree a personal
study plan and annually discuss their goals and past results. They also sign
an agreement which states the rights and duties of the parties.
In other words, no one is actually ordered to do what they are supposed
to do. The system is based on free will and on the fact that good results give
the right to certain benefits. Also the means by which actors at different levels
try to achieve results can often be freely chosen. Attempts to find even more
effective methods are not only tolerated but actively encouraged: there are
special experimental projects funded by the ministry.
Although the change has been quite thorough at the level of the
administrative steering system, the practical changes have not necessarily
been large. For instance, Finnish education policy is still quite centrally
administered. In primary education, although formally power is delegated
to regions and local communes, the core curricula and the objectives laid
down in legislation balance out regional differences. Additionally, although
the NBE presents itself as a consultant and only suggests how goals are best
achieved, in reality its role is not that different from the time when a similar
organization provided detailed guidelines about school curricula. In fact, the
state's grip on local-level administration is in many ways firmer than it used
to be in the previous system of resource steering.
In that sense the new market steering system and management by
performance have obviously been quite successful. That is also the most
important reason behind the OECD's ability to influence its member countries.
Instead of giving orders the OECD consults policy-makers in individual states:
it suggests good, tested ways to advance the goals of the leadership. When this
is combined with knowledge production that pictures the countries in terms
of the same concepts and indicators, the result is increasing convergence
without the actors' awareness of being under control and surveillance.
On the other hand, in individual countries and at the level of cultural

frames, the new market steering administration lives side by side with the old
resource steering. What used to be orders given by the central administration
are now often given as hints about best practice, strengthened with incentives
for those who voluntarily take the hint and do as suggested. However, the
outcome is so similar to the old model that actors may quite well frame their
encounters with the state administration in terms of the old system. To what
extent the new principles and practices actually change people's mentality
differs from sector to sector. In some sectors some administrators and state
employees may assume mentalities that are in concert with their new role
as sellers of services and as some kind of public sector entrepreneurs, but in
other sectors the new practices are just dead letters in new kinds of forms
and agreements.
REFERENCES
Alasuutari, P. 1992. Desire and Craving: A cultural theory of alcoholism. Albany,
N.Y., State University of New York Press.
Alasuutari, P. 1996. Toinen Tasavalta: Suomi 1946-1994. Tampere, Finland,
Vastapaino.
Alasuutari, P. 2004a. Social Theory and Human Reality. London, Sage.
Alasuutari, P. 2004b. Suunnittelutaloudesta kilpailutalouteen. Miten
muutos oli ideologisesti mahdollinen [From planned economy to
competition economy. How was the change ideologically possible?]
Yhteiskuntapolitiikka, Vol. 69, pp. 3-16.
Alasuutari, P. and Ruuska, P. 1999. Post Patria? Globalisaation Kulttuuri Suomessa
[Post Patria? The culture of globalization in Finland]. Tampere, Finland,
Vastapaino.
Alexander, J. 1994. Modern, anti, post, and neo: how social theories have tried to
understand the 'new world' of our time. Zeitschrift fur Soziologie, Vol. 23,
No. 3, pp. 165-97.
Alfranca, O. and Galindo, M.-A. 2003. Public expenditure, income distribution,
and growth in OECD countries. International Advances in Economics,
Vol. 9, pp. 133-9.
Allmendiger, J. and Leibfried, S. 2003. Education and the welfare state: the four
worlds of competence production, journal of European Social Policy,
Vol. 13, pp. 63-81.
Arcelus, F. J. and Arocena, P. 2000. Convergence and productive efficiency
in fourteen OECD countries: a non-parametric frontier approach.
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 66, pp. 105-17.
Armingeon, K. and Beyeler, M. 2004. The OECD and European Welfare States.
Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar.
Bennett, A. 1995. The Birth of the Museum: History, theory, politics. London:
Routledge.
Bennett, C. J. 1991. What is policy convergence and what causes it? British Journal
of Political Science, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 215-33.
Botcheva, L. and Martin, L. L. 2001. Institutional effects on state behavior:
convergence and divergence. International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 45,
pp. 1-26.
Bryant, R. L. 2002. Non-governmental organizations and governmentality:
'consuming' biodiversity and indigenous people in the Philippines. Political
Studies, Vol. 50, pp. 268-92.
Carree, M. A., Klomp, L. and Thurik, A. R. 2000. Productivity convergence in
OECD manufacturing industries. Economics Letters, Vol. 66, pp. 337-45.
Cortell, A. P. and Davis, J. W. 1996. How do international institutions matter? The
domestic impact of international rules and norms. International Studies
Quarterly, Vol. 40, pp. 451-78.
Curtis, D. C. A. and Murthy, K. S. R. 1999. Restructuring and economic growth in
OECD countries: 1964-1992. Eastern Economic Journal, Vol. 25, pp. 17-30.
Dean, M. 1999. Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society. London, Sage.
Dillon, M. and Reid, J. 2000. Global governance, liberal peace, and complex
emergency. Alternatives: Social Transformation and Humane Governance,
Vol. 25, pp. 117-28.
Elyachar, J. 2003. Mapping of power: the state, NGOs, and international
organizations in the informal economy of Cairo. Comparative Studies in
Society and History, Vol. 45, pp. 571-615.
Epstein, P., Howlett, P. and Schultze, M.-S. 2003. Distribution dynamics:
stratification, polarization, and convergence among OECD economies,
1870-1992. Explorations in Economic History, Vol. 40, pp. 78-97.
Foucault, M. 1972. The Archeology of Knowledge. New York, Pantheon.
Foucault, M. 1973. Madness and Civilization: A history of insanity in the age of
reason. New York, Vintage.
Foucault, M. 1975. The Birth of the Clinic: An archeology of medical perception.
New York, Vintage Books.
Foucault, M. 1979. Discipline and Punish: The birth of the prison. New York,
Vintage.
Foucault, M. 1980. The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1: An introduction. New York,
Vintage.
Foucault, M. 1985. The History of Sexuality, Vol. 2: The use ofpleasure. New York,
Viking.
THE GOVERNMENTALE OF CONSULTANCY AND COMPETITION: THE INFLUENCE OF THE OECD 163
Foucault, M. 1988. The History of Sexuality, Vol. 3: The care of the self. New York,
Vintage.
Foucault, M. 1999. Governmentality. G. Burchell, C. Gordon and P. Miller (eds),
The Foucault Effect: Studies in governmentality, Chicago, 111., University of
Chicago Press, pp. 87-104.
Freeman, D. G. and Yerger, D. B. 2001. Interpreting cross-section and time-series
tests of convergence: the case of labor productivity in manufacturing.
Journal of Economics and Business, Vol. 53, pp. 593-607.
Garrett, G. and Lange, P. 1995. Internationalization; institutions and political
change. International Organization, Vol. 49, pp. 627-55.
Gouyette, CI. and Perelman, S. 1997. Productivity convergence in OECD service
industries. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Vol. 8, pp. 279-95.
Heiskala, R. 2001. Theorizing power: Weber, Parsons, Foucault and
neostructuralism. Social Science Information, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 241-64.
Huber, M. 1999. Health expenditure trends in OECD countries, 1970-1997.
Health Care Financing Review, Vol. 21, pp. 99-117.
Kastner, S. L. and Rector, C. 2003. International regimes, domestic veto-players,
and capital controls policy stability. International Studies Quarterly,
Vol. 47, pp. 1-22.
Keeley, J. F. 1990. Toward a Foucauldian analysis of international regimes.
International Organization, Vol. 44, pp. 83-105.
Koski, H. A. and Majumdar, S. K. 2000. Convergence in telecommunications
infrastructure development in OECD countries. Information Economics
and Policy, Vol. 12, pp. 111-31.
Kupari, P. and Välijärvi, J. (eds). 2005. Osaaminen kestävällä pohjalla - PISA 2003
Suomessa. Jyväskylän koulutuksen tutkimuslaitoksen julkaisuja. Jyväskylä,
Finland, Jyväskylän yliopistopaino.
Lipschutz, R. D. and Rowe, J. K. 2005. Globalization, Governmentality and Global
Politics: Regulation for the rest of us? New York, Routledge.
Martin, L. L. and Simmons, B. A. 1998. Theories and empirical studies of
international institutions. International Organization, Vol. 52, pp. 729-57.
Maudos, J., Pastor, J. M. and Serrano, L. 2000. Convergence in OECD countries:
technical change, efficiency and productivity. Applied Economics, Vol. 32,
pp. 757-65.
Merlingen, M. 2003. Governmentality: towards a Foucauldian framework for the
study of IGOs, cooperation and conflict. Journal of the Nordic International
Studies Association, Vol. 38, pp. 361-84.
Montanari, I. 2001. Modernization, globalization and the welfare state: a
comparative analysis of old and new convergence of social insurance since
1930. British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 52, pp. 469-94.
Neumann, M. 2003. Die Mangel waren langst bekannt. PISA 2000 eine
bildungspolitische Nachlese [The deficiencies were long known - reflection
on educational policy]. Buch und Bibliothek, Vol. 55, pp. 239-43.
Oberhuemer, P. 2004. Controversies, changes and challenges: reflections on the
quality debate in Germany. Early Years, Vol. 24, pp. 9-21.
O'Connor, Julia S. and Brym, Robert J. 1988. Public welfare expenditure in OECD
countries: towards a reconciliation of inconsistent findings. British Journal
of Sociology, Vol. 39, pp. 47-68.
OECD. 2000. From Initial Education to Working life: Making transitions work.
Paris, OECD.
OECD. 2001a. Starting Strong: Early childhood education and care. Paris, OECD.
OECD. 2001b. Messages from PISA 2000. Paris, OECD.
OECD. 2002. Public Sector Modernisation: A new agenda. GOV/PUMA 2002 2.
Paris, OECD.
OECD. 2003a. The OECD Review of Regulatory Reform in Finland - A new
consensus for change. Paris, OECD.
OECD. 2003b. Beyond Rhetoric: Adult learning policies and practices. Paris, OECD.
OECD. 2003c. Regulatory Reform in Finland: The role of competition policy in
regulatory reform. Paris, OECD.
OECD. 2004a. Learning for Tomorrow's World, First results from PISA 2003. Paris,
OECD.
OECD. 2004b. Career Guidance and Public Policy: Bridging the gap. Paris, OECD.
OECD. 2004c. Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers (pääraportti
tulossa). Paris, OECD.
OECD. 2004d. Problem Solving for Tomorrow's World: First measures ofcross-
curricular competencies from PISA 2003. Paris, OECD.
Pagani, F. 2002. Peer review: a tool for co-operation and change. An analysis of an
OECD working method. OECD SG/LEG(2002)1, 1 l-Sep-2002. http://www.
oecd.org/dataoecd/33/16/1955285.pdf (Accessed on 23 June 2010).
Parsons, T. 1951. The Social System. Glencoe, 111., Free Press.
Parsons, T. 1966. Societies: Evolutionary and comparative perspectives. Engelwood
Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall.
Plesch, B. 1996. Effective governance is crucial to national prosperity. Focus, No. 1,
June, p. 1.
Rose, N. 1996. Inventing Our Selves: Psychology, power, andpersonhood.
Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.
Rose, N. and Miller, P. 1992. Political power beyond the state: problematics of
government. British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 43, pp. 72-205.
Scharpf, F. W. 1999. Governing in Europe: Effective and democratic? Oxford,

Oxford University Press.
Shils, E. 1970. The contemplation of society in America. M. White and
A. Schlesinger, Jr. (eds), Paths of American Thought. Boston, Mass.,
Houghton Mifflin, p. 14.
Strazicich, M. C, Lee, J. and Day, E. 2004. Are incomes converging among OECD
countries? Time series evidence with two structural breaks, journal of
Macroeconomics, Vol. 26, pp. 131-45.
Walters, W. and Haahr, J. H. 2005. Governing Europe: Discourse, governmentality
and European integration. New York, Routledge.
Weber, M. 1978. Economy and Society, Vol. I. Berkeley, Calif., University of
California Press.
THE KNOWLEDGE BASE FOR THE WORK
OF THE WORLD COMMISSION ON THE
SOCIAL DIMENSION OF GLOBALIZATION18
Gerry Rodgers
When I acted as technical director of the secretariat of the World Commission

on the Social Dimension of Globalization (WC), my job was to support the
commissioners in terms of research and knowledge. The experience of the
WC is very relevant to the overall theme of this Forum: the nexus between
social science research and policy. I would like to give my perspective on the
relationship between knowledge and policy in this process. To understand
the WC, we have to cast our minds back to Seattle in 1999, and to the battles
in the streets in Genoa in 2000.
At that time there was a bitterly divisive battle over globalization.
The World Social Forum (WSF) and the World Economic Forum (WEF)
symbolized the different visions of globalization. One vision could be
summarized as powerful countries and corporations presiding over a
disequalizing process of development, with benefits that are concentrated,
populations that are exploited, excluded or marginalized, and social and
environmental goals that are disregarded. At the other end of the spectrum,
globalization was seen as an autonomous process of growth and development,
whereby the benefits of the global economy are gradually spread to the world
as a whole, through the operation of fundamentally benign market forces, a
process in which there is opportunity for those with initiative.
18 This paper was presented in the workshop 'A fair globalization: the work of the World
Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization', organized by ILO-IILS.
There were few points of contact between these visions. Attempts at

communication between the WSF and WEF were a failure. Yet at the same
time, there was an understanding that solutions were needed. Even in the
WSF there was a sense that increasing global connections were good, a global
community was intrinsically good. The problem was not globalization as such
but the type of globalization. There were adverse effects which were not being
mastered, and the potential of globalization for good was not being adequately
exploited.
Why the interest of the ILO in these issues? The impact of globalization
is very much felt on the ILO's concerns and goals. Globalization connects with
jobs, and rights, and multinational enterprises, migration and labour markets,
inequality and exclusion, alongside opportunity and growth. It is about global
standards, and representation and voice. Globalization directly impacts on
the ILO's ability to pursue its goal of social justice. Indeed, arguably an
important part of the raison d'être of the ILO, from its foundation in 1919,
was to respond to the social challenges of globalization, in the various forms
it has taken.
In the ILO, the three constituents, workers, employers and governments,
also had diverse views but an eighty-year tradition of seeking consensus
through dialogue.
The need to overcome the deadlock was the genesis of the WC, which
was established by the ILO as an autonomous body. It was an initiative of Juan
Somavia, director general of ILO, endorsed by the ILO's Governing Body. It
was chaired by two presidents in office, the presidents of the United Republic
of Tanzania and Finland.
The WC was an attempt to reach a common view across diverse
perspectives (membership of the WC included politicians and parliamentarians,
business and labour, academia and civil society, from all parts of the world).
From the start, this was an exercise in both knowledge and politics. The aim
was to make a common political statement, and that had to be grounded in
some common understanding. The protagonists of the globalization debate
use different facts. So the WC, even if it was a political exercise, had to first
establish a knowledge base. That was an important task of the secretariat.
How did it proceed? The secretariat started by preparing an issues
paper, which was basically a review of the key globalization debates, to provide
an agenda for WC discussions. The Commission reviewed this paper, and
identified priorities among the issues.
The secretariat then built knowledge networks, groups of researchers
and practitioners, with expertise on key topics of interest to the WC.
THE KNOWLEDGE BASE FOR THE WORLD COMMISSION ON THE SOCIAL DIMENSION OF GLOBALIZATION 169
Commissioners introduced their own perspectives and experience into these

groups as well. Networks were formed on:
• values and goals in the context of globalization

• local markets and policies in the global context
• policies for inclusion at the national level - making the benefits of
globalization reach more people
• cross-border networks of production and technology: promoting
development and decent work (including labour market institutions
and corporate social responsibility)
• international migration: labour mobility as part of the global policy
agenda
• international governance for inclusive globalization
• globalization and culture (organized by UNRISD on behalf of the
Commission).
Gender issues and employment were mainstreamed across all knowledge

networks. The secretariat also organized dialogues and consultations around
the world, which provided raw data on perspectives and priorities of the many
actors concerned by globalization, its potential and its impact.
Work on these issues proceeded alongside the meetings of the
Commission itself, where members of the Commission exchanged views
and started to build common perspectives. In reality, the knowledge base
on globalization is much less extensive than the rhetoric might lead us to
believe. There are many things we do not know. We cannot actually say in
general that the growth of the global economy has been good or bad for
jobs. We see some places where countries have taken advantage of the global
market to create jobs, others where jobs have been destroyed. And we have
some hypotheses why. But the research community is divided on these issues,
and the evidence is ambiguous. Our knowledge of how regions, firms and
countries get access to global production networks, and the implications
for growth and employment, is also quite patchy. Often the information is
unreliable or incomplete, on migration for instance, or on the quality of
employment.
Despite these caveats, a considerable amount of material was assembled,
much of which has since been published in discussion papers, in a special issue
of the International Labour Review (Vol. 143, nos. 1-2,2004) and elsewhere.
How far can we say that the conclusions of the WC reflected this effort to build
an adequate knowledge base? Certainly, this work informed the debate in the
WC. You could not argue that globalization was wonderful when Africa was
excluded, nor that it was wholly evil when East Asia had been able to gain.
You were forced to the conclusion that it was a policy issue.
Similarly, you could not argue that the problems were all due to
malevolent multinational firms or the international financial institutions,
when it was clear that in many countries the adverse effects of globalization
could be traced to poor policies and governance structures. But at the same
time, there was plenty of evidence that the management of the global economy
is biased in the interests of the powerful, that the international financial
institutions contribute to this bias, and that opportunities are very unequal.
Basically, the knowledge base supported the view that the present rules of the
global economy were not delivering a fair globalization.
The WC concluded that the fundamental issue that had to be addressed
if a fair globalization was to be achieved was the quality and content of
governance at all levels. It did not start with that idea. It reached that conclusion
by iterating between knowledge development and political debate.
It also concluded that decent work had to be a global goal. It did not
start with that conclusion either. It was the search for the mechanisms by
which globalization could deliver for people that led to this conclusion, along
with the evidence on the importance of the existing deficits of employment
and decent work.
So the building of the knowledge base did play an important role. At the
same time, it would be unrealistic to argue that the Commission simply came
to a policy conclusion on the basis of a process of research and knowledge-
gathering. This should rather be seen as a political exercise, informed by a
knowledge base. The knowledge base helped to identify options and establish
the parameters for agreement in some areas - but not all. And it could not
resolve differences in some important areas, for instance intellectual property,
or the regulation of international capital markets, where the Commission says
little.
The Commission's work also pointed to a future research agenda -
issues on which it considered that more knowledge was needed if there were
to be adequate policy formulation. This is another link between research
and policy, because an important way to overcome policy deadlocks lies in
developing new approaches.
In the work of the Commission, this could be seen, for instance, in the
conclusion that there was a need for a global growth strategy. The problems
of adjustment and vulnerability in the process of globalization naturally
led to legitimate demands for protection, but these in turn were a source of
THE KNOWLEDGE BASE FOR THE WORLD COMMISSION ON THE SOCIAL DIMENSION OF GLOBALIZATION 171
tension and inflexibility. The way the Commission proposed to overcome this
involved building a global growth strategy, in order to create alternatives for
production and employment. This was essential if protectionist reflexes were
to be overcome. That in turn implied a research agenda, for instance looking
for ways to strengthen the links between trade growth and employment
creation. The Commission identified several such research areas, with a
particular emphasis on research into integrated approaches to economic and
social policy.
To sum up, the WC provides a good illustration of the political
economy of research. Policy changes need to be built on a combination of
research, advocacy and political action. Research has impact only when it
is part of this broader process. But it provides important credibility for that
process.19
19 For further information on the knowledge networks developed by the World Commission on
the Social Dimension of Globalization, along with a number of the papers prepared for these
networks, see: http://www.ilo.org/fairglobalization/Knowledgenetworks/lang-en/index.htm
This page also has a link to the full text of the report of the WC itself:
A Fair Globalization: Creating opportunities for all (Geneva, 2004).
GLOBALIZATION AND THE NEW
SOCIAL CONDITIONS OF DEVELOPMENT
AND DEMOCRACY20
Fernando Calderón
INTRODUCTION
The world is undergoing a transition from an industrial society which
revolved around work as power and worth, to a knowledge society whose core
is information and the ability to manage and produce it. This transformation,
which tends to be on a global scale, has been essentially driven by the changes
that have come about at techno-economic level, whose principal actors are
multinational corporations, scientists and information professionals. At
policy level, which is not managing to respond to these changes, the new
anti-globalization movements have played an important role.
The emergence of the knowledge society means a restructuring of
relations between business, the state and social movements. It has involved
industrial reconversion and given new dynamism to communications
through new technologies as well as a change in economic and administrative
style of management. Multinational corporations, the market, and scientific
and technical skills today hold a key place, giving form to a new pattern of
development which is based more on knowledge than on the state, trade
unions or political parties. The process of adaptation to this new society
on the part of these actors is far too slow in relation to the speed of the
changes taking place. Furthermore, institutions are becoming removed
from the central position they previously held. The agreement between
20 This paper was presented in the workshop 'The new social and political conditions of human
development' organized by UNDP.
the state, the multinational corporations, the knowledge producers and

the political parties is oriented towards commercialization and techno-
economics. Against this are the new social movements in opposition to
the growing economic concentration. They highlight the political crisis
that perhaps cannot, through recognized institutional mechanisms, give
alternative options to the effects of destructurization brought about by
techno-economic globalization.
This historic transformation tends to complicate, differentiate and
déstructure societies, both internally and in the relations between developed
and developing societies. In this respect, the state is losing sovereignty, faced
as it is with the constitution of supranational actors and political power,
in favour of a free market on which it scarcely exercises any regulatory
power; a market that is incapable, by its very nature, of ensuring equality
and integration. However, from 11 September 2001, the situation grew more
complex and it became evident that the economy was too weak to regulate
transnational conflicts. It appears that once again the state, in the guise of
a state network, is going back to positioning politics at centre stage. The
problem is how.
In that sense, a fundamental theme is how national societies and their
states link themselves with these processes of change and globalization,
to which there seem to be two alternatives: they either take a passive role,
with a tendency towards destructurization, or they try to take a proactive
role, deploying their leverage capacity in these processes, building upon
the historical particularities of their modernization processes. This is to say
that where the driving force of modern codes is greater, the quality of the
internal socio-economic mould and the democratic institutions is more solid,
and societies and their citizens will be in a better position to confront these
processes of change in a positive manner. This phenomenon involves new
problems and new options.
Latin America, like most regions in the world, is living through this
transition. The question is what experience it has with which to play an active
role in this transition. In our opinion, this active role will depend on society's
and the state's capacity to confront the series of challenges that are now set
by globalization. So it is fundamental for society to set apart the processes
of change, globalization and the new network society, and understand their
possibilities of insertion and the characteristics of their dynamism.
GLOBALIZATION AND THE NEW SOCIAL CONDITIONS OF DEVELOPMENT AND DEMOCRACY 175
GLOBALIZATION AND THE RISE

OF THE INFORMATION SOCIETY
To begin with, we are living in a globalized world where the interdependence
of countries, regions and cities has increased, and where the advantages
are unequal, as are the capital interests and the political, communication,
scientific and technological resources available. The quality of access to this
globalized world increasingly depends on the development of knowledge in
science and technology and the capacity to obtain and process information,
as well as on the prospects of authority that national states have. States have
nevertheless, thanks to globalization processes and confronted with the ever-
increasing power of supranational actors, been losing their capacity to exercise
national sovereignty, but not their field of action.21 The state has joined the
market and moved away from society.
But what is being talked about when the term 'globalization' is used?
Globalization is a process that basically comes from the techno-economy
(but is also found in cultural, political and legal contexts), which implies a
simultaneous interconnection between the different sectors considered to be
economically viable of various countries and regions; this is made possible
through the new information technologies which allow space to be seen as
limitless and time to be considered the same for all the world's inhabitants.22
Thus, in the first place, I will outline the central characteristics of this process
in the context of the techno-economy, which is its principal force. Then I will
tackle its visible signs in politics.
Various authors (such as Touraine, 1999; Rocher, 2001) maintain that
in fact globalization is the ideology of capitalism, using that term to link
together phenomena that are autonomous but that can be connected. For
Touraine, for example, globalization expresses above all the growing gap
between the world of technical or instrumental rationality and the world of
substantive rationality, subjectivity of identities, a central problem of the crisis
of modernity, which until recently was resolved by politics, but now politics
21 For a discussion on this subject, see inter alia Beck (1998).

22 According to sociologist Guy Rocher (2001), there is a confusion over terms used when referring
to globalization, which tends to be associated with both internationalization and mundialización.
He attempts to separate these three notions in order to uncover the different phenomena (with
the specific logics and rationalities in relation to different human and social problems) which are
hidden under one designation. In this sense, he maintains that 1) internationalization refers to
interchange (economic, political and cultural) between nations; 2) mundialización is linked with
'the extension of these relations and international and transnational interchanges in the world,
as a consequence of the growing speed of transport and communications in contemporary
civilization' (Rocher, 2001, p. 19, author's own translation); and 3) globalization suggests the
emergence of a world system as a total social fact, as a reference in itself, where, thanks to the
possibilities of instant inter-connection, world societies can function as one whole.
is incapable of providing universal answers that can link the economic to the
cultural.23
However, when talking of techno-economic globalization, we are
referring to the transnationalization of the goods and services market, to a new
social division of work of a global nature (in which multinational corporations
contract their workforce from countries or regions where they can be engaged
at the lowest rate), and above all to financial globalization, which implies
that funds move in space and time instantly and limitlessly, affecting the
financial movements of private businesses, States and organizations are also
of a multinational nature, whether they devote themselves to noble or criminal
activities.24
Competitiveness in this globalized economy is centred on the
concentration of knowledge production, the increased flexibility of work
systems and management, the investment in information technology, and the
move from large, centralized companies to decentralized company networks
whose centres are made up of diverse organizational bodies, which nowadays
are also flexible depending on what and how they produce. This has led to a
loss of power and influence for workers, a sector which today is less capable
of affecting labour negotiations.25
Although the economy has functioned in an interdependent manner
for centuries, the central characteristic of globalization is that it has created
new commercial markets of goods and exchange (which operate twenty-
four hours a day and are connected on a global scale), new instruments (new
technology that enables this kind of network operation: basically the internet,
cell phones, fax and rapid transport), new transnational-style actors (from
multinational corporations to international organizations, global NGOs and
regional commercial blocs) and new norms which also have internationalized
23 'Currently we are not living the globalization process, but rather the disjunction of instrumental
modernization and of the world of consciences that is turning into a world of identities .... that
is to say that among other things, in the world of economy and technology on the one hand,
and the world of cultures on the other, the social, political world is collapsing and disappearing'
(Touraine, 1999, p. 135).
24 Among the analyses which centre on the economy to explain globalization, one that stands out is
by Wallerstein (1979), for whom the capitalist economy, by necessity global, is the basis of these
processes. It generates a new 'world system' in which there is a single division of work on a global
scale; and although the system has contradictions, the imbalances become functional. One of the
virtues of this analysis is that it clearly explains some of the structural features of globalization.
However, its logic is too deterministic in explaining this phenomenon purely from the economy
and the institutionalization of the market, without leaving any room for the intervention of
political power. (For a criticism of this analysis, see Busino, 2001.)
25 A basic text to understand these changes that societies are going through is the trilogy by Castells
(1996-97). See also Dervis (2005), who shows that the globalization debate should relate to its
economic dimension as much as to its political dimension, and tend towards the legitimacy of
institutional and political powers. This link is essential, since without better levels of legitimacy
at supranational level, progress in solving global problems will be seriously hampered.
characteristics that govern the new markets (including an expanded economic

policy in the world based on privatization and liberalization, regulation on basic
human rights, and world agreements on the environment) (UNDP, 1999).
Thus, a new kind of society is being built, one that Castells calls a
network society or information society, thanks to the advances in information
technology, although it is not a direct consequence of them, since the use
that is made of technology depends to a great extent on political decisions.
The uses have involved an adjustment of the management of capital, a
decentralization and interconnection of companies, an increase in the power
of capital compared with the power of labour, a profound change in labour
relations and in the regulation of labour markets, the deregulation of markets
in general, with now minimum if any intervention on the part of states,
an intensification of global economic competition in a context of cultural
differentiation, globalization of the financial system and the creation of new
economic blocs. Similarly, globalization that includes only those sectors of
certain countries, regions or cities considered to be economically powerful
has produced great inequality, often coexisting in the same country or region,
with zones incorporated into the global market and others where people live
in poverty and exclusion (Castells, 1996).
In this last sense, although globalization opens up a series of new
opportunities for countries and regions, it also brings with it the problem of
widening inequalities, since the opening-up of markets depends on countries'
capacities, businesses and human resources. Although from the neoliberal
point of view access to markets is open and the rules governing competence
either do not exist or are very lax, developed countries in fact restrict the
entry of goods and services to their markets according to their convenience,
which developing countries cannot negotiate, clearly showing that the rules
of globalization are not equal for everyone. The same happens in relation
to the cultural market, led by multinational communication corporations
headed by the rich countries, especially the USA, which have a global reach
and determine what is consumed culturally.
Globalized markets can be efficient but they are unequal, which means
an increase in inequality between countries and within those same countries.
For example, according to the Human Development Report (UNDP, 2005):
Debates about trends in global income distribution continue to rage. Less open
to debate is the sheer scale of inequality. The world's richest 500 individuals
have a combined income greater than that of the poorest 416 million. Beyond
these extremes, the 2.5 billion people living on less than $2 a day - 40% of the
world's population - account for 5% ofglobal income. The richest 10%, almost
all of whom live in high-income countries, account for 54%.
The participation of countries in globalization is unequal as regards their

possibilities of gaining access to technology, to the commercial and financial
markets, as well as to cultural dissemination. In the same way, countries
today do not compete only among themselves, but also with multinational
corporations whose profits and earnings are often greater than the GDP of
many countries.26
Techno-economic globalization has not generated a higher level of
employment or an increase in jobs requiring higher qualifications, but on
the contrary, it has intensified the relaxation of laws regulating terms of
employment, with negative effects for workers with regard to stability and job
security. This increases inequality, and furthermore, the speed of technological
progress is far greater than that of the capitation of the workforce, so workers
who cannot keep pace are progressively disqualified as technology increases.
As for the movements of migration, although frontiers have opened up
principally for commerce, they have not opened for the inhabitants who are
expelled from their place of origin, mainly for economic - lack of employment
- or political reasons.
These inequality aspects of globalization create great economic and
social exclusion, in other words greater poverty and fewer levels of political
and social participation, and therefore a weakening of citizenship and of
democracy, which loses legitimacy in the sense that it is incapable of providing
adequate responses to these processes. Action taken by national governments
in developing countries in order to gain entrance to the global economy
generally involves harsh treatment for the majority of the population,
from affecting their levels of social security to the restructuring of the
economy and of society through the privatization of previously nationalized
companies and freeing up markets, with the consequent relaxation of laws on
employment.27 The state stopped being the social welfare insurer, abandoning
its interventionist character and the responsibility for sectors such as health
and education.
26 For example, according to data from the World Bank, in 1990 Latin America had a concentration
of 6.3 per cent of world GDP, while in 2003 it fell to 4.9 per cent. For further details see World
Development Indicators online: http://devdata.worldbank.org/data-query/
27 This process did not take place in the same way in every country, although it did more or less
follow this pattern in Latin America. In South-East Asia, the process of modernization and
insertion into globalization was, contrary to what has been said, led by powerful states. In Latin
America, Chile, and, to a lesser degree Costa Rica, have had different experiences. For further
details see: Calderón (2003).
From a critical viewpoint it is maintained that inequality is part of

the logic of globalization, and that it is 'capital's final conquest of the rest of
the world'; which implies political domination and economic exploitation
(Tandon, 1997). Globalization appears to have a fundamentally commercial
logic, which needs on the one hand to expand the sale of products and services
with a high added value, and on the other hand, to exploit the qualified and
unqualified workforce and obtain raw materials more cheaply. This happens
particularly when multinational corporations with the latest technology
distribute their products and services not in relation to the needs of the
population, but according to their own economic interests. If to this is added
the state distancing itself from the sectors which to a great extent previously
ensured the well-being of a large section of the population, then there is
increased inequality brought about by these processes of globalization.
In the politicalfield,globalization has shown up the crisis of politics as
being incapable of adapting and guiding these new processes. One feature of
current politics is that it acts in a regional-global domain, not just local, and
that distances in relation to the hard core of globalization shrink for just a
few privileged sectors, while internal social distances grow larger, phenomena
to which politics does not seem able to adjust in order to respond to the
aspirations of the people. The notion of time has also changed, and this has
repercussions in this area: past experiences are no longer of use to tackle
current times, and the vision of the future has vanished with the crisis of the
great political-historical narratives. The future, therefore, which used to be the
commitment of politics, appears hazy. Politics centres purely on the present,
and loses long-term perspective, affecting decision-making and governability
(Calderón and Lechner, 1998).
A phenomenon that demonstrates the incapacity of traditional actors
to respond to the new situation is the emergence, since the 1980s, of new
social movements which from time to time criticize the new owner of the
economy, confirming the weakness of traditional social movements such as
unions which lose power in the restructuring. These movements are linked
more to everyday life, to gender discrimination, ecological waste, saving
community identities - which strengthen social rather than political ties.
However, they have not been an effective response to the political crisis either;
their disjointed, erratic nature makes them weak and unable to provide a
more fully global view of the world and the depth of the changes. In all, it is
an anti-globalization movement in its infancy.
Along these lines, to concentrate on politics, what is interesting is the
idea that power has become polycentric, which is to say that the relative loss
of sovereignty of national states has happened together with a new sharing of

power among emerging transnational actors over the past thirty years. This has
generated either conflicts or cooperation between these bodies and national
states. There are three specificfieldsthat delineate politics in globalization. The
first is that of national states which, although they have lost sovereignty, still
hold a certain power within their own countries and in relation to other states.
The second is that of transnational organizations (multinational corporations,
international bodies and so on), which are becoming more and more included
in national decisions whether political, juridical or economic, thus increasing
the loss of power of national states. This is expressed in 'the internationalization
of the processes of political decision-making, the growing dependency on
security policies, goods traffic and the division of labour at international level'
(Beck, 1998, p. 64). Third, now the central point of globalization in the political
domain is terrorism and war, also linked to technological modernization, the
communications industry on a global scale, and the frustrations when faced
with exclusive economic globalization.
Finally, it is worth pointing out that it is not only the techno-economy,
culture, politics and the law that are becoming globalized, but also ecological
hazards. This means, in Beck's view, that the same society, thanks to human
activities and decisions aiming for greater control and getting as much as
possible from nature, has endangered its own survival. The global nature of
the dangers is at the basis of the whole notion of a global society. The author
underlines three kinds of ecological damage that lead to the greatest danger. First
are those conditioned by wealth and linked to technical-industrial procedures,
such as the consequences of the enlarging of the hole in the ozone layer or
genetic manipulation. Second are those that are conditioned by poverty linked
to obsolete technical-industrial procedures, such as deforestation, toxic waste
and traditional technologies (the latter are those found most in our region, a
product of a truncated modernization). Third are the dangers brought about
by the existence and constant creation of new weapons of mass destruction
linked to wars and terrorism (Beck, 1998, pp. 65-71).
The above-mentioned globalized aspects of the world in which we live
modify relations between the state, society and the economy. They also modify
relations between the national state and transnational bodies. In this process,
states lose their sovereign standing, economies depend on others (and, of
course, the strongest win out at the expense of the weakest) and societies
generate new links with each other. Societies are open to opportunities that
exist in new cultures, but within the framework of one particular culture
(whose transmission is made possible by the means of communication).
Within this framework, there is a tension between three tendencies: first,

a tendency towards homogenization of tastes; second, a tendency towards
segregation of the population according to purchasing power; and third, a
tendency towards more plural participation. In this context, different religions
as well as fundamentalist ideologies or closed groups raise their voices rejecting
globalization, which to a large degree excludes them, thus strengthening
primary identities - ethnic, territorial or national - in opposition to these
processes of general globalization.
THE NEW SOCIAL COMPLEXITY IN LATIN AMERICA

The region has undergone a dual process of change. On the one hand, there
has been the transformation of a development economy centred on the
creation of the internal market and in the substitution of imported goods
towards more open economies centred on exportation; and on the other hand,
there have been political changes linked to the transition from authoritarian
to democratic regimes. The outcome of such changes generates new social
dynamics which condition the future. In addition, different processes were
influenced by globalization and by the opportunities and features specific to
each economy and national political process.
Although there were different outcomes depending on the country, in
general the region as a whole progressed in terms of democratic attainment.
Nevertheless, social and economic equilibrium conditions development and
democracy. Inequality, poverty and the constraints of institutional legitimacy
continue to be pending issues in the region. Recently, despite great efforts,
Latin America has relatively lost importance in the world economy and in
the multilateral decision-making system.
In some cases - only a few - when a certain coherence in behaviour
and proposals of socio-political actors was maintained, reforms were put into
practice in a more or less heterodox manner. When economic conditions
made it possible, it was easier to face the different crises and the outcome
in terms of democracy and development was better. The paradigmatic case
is Chile.
However, in cases where there were unstable socio-political patterns,
insufficient economic resources, and structural reforms were carried out
in a more or less orthodox way, the outcome in terms of democracy and
development was not merely precarious but brought about very serious
institutional crises. This is the situation of the majority of countries in the
region, and it conditions the pace of the future development of democracy.
The outcome of the changes that were carried out, whether more
or less positive or negative, incorporated the region into the globalization
processes in a rather passive, dependent manner, in such a way that this
incorporation did not happen with the techno-economic or informational
processes of development that constitute the axis of the new division of
labour. This history shows the end of the transition cycle and suggests a
moment of inflection. In my view, the challenge is for these changes to be
associated with the development capacity of social and political actors who
can promote realistic, relevant techno-economic innovation. Consequently, a
key issue is not only the need for innovation and integration, but also, and in
particular, how to raise this matter. This is a question of an essentially political
issue which must be faced and debated, since otherwise, by the same logic of
change, it will be flagged as purely external.
The different possible outcomes depend on social cohesion and
the connection of the socio-political relations of each country, as well as
the capacity of the combined countries to promote positioning politics at
international level.
In this view, it is fundamental to understand a relatively new dynamic
of included and excluded people, who today are at the centre of the future
of both democracy and development in the region. Those who are included
in the formal world of the economy and politics, at the same time as being
dependent, are subordinate to relations of which they are an insecure part.
These relations, in the context of productive change, leave them subject to
the ups and downs of the market economy. It is precisely for this reason
that their capacity for joint action tends to be weakened, since by the
same kind of insertion individual behaviour is strengthened, but only
when defending individualization according to the consumer and labour
markets. The excluded, for their part, are increasingly heterogeneous,
and, as never before in the history of capitalism, dispensable in the labour
market. They strive to become integrated in one way or another, although
it may be only on the periphery of the system, and they take refuge in
community identities of different kinds. However, there are emerging new
living and subsistence strategies which enable them to cope with their own
reproduction resolutely and inventively. They are the ones who make clear
the need for democracy.
I should like to include four particular themes which to my mind,
among other themes, are fundamental with regard to the new social conditions
of democracy and development. It is the conditions that influence or may
have an influence on the construction of options for social cohesion which
make it possible to deal with change in a better way. Or, as Medina Echabarria
would say, these are the emerging powers that forecast the new structure of
our societies.
Globalization generates asymmetries in the patterns of

inclusion and exclusion, both symbolic and material
While it is possible to detect political dispositions to provide better democratic
inclusion, the functioning of the economy often pushes trends to greater
exclusion. This is apparent in job insecurity, in the regressive distribution
of income, and in residential and territorial segmentation, in the quality of
education and health care, and in electronic connectivity. The promises of
distance interaction and of free access to information, together with political
democratization and greater transparency of institutions, contrast with the
loss of social cohesion, the weakening of feelings of belonging to a community,
and greater inequality within national societies. All are phenomena that the
new productive patterns do not mitigate but even threaten to exacerbate.
Paradoxes a b o u n d in this new dynamic between inclusion a n d
exclusion. For example, while mediatic consumption is becoming universal,
segmentation in interactive connectivity produces new gaps in education,
power and communication; while schooling has progressed, educational
achievements are separated into socio-economic groups with the consequent
intergenerational reproduction of poverty; while the information society
improves the distribution of images, the distribution of wealth deteriorates;
while conditions are being created for an improved technological and political
arena for multiculturalism, the penetration of the large media companies and
the consumer programmes they broadcast tend to standardize lifestyles which
are presented as the only ones possible.
The link between symbolic and material inclusion has become hazy:
access to material resources is hindered by a distribution of income which is
not improving. It is even deteriorating in times of recession, with the increase
of unemployment among groups with the lowest income. On the other hand,
there is greater access to symbolic goods such as formal education, television
and information. This kind of imbalance allows people to assume there exist
more possibilities for attaining social inclusion from the symbolic rather than
the economic field. Data refute the notion that the one and the other both
form part of the same cycle.
Latin America is probably the developing region with the widest
gap between symbolic and material consumption, which is confirmed in
the contrast between the distribution of income and the dissemination of
the above-mentioned cultural goods. This is central when considering the

problem of the gap between inclusion expectations and actual social inclusion.
Greater complexity of social inclusion and exclusion systems

New civic practices are no longer directed to a particular focal point of
contention (the state, the political system or the nation), but are distributed
over several fields of action, conflict negotiation areas, territories and
interlocutors. The processing of social demands is spatially delocalized.
There are three possible reasons for this. First, the complexity of modern
societies means that they are becoming increasingly diversified as is the
political expression of their actors. Second, the said demands are less likely
to be 'added' to those of the large unions and political parties, but nowadays
they are linked more to subjects of daily life and/or the symbolic world, not
subsumed under broad democratic categories. And third, many local groups
connect to the web in order to position themselves first at global level, so
that the global community then exerts pressure on national governments to
respond to their local demands, in a local-global-national dynamic which
breaks with all past ways of thinking. In this context there emerge new social
movements and political projects with national-people characteristics that
question the results of structural reforms.
In addition, increased differentiation of subjects for insertion into
new productive or communicative processes and the improved visibility
of the identitarian question imply that the different social groups and the
demands for insertion are more and more crossing over, with the theme of
the affirmation of difference, policies of recognition and the promotion of
diversity. Fields of cultural self-affirmation which before were the exclusive
competence of self-referential and private negotiations of community subjects
are now within the jurisdiction of civil society. Ethnic and gender groups
principally call for their singularity to be recognized, and to have specific
rights, or for the application of universal rights to their specific case. Positive
discrimination, the right to self-government, and differential education
policies are some examples of this situation. Society is rethinking itself not
among equals but among differences. The notion that politics in democracy
supposes a complementarity of differences is now worn out, apparently. Or
in any case, that is what politics might say.
With regard to community action, traditional social actors are
becoming fragmented, turning to more reactive than proactive roles, and
becoming isolated. This can be seen, for example, in the loss of the ability of
labour movements to negotiate demands, in the low representation of political
parties, and in the proliferation of numerous small social movements which

do not manage to articulate proposals around a broader view of society, but
are restricted to the defence of their specific interests.
The number of struggles and actors has increased but their capacity for
action has become fragmented, and their capacity to influence the direction
of development has decreased. Perhaps that is why they can keep going, being
more against polycentric societies than uni-referential ones. Party systems face
serious difficulties in effectively processing the social complexity described
above, and the state with its new, restricted role has deepened the negative
effects of differentiation. All this has contributed to a weakening of social
representation and of the levels of civic participation in the decision-making
processes. The question is how a new notion of unity or of nation within
globalization should be constituted. In sum, the emergence of a variety of
political trends that question the international order, criticize the power of
the USA and highlight national, popular values, whether ethnic, cultural or
religious, strengthens the idea of a new kind of change.
Migration reinforces patterns of social exclusion and

accentuates the culture of inequality
One of the strategic subjects of the future of democracy and development
in the region is linked to movements of population or migration, increased
by the processes of globalization at national, regional and global level. The
migration phenomenon in Latin America today appears to be linked more
to global changes than to migration patterns associated with the model of the
substitution of imports. Migration affects the sustainability of development
for the group of countries concerned. Nowadays, the functioning of several
Latin American economies would be inexplicable without the remittances
sent from abroad, and it would also be impossible to explain the quality of life
of developed countries without the presence of these workers. Such changes
call for a rethinking of multiculturalism and its link with the institutions of
democracy.
Immigrants show very clearly the quality of multiculturalism and
democracy (which civic rights generally do not recognize), as well as vague
social studies revolving around themes of employment, access to goods and
services, and cultural acceptance.
Migration openly displays the theme of difference, of economic
and social vulnerability, inequality, racial discrimination and xenophobia,
placing tensions between a desire for pluralistic civic strengthening and
the above-mentioned discrimination. Such discrimination promotes weak
social cohesion, but by not being accepted by the society that receives them,
immigrants tend to retreat to their own cultures. Other associated phenomena
are the loss of the civic condition and the consequent reduction of rights,
stigmatization, the preference for immigrants from certain countries rather
than others, and simplified identifications which create an incomprehension
of their reality.
As intercultural conflicts are increasingly relevant to the organization of
power and the order of states, social inclusion policies should take into account
the quality of immigrants' connections. The more they can enjoy civic rights,
the better will be the process of integration, and the less discrimination there
will be. However, this requires that democratic values of equity and equality
be discussed. From there, immigrants should be accepted as citizens, but if an
instrumental view of the market prevails, the results in terms of integration
will be few. These themes are discussed particularly in some host countries,
but not many studies have been carried out on migration, globalization and
democracy. Analytically, the problem is still in a black hole.
The processes of cultural, symbolic globalization can play an important
role, although paradoxically in this context, because although they enable
references of a global nature to be shared, these are appropriated by the
different local cultures. This phenomenon causes the immigrants' feelings of
being uprooted (reinforced by not being fully accepted by the host society),
to be experienced in a complex manner. On the one hand, sharing symbolic
global references makes them part of a global culture (which would give a
stamp of symbolic equality); and on the other hand, the need not to lose their
own identity encourages the re-creation of cultural practices beyond local
regions, a process which produces an appropriation of globalized symbols
from particularities in extraterritorial contexts.
The current phenomenon of migration raises for discussion the subject
of social exclusion and cultural inequality, and although today there are
conditions to broaden multiculturalism (which is already happening on the
plane of global, symbolic processes), immigrants should recreate their cultures
in societies where they mostly have pre-civic status. That way, the struggle
for recognition would take centre stage for both cultural and civic rights.
Social inclusion and exclusion acquire new specificities

in the information society
We are living at a time of transition from industrial societies to 'network'
societies, from economies of physical capital to economies of knowledge and
information, from production and employment societies to communication
and consumer societies, from the nation-state model to the interdependent

global model. In this context of change, the use of networks in the configuration
of new public spaces, in communication and in access to information, in the
visibility of actors and in new links with others, stands out by its impact on the
kinds of social inclusion. The network's integration capacity is as exhaustive as
the potential for exclusion for those who do not have access to it. Citizenship
is played out on new ground here, where the threat of exclusion becomes
more intangible but no less real.
The march towards the information society creates new kinds of
inclusion and exclusion, together with a new social division of labour. The
sectors that integrate best are those linked to the production of knowledge
(and those that incorporate knowledge with its production), and those that
have flexible systems and structures and invest in information technology.
Globalization includes only those sectors considered economically useful for
the network and the new markets, increasing inequality within countries,
regions and cities. Increasingly, exclusion tends to be understood as exclusion
with respect to the network society, which is to say, with respect to technology,
knowledge and the new markets.
From a positive viewpoint, the access of different actors to interactive
media can now have an inclusive impact on Latin American societies.
Examples abound of the use of new cultural and communication goods,
which enables a horizontal connection among large ethnic groups, feminist
organizations, ecology groups and various NGOs. All these actors mobilize
to make particular demands. In the network and the media they find a space
for communicating these demands, and they find others who are interested
in defending those same subjects. This shows that the new horizontal
communication networks can increase the leading role of previously self-
referential subjects. In the same way, a wider range of options is opening
up for access to information (on services, rights and shared demands), with
influence on public opinion (using radio stations, accessing informatics
networks, transmitting videotapes), and fiscalization of discrimination using
the internet, which enables people to debate on public issues in 'real time',
among other things.
However, there are also asymmetries which reproduce patterns
of exclusion. So there needs to be discussion on how best to put a stop to
asymmetries that are emerging when some actors turn communications
technology to their advantage and others do not. How should suitable
technical media be promoted, and the knowledge to use it, in a way that
would encourage inclusive, democratic use in the information society? How
should we confront the new gap between those who have computers and
those who do not, so as not to deepen the inequalities with regard to symbolic
representations that circulate on the internet? While some can exert influence
in political decision-making, others can be politically excluded because they
are 'electronically invisible'.
COROLLARY: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR HUMAN

DEVELOPMENT
At this time of inflection and change, it is important to go back and underline
the thesis, from experience - successes and failures - to innovate the
connection between democracy and development.
Such an innovation would support the promotion of political and
socio-economic actors, and their ability to construct a perspective of human
development, within the framework of a diversity of actors and situations.
It would promote the idea of increasing social inclusion that guarantees
better social cohesion. In short, it is a matter of rebuilding the nation in
globalization, but this time sustained by active citizenship.
It presupposes a citizenship that combines liberty with equality.
The political regime does not in itself guarantee development; rather it is
the practices and positions of the actors that can drive the consolidation
of democracy. Liberty, as understood by Sen (1983), means the capacity of
people to opt for the kind of life they wish to lead according to their values and
aspirations, and to evaluate and assume other options. The concept bases its
arguments on the notion that diversity is an intrinsic value of liberty, and that
equality, mixed with different liberties, is the product of that, while equality
already supposes the liberties of all. In this sense, development and democracy
should be decided by all; that is to say, in a new public space where citizens
make democracy.
There, a renewed state would have to play a strategic role in the
training of independent actors and in the rebuilding of a national and
regional conscience within globalization. In turn, politics would have to
be improved, balancing the relation between the economic and the social,
equality and difference, while bearing in mind that changes take time, and
demand consistency and a sense of justice.
REFERENCES
Beck, U. 1998 ¿Qué es la globalization? Barcelona, Spain, Paidós.
Busino, G. 2001. Quelles significations attribuer aux processus de rationalisation
de la mondialisation? D. Mercure (ed.), Une société monde? Les dynamiques
sociales de la mondialisation. Québec, Canada, Les Presses de l'Université
Laval.
Calderón, F. 2003. ¿Es sostenible la globalization en América Latina? - Debates
with Manuel Castells. Santiago de Chile, Fondo de Cultura Econòmica
(FCE).
Calderón, F. and Lechner, N. 1998. Más allá del Estado, más allá del mercado: la
democracia. La Paz, Plural.
Castells, M. 1996. The Rise of the Network Society. Cambridge, Blackwell.
Castells, M. 1996-1997. La era de la information. Economía, sociedad y cultura.
Madrid, Alianza.
Castells, M. 2005. Globalization, desarrollo y democracia. Chile en el contexto
mundial. Santiago de Chile, Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Dervis, K. 2005. A Better Globalization: Legitimacy, reform and governance.
Washington, D.C., Center for Global Development/Brookings Institution
Press.
Rocher, G. 2001. La mondialisation: un phénomène pluriel. D. Mercure (ed.),
Une société monde? Les dynamiques sociales de la mondialisation. Québec,
Canada, Les Presses de l'Université Laval.
Sen, A. 1983. Liberty and Social Choice, Journal of Philosophy 80(1), pp. 5-28.
Tandon, Y. 1997. Globalization and the South: the logic of exploitation.
Internationale Politik und Gesellschaft, Vol. 4. Berlin, Friedrich-Ebert-
Stiftung.
Touraine, A. 1999. Como sair do liberalismo. Bauru, Brazil, Editore da
Universidade do Sagrado Caracäo (EDUSC).
UNDP. 1999. Human Development Report 1999: Globalization with a human face.
New York, Oxford University Press.
UNDP. 2005. Human Development Report 2005: International cooperation at a
crossroads - aid, trade and security in an unequal world. New York, UNDP.
Wallerstein, I. 1979. The Capitalist World Economy. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press.
World Bank. World Development Indicators online: http://devdata.worldbank.
org/data-query/ (Accessed on 23 June 2010).
THE KNOWLEDGE COMMITMENT AND CITY
MANAGEMENT28
Carlos Lebrero
An urban-environmental management programme framed jointly by

a university with local government creates a link between the realms of
knowledge and policy. Out of this commitment between city management
and knowledge, a dialectic takes place which enables actions to be formulated
and criticized.
The challenge lies in establishing a contextualization of knowledge
that enables us to operate with regard to governability for the development
of the city. The aim is to promote effective urban management supported by
knowledge, as well as relevant knowledge fostered by working jointly with
management.
This verification of the theory with the development of casuistry puts
forward some issues which should be looked into.
FORMULATION OF MANAGEMENT
There is an old polemic between policy and knowledge, with respect to the
limits of rationality in politics.
Our programme must be: the reform of consciousness not through dogmas
but by analysing mystical consciousness obscure to itself whether it appears
28 This paper was presented in the workshop "The university and local government in metropolitan
environmental management: building bridges between science and policy' organized by the
Master's programme in Metropolitan Environmental Management, Faculty of Architecture,
Design and Urbanism, University of Buenos Aires.
in religious or political form. It will then become plain that the world has long
since dreamed of something of which it needs only to become conscious for it
to possess it in reality. It will then become plain that our task is not to draw a
sharp mental line between past and future, but to complete the thought of it.
Lastly, it will become plain that mankind will not begin any new work, but will
consciously bring about the completion of its old work.
(Karl Marx, quoted in Ribeiro, 1973, p. 75)29
This view, set in the period of steam-powered production, still subsists today
in almost the same terms. The rationality of the formulations has undergone
substantive change through interrelations and communication among cities
and countries. It may be that this opens up new possibilities of knowledge that
relocate policies in search of common value patterns and new paradigms which
put new energy into community interests on actions designed exclusively to
secure power.
COMPLEXITY
In the city, social knowledge on the habitat is upheld by beliefs and myths
belonging to particular cultural groups who give it cohesion beyond the
bounds of rationality. Urban imagery presents chaotic, arbitrary combinations
representing the multiplicity of communities it incorporates. They develop
surprise effects with the value of being unexpected for those who look at them,
and with a message for those who know how to interpret them (Bettini, 1998).
It is in this complexity that we can recognize the problems.
From this point of view, the paragraph quoted as a vision of the first
industrial revolution, when it seemed possible to control all the variables of
reality, has been modified. The criticism of politics does not discover that,
in this realm, ideas contextualized in the culture can be recognized so as to
then begin the task of identifying essentially significant issues to be resolved,
because of their complexity and structure and because they are deeply
embedded in the culture.
Between the multiplicity of social demands and the search for effective
management we should find the core problems to be resolved. Prioritization
of the problems is fundamental even when the knowledge/policy dialectic
obliges us to recognize the structure of chaos, allowing us to tackle the
29 The quotation is taken from the third in a series of letters Marx wrote to his friend, Arnold Ruge,
during 1843. Marx and Ruge would include the entire series in the first and only edition of their
joint venture, the Deutsch-Franzosische Jahrbucher, February 1844 (editors' note).
THE KNOWLEDGE COMMITMENT AND CITY MANAGEMENT 193
problems regardless of times and hierarchies. For example, a hierarchy of

third-rate problems in a very undefined time-frame can change to become a
priority in times of emergency.
FRAMING OF ENVIRONMENTAL DISCIPLINE

According to the formulation which comes from the practice of environmental
management and was restated at the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit (1992),
knowledge for urban management can be realized from the dialectic between
the local spatial relation and the economic, social and environmental issues,
with new proposals for governability.
'Environmental and urban issues should be presented incorporating
the complexity of the dynamic and the integration that represents the policy
as crisis of participation, survival and culture' (Allen, 1994). This route has
already been developed by global environmental management, as a controlling
agreement in order to participate actively in management.
These formulations must recognize the pertinence of each problem in
order to function with an overall view. Milton Santos (2000) recognizes the
notion of totality as being something distinct from the mere sum of parts,
and as a reality under continuous construction. It is interesting to note that
even within a discipline such as planning and urban management, it is still
necessary to correct 'spatial fetishism': in other words, no synthesis should
be carried out if it is exclusive to one field of knowledge (Soja, 1989).
In addition, in management we have to be able to control the notion of
time, which usually runs from contingency to the long term. In the city there
are a variety of operational times, from situations where an urgent response
is needed, as happens after a disaster, to contexts with demands that can be
developed over the long term, such as many of the environmental phenomena
with definitive effects in the distant future. In these cases, time modifies
perception, the focus of the problem and the management methodology to
be applied.
Within the disciplinary formulation of metropolitan environmental
management, policy is considered to be a basis for action, leading to the
hierarchization of c o m p o n e n t s , to the visualization of problems and
resources, to the action that develops over time, and not exclusively to spatial
arrangement. This view sees management as integrating city planning, and
questions the capacity of foresight in urban development, which according
to Carlos Mathus (1972) comes from a model deriving from the objective
norm and not from the dialectic interpretation of reality.
NEW FORMS OF KNOWLEDGE

To develop new forms of knowledge, Edgar Morin (1999) puts forward the
principal knowledge for the future; knowledge that could also constitute the
basis of policy revision.
• error and illusion as tools to attain critical ability;

• pertinent principles of knowledge to enable contextualization and
structuring of entities and complexities;
• recognize the multiple and unique human condition as a principle of
all knowledge;
• understand the world identity in the global crisis that confronts
humanity with a community of destiny;
• face the uncertainties of our time - Euripides: 'the expected doesn't
occur and [the gods] open the door for the unexpected';
• leave behind barbaric states of incomprehension, xenophobia and
racism;
• acknowledge the ethics of the humankind triangle - individual, society,
species.
Within the environmental paradigm these ideas present complexities requiring

inventiveness and innovation in management. These subjects conflict with
cases of cities where there are both individual and local community interests
in relation to management development. Without losing anthropological
centrality, the urban environmental conscience is based on the criticism of
entropy, the consumer product of a growing population demanding that the
relation with the planet's resources be modified. With this general view, the
city can be considered as an ecological system in which nature participates,
and a second nature which becomes a constructed nature and allows for new
possibilities of population reproduction.
In this new system, the order of the techno-system is constantly
threatened by nature (natura naturans) particularly if constructed nature
(natura naturata) develops in opposition to the former (Santos, 2000). It is
in these cases that there is greater danger of chaotic eruption of phenomena
(Caribbean typhoons in cities) or the destruction of primary nature
(modification of wooded areas to savannahs).
DISCIPLINARY BOUNDARIES
Work in the city poses certain limits on environmental prospects, as it is an
energy-consuming system with few production possibilities. In this case the
focus should be on reducing consumption and working towards techno-
systems becoming increasingly efficient.
The city is dependent on production areas for its energy consumption
and generates a great complexity of interchange with the multiple methods
of extraction. The disciplinary response to the situations, problems and
demands made in this dynamic calls for strategies and methodologies which
allow management to be developed with a multiplicity of views and with new
syntheses.
The environmental view uniformly comprises theoretical components,
the anthropological, natural-physical world, productivity and governability.
Working with this view, efforts must be made to prioritize the points of
agreement on the issue being considered. To avoid the error of simplifying
complexity with partial and reductionist views, there need to be limits with
transdisciplinary methodologies that allow traditional limits of knowledge to
be broken, and the integration of professional teams with varied viewpoints
on the issues.
To sort out this multiplicity, establish the focus and aims, and explain
the phenomena involves breaking through the limits imposed by the
disciplines so that all-encompassing knowledge can be produced. A useful
practice for having participatory starting points is to select formulations that
have public recognition and expression in the media, in order to develop
criticism and give pertinence to the objectives.
RESOURCES AND COMPLEXITY OF THE METROPOLIS

In its historic configuration the city displays the different ways society has
adapted to the medium, with transformations that constitute adaptations of
housing to productivity and to the development of culture.
In metropolitan areas, the management of interests is far more complex
than in medium-sized cities where there are social commitments with major
certainties that happen through groups' survival capacities. The management
of large cities is complex and controversial. It is the product of the coexistence
of groups and interests with multiple connections to satisfy consumer
dynamics. Entropy also has difficult constraints for large conurbations with
municipal taxes soaring.
The complexity of metropolitan systems can be analysed within the

global context, as competition for the appropriation of capital by the central
areas. This is the laissez-faire ethos. Together with this rationality comes
disrepute of the local common interests of the city in relation to subjects of
national importance with a greater degree of abstraction. 'There was only one
agent who ruled over them all: gain.'
However, increasingly, the challenge is to overcome exclusion and
inequality, which cannot be resolved from the central systems but from local
organization sub-systems which can coordinate sustainable policies.
To overcome the simplification of macro-economics in large cities,
regional links must be recognized as well as at least three areas of management
with varying demands of productivity:
• the central area that accumulates resources according to the degree of

global competitiveness of the system
• the area that corresponds to services and the main infrastructures
which depend on large economies and have direct links with national
management for interconnection with networks
• the local area which allows conurbation communities to develop, with
their tensions and disputes in the fight for resources and positioning
in competition within the region.
In these local areas there is a feeling of belonging, similar to that in medium-

sized cities. The search for equity should be acknowledged in these areas and
with the actual actors. The incorporation of social participation in the local
medium adds a new dynamic which tends to overcome the 'clientism' of
movements increasingly removed from traditional management. In contrast,
these practices present difficulties for management effectiveness, because the
pressure of demands maintains local groups' independence.
KNOWLEDGE AND POWER

The problem of the appropriation of space and the indiscriminate use of
resources has been called into question at international meetings where
progress was made on global limitations agreements.
The 1972 report The Limits to Growth (Meadows et al., 1979)
initiated a theory that reached international agreement at Stockholm
that same year. International agreements referring to management of the
environment progressed on delimitation and prioritization of subjects. In
the series of meetings begun in Stockholm, and followed by Rio de Janeiro

and Johannesburg, just to mention the main ones, progress was made on
conceptualization of the environment, and this had a growing impact on
policies and opinion. However, contradictions persist: while the Club of Rome
meeting in 1968 was already seeking to develop a long-term view on the finite
nature of global resources, the power of the world blocs still did not reach
agreement at the last climate change meeting in Stockholm.
The positive aspect is that the discussion agenda is successively
going through terms such as preservation of life on the planet and local
sustainability, and it highlights the international call to overcome social
inequality, lack of resources and extreme poverty. In this new form of tackling
policy, development links could be established among social actors, policy and
knowledge to achieve an urban development that incorporates the variables
of the environment.
CONCLUSION
In Argentina, the history of recurrent crises intensified in the 1990s with a
small social commitment and an audacious vision of the economy, particularly
with regard to privatization, which ended in the crisis of 2002. That crisis
made people reflect on the characteristics that governability should have.
Since that experience there is awareness of the social consequences that can
result from management by a government that backs laissez-faire with no
control. It becomes increasingly clear that understanding and diagnosing is
not enough. There have to be strategies and management that can bring about
new governability with the integration of policies and knowledge.
Just as in 1979 when The Limits to Growth (Meadows et al.) was
published, now is the time to seek a new institutionality in relation to the
future of the community, to energy consumption and to the organization of
the region, in order to attain new development which integrates knowledge-
seeking.
REFERENCES
Allen, A. 1994. Re-assessing urban development: towards indicators of Sustainable
Development at urban level, working paper. London, Development
Planning Unit (DPU).
Bettini, V. 1998. Elementos de ecología urbana [Elements of urban ecology].
Valencia, Spain, Trotta.
Mathus, C. 1972. Estrategia y plan. Mexico, Siglo XXI.
Meadows, D. H„ et al. 1979. The Limits to Growth, a report to the Club of Rome.
London, Macmillan.
Morin, E. 1999. Los siete saberes necesarios para la educación del futuro. Buenos
Aires, Nueva Vision.
Ribeiro, D. 1973. La universidad nueva: un proyecto. Caracas: Fundación
Biblioteca Ayacucho.
Santos, M. 2000. La naturaleza del espacio. Madrid, Ariel.
Soja, E. 1989. Postmodern Geographies. London, Verso.
METROPOLITAN ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT AND THE CONTRIBUTION
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SÄO PAULO30
Maria Ruth Amarai de Sampaio
INTRODUCTION
The University of Säo Paulo (USP) has, over time, become more porous and
permeable to the demands of society, at both public and private level (Abreu,
2005). Among the priority functions of the USP stands out its contribution
through teaching activities, research and outreach programmes, to the
consolidation of a process in which society and the various forms of social
and spatial organization integrate in an increasingly relevant way, and the
mechanics of the production of knowledge developed in the university.
In this sense, this role of the university can also be considered strategic,
which is in fact its function, through its three principal activities: to stimulate,
guide and perfect academic practices which can help point out problems,
construct hypotheses, seek alternatives, find viable solutions to multiple
obstacles and conflicts, such as the subject of this paper: the consequences of
the uncontrolled expansion of metropolitan urban areas which damage the
water source areas supplying the city of Säo Paulo.
In this brief paper I restrict myself to tackling the production of work
developed in the Architecture and Urbanism Faculty (FAU), carried out at
different times, which shows the development of knowledge of the problem
30 This paper was presented in the workshop "The university and local government in metropolitan
environmental management: building bridges between science and policy' organized by the
Master's programme in Metropolitan Environmental Management, Faculty of Architecture,
Design and Urbanism, University of Buenos Aires.
and the solutions proposed, and how public power is slow to act with respect
to an issue as serious as this.
One of the most serious environmental problems confronting state
and municipal authorities in Säo Paulo is the preservation of watersheds,
which supply water to the metropolitan region of the city. This is not a new
problem.
The lack of alternative housing over the past few decades is responsible
for the proliferation of precarious, illegal settlements and shanty towns where
extremely poor people live. These settlements are in areas that provide the
water supply for the metropolitan region of Säo Paulo, and apart from being
against the law, they are bad for the environment.
Current data show that humanity has already invaded 37.7 per cent
of the permanent conservation areas of the Guarapiranga reservoir, one of
the main reserves of water for the metropolitan region of Säo Paulo, and
the water has decreased by 19 per cent over the past 30 years, in addition
to the fact that 766,810 people lived in the area of the watershed in 2000
(Census of the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics, 2000). The
direct impact of this situation is on the quality of the water, which worsens
each day. Where the water rises, which is when it should be at its purest, the
quality has deteriorated over the past fifteen years, despite the Guarapiranga
reservoir's reclamation programme, which supplies around 4 million people.
Research shows that with the increase in the number of people living
in the basin, in most cases the sewers from the housing flow straight into the
rivers, streams and other tributaries of the reservoir. This situation means
that an area used for the production of water has no filtering.
This distressing outlook has another damaging consequence: the
reduction in the volume and the increased amount of dirt in the water
mean that the cost of treatment is constantly rising for contractors such as
Sabesp and Cetesb.
Expert witnesses say that:
the water source is treated by local governments as though it were an urban

area, when in fact it is an area of environmental conservation. As low-income
people live ever closer to the peripheries, this increases the occupation of areas
which should be protected. With the people already settled there, there are
now public proposals for the installation of water and electricity to improve
their living conditions. This will lead to even more people living in the area
and once again it will become necessary to provide yet more infrastructure
for those who come to live there. In the meantime, the main task is to avoid
METROPOLITAN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SAO PAULO 201
expansion and put into practice action to encourage people to leave the area
of the water source.
(Tagnin, 2005)
USP, together with state and municipal authorities, the Public Ministry and
local residents, are seeking joint action aiming to put forward proposals for
viable solutions to these serious problems.
WATER SOURCE PROTECTION LAWS

The laws dealing with the protection of water sources were passed between
1975 and 1977. They constitute the first legislation of the protection of water
resources through the controlled use and occupation of the land to attain
the objectives.
This legislation resulted from the studies of a multidisciplinary team
that based its work on the concept of zones as instruments of control in the
use of the land through urban regulations which are applied in different
parts of the city. This legislation, based on the Metropolitan Plan for
Integrated Development, aimed to reorient growth trends and urban and
regional development, and protect the city and the natural resources in the
metropolitan area.
The surrounding areas of the water source were outlined by concentric
rings so the parameters of use and occupation of the land were more restricted
as they moved nearer to the water source. Also considered unsuitable for the
urban settlement were the environmentally fragile areas and the ecosystems
that were still preserved - 'unbuilt areas'. The other areas, considered to be
of restricted settlements, were designated 'second category', and the number
of people who could stay there was calculated with indices measuring the
pollutants generated by this population, reaching average population densities
of each area of second category, demarcating three rings of decreasing
demographic density. In the first ring, 'class A', the areas located within it had
a forecast densification of up to 50 inhabitants per hectare, with the ideal quota
of land defined as 500 square metres. In the other rings, the planned density
decreased as they neared the water source, and moved further from class A.
In class C, for example, the density was between 24 and 26 inhabitants per
hectare, and the resulting plots were to cover between 3,000 and 7,300 square
metres.
THE CONTRIBUTION OF FAU/USP

TO THE DEBATE IN QUESTION
One of the studies carried out by USP in the 1980s, in the context of the FAU,
related to the problem of management of the environment. It concerned
precisely the region of the metropolitan area of Säo Paulo, where the
Billings and Guarapiranga water supplies are situated, and which supply the
population of the city.
The study The City is Invading the Water: What is the issue of the water
sources?, carried out by researchers Jodete Rios Socrates, Marta Dora Grostein
and Marta Soban Tanaka (Grostein, Socrates and Tanaka, 1985), shows the
conflict between the needs and interests of the different sections of society
under the Protection of the Water Sources of the Municipality of Säo Paulo.
It seeks to understand and focus on the subject as a whole. It identifies a city
in crisis, where the law has been unable to contain or control urban expansion
into areas under legal protection.
This study emphasizes that the reality within the bounds of the Law of
Protection is a continuation of the periphery of the city, and that the vectors
of growth towards the water sources are prompted by various factors, the most
important being the concentration of industry and services, and consequently
employment in the region and the availability of'building land'. More than
ever, it is clear that with the dynamic of occupation, the objectives proposed
by the law have moved further away from reality.
The authors propose reviewing the approach to the problems which
relate to the Law in particular and to society's plan for this critical area of
the municipality. They suggest further discussions with a more thorough
grasp of the problem in its various spheres. They put forward technical and
expert proposals on the issue, from both the housing point of view and the
issue of the water sources. They point out the deviation of the discussion
towards the technical aspect of the issue and the apparent lack of interest on
the part of sections of the population with regard to the environment, whose
demonstrations concentrate on survival issues through other channels.
The realization of this study, in 1985, provoked much debate and took
up lengthy column space in the press, leaving a positive outcome: it showed
publicly that the energy and health view, which always dominated on the
matter of the water source, was ineffective and that there was a need for
the issue to be dealt with in its entirety and more broadly. In 1990, another
professor at FAU, Antonio Claudio Moreira, defended his master's thesis on
the subject of'Public policy protection of the water resources', adding to the
debate the juridical and political aspects of the Law. In his view, the dispute
METROPOLITAN ENVIRONMENTAL MAN AGEMENT AND THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SAO PAULO 203
over the water resources, and principally over the water supply systems and
electricity generation, is essentially a political matter.
He considers the public policy of protection of the water source as
'speeches and practices that make viable the use of the water for the water
supply, but do not guarantee that end'. It is also a tool that supposedly
guarantees the quality and quantity of the water, through the legal control of
human activities in the drainage basin of the water source, but he is unaware of
the revocation of the Law practised by the landowners and by the low-income
population of the periphery.
He concludes his study by saying he considers this policy to be
ineffective in controlling urban expansion on the edge of the urbanized area,
and in this respect he agrees with the findings of the three earlier researchers,
underlining that the tool does not take into account the previous study on
urbanization and the characteristics of the settlements in those areas.
He considers that the effect of public policy on the protection of the
water sources in the urbanized area has been to transfer the task of protection
to the owners and users of the protected area. "The discipline of the use of
the land reduces the possibilities of supply for urbanized and urbanizable
properties, blocking valuation and thwarting any hopes of profiting from
rising property values' (Moreira Lima, 1990).
The level of conflict among those concerned in the protection of the
water sources and the landowners and users of the protected area is determined
by the intensity of property devaluation, which in turn is determined by
the amount of restrictions imposed on the use and occupation of the land,
which is to say that the conflict about the protection of the water sources is
not just because of the protection but also because of the kind of protection
introduced.
In June 2002, FAU hosted a meeting of the City Professionals Network,
in connection with the UNESCO MOST Programme. Teachers and students
from FAU attended the meeting, where a study was presented by Professor
Maria Lucia Refinetti Martins on 'Social housing and the environment'
(Martins, 2003).
This study was a new experience linking practices and juridical
methodologies with the field of architecture and urban studies. It was based
on the fact that 'a consequence of the absence of housing alternatives for
the majority of low-income people in large Brazilian cities was the illegal,
depredatory occupation of the urban environment'. It was observed that this
happened in environmentally fragile areas, 'under legal protection', scorned by
the property market, and that there was a proliferation of illegal settlements,
unofficial employment and shanty towns. In this context, the author stressed
that the urban environmental issue isfirstand foremost a problem of housing
and of housing policy, or more precisely, of lack of or insufficient housing.
The aim of this study was to develop proposals for urban solutions -
environmentally sustainable and able to endure juridical regularizaron, in
the case of housing already established - for poor, illegal and environmentally
inadequate housing. It would also establish restrictions and demands that
would facilitate the process of taxation and develop parameters that would
contribute to the drawing-up of plans for the basin set up by the Law of
Protection and Restoration of the Basin (Law 9.866/97). The aim was also to
progress with setting out conservation/housing guidelines and land use in
environmentally fragile areas of water sources in Greater Säo Paulo.
This study included the thesis 'Social housing and the environment -
tension and dialogue in the metropolis' (Martins, 2005).
NATIONAL POLICY ON THE ENVIRONMENT

AND THE RIGHT TO THE CITY
In her thesis, Martins emphasized that recent demonstrations by civil
society and the legislature showed the tension that exists between projects
and demands relating to housing and urban policy and projects in the
environmental field.
Since the 1980s, and especially since the Constitution of 1988, the
Citizens' Constitution, which has served as an example for state constitutions,
the environment has come to be considered as a social right like cultural
heritage and consumer rights - something belonging to everyone, a public
heritage. The result is that many of the actions relating to environmental issues
now come up against owners' projects and the interests of the community.
The environmental right, like the rights that protect cultural heritage
and the consumer, has varied interests: the interests of an indeterminate
number of people, being those of the community. The author notes that 'there
is no doubt about the juridical nature of the environmental good, which rests
in the category of diffuse goods, since being of public use by the population,
all the members of the community are its owners' (Martins, 2005).
Through the Institute of City Social Services and Ownership, the
Citizens' Constitution also deals with the right to the city, understood as
a right to urban land, to housing, to environmental drainage, to urban
infrastructure and so on, which involves more than mere access to housing
METROPOLITAN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ANDTHE CONTRIBUTION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SAO PAULO 205
as a place in the city. There are therefore confrontations between the right to
the city, and environmental and urban regulation.
The consequence of this lack of connection between urban and
environmental planning renders the correct solutions unviable, and with
the hindrance of the installation of drainage infrastructure, these areas and
their respective populations are condemned to being completely abandoned
and progressive environmental degradation will ensue.
These conclusions in Professor Martins' thesis (2005) show that in the
urban Brazil of the twenty-first century, there must be a dialogue between those
responsible for environmental and urban agendas, so they assume a vision
that embraces the whole situation. To postpone this dialogue means letting
degradation win, not only environmental but also social (Martins, 2005). And
to make the dialogue effective, there is an urgent need to implement a public
policy.
In the workshop held under my coordination, Luis Gustavo Della Noce,
doctoral student at FAU/USP, and architect in a state government planning
company, presented a project on the issue dealt with here, that of housing
in areas of environmental conservation at the Guarapiranga reservoir. The
paper deals with the rehousing policy that is being developed by the Urban
and Housing Development Company of Säo Paulo, a state company which
is seeking, through the removal of the inhabitants, to help solve the water
contamination problem.
The university presentation examples set out here, with a view to helping
find solutions to the serious environmental problem in the metropolitan area,
show that the university is watchful and contributes to the analysis of the
problems, clarifying misunderstandings, and indicating ways of how to draw
up presentations that might become public policies. It is noted, however, that
the process is extremely slow, and the obstacles to be overcome are many.
REFERENCES
Abreu, A. A. 2005. A Cultura e a Extensäo como Motivaçào da Atividade
Universitaria. Revista de Cultura e Extensäo, Säo Paulo, No. 0, pp. 8-17.
http://www.usp.br/prc/revista/sumario.html (Accessed on 23 June 2010).
Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE). 2000. Census of the
Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics. Brazil, IBGE.
Grostein, M. D„ Socrates, J. R. and Tanaka, M. M. S. 1985. A cidade invade as
aguas: quai a questo dosmananciais? [The city is invading the water: what is
the issue of the water sources?] Säo Paulo, FAU/USP - Sinopses.
Martins, M. L. R. 2003. Moradia e meio ambiente. Regularizaçâo de lotamentos
em area de mananciais na RMSP. M. R. Sampaio and P. C. Pereira (eds),
Profissionais da Cidade Reuniäo de Säo Paulo. USP/UNESCO-MOST
Programme.
Martins, M. L. R. 2005. Moradia social e meio ambiente - tensäo e diálogo na
métropole [Social housing and the environment - tension and dialogue in
the metropolis]. Ph.D. thesis, Säo Paulo, FAU/USP.
Moreira Lima, A. C. 1990. Política pública de proteçao dos mananciais.
Ph.D. thesis, Säo Paulo, FAU/USP.
Tagnin, R. 2005. Presentation by urban planner, Senac University Centre in the
State of Säo Paulo, Caderno Metropole, 13 December.
APPENDIX I:
BUENOS AIRES DECLARATION CALLING
FOR A NEW APPROACH TO THE SOCIAL
SCIENCE-POLICY NEXUS
We, the participants in the International Forum on the Social Science-Policy

Nexus, which has brought together for the first time social scientists and
policy-makers from more than eighty countries in all the regions of the
world, coming from United Nations agencies, universities and governments,
representing the full range of involvement in both social science and policy,
and meeting on the occasion of the closing plenary session of the Forum in
Buenos Aires on 24 February 2006, after four days of discussions organized
in the cities of Buenos Aires, Rosario, Córdoba and Montevideo.
Inspired by the Declaration of the 1995 World Summit on Social
Development, the United Nations Millennium Declaration, the 2005 World
Summit Outcome Resolution, as well as by flagship reports on human
development, world development and inequality by United Nations agencies
and the World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization.
Taking note of the demands placed on social science research by the
development goals of the international community and of the impetus given
by these and other international documents and initiatives.
Taking into consideration the Budapest Declaration on Science and the
Use of Scientific Knowledge adopted by the World Conference on Science,
which emphasizes the necessary enhancement of dialogue between science
and society, as well as the Lisbon and Vienna Declarations on Social Sciences,
both of which stress the indispensable contribution of social science to the
social development objectives of the international community.
Taking into account several United Nations reports highlighting the

sharp increase in inequalities between and within countries, and greatly
concerned that the universal thrust of human rights, human dignity and justice
is in many instances being eroded under contemporary social and economic
pressure.
Assuming that the Millennium Development Goals and other
internationally agreed development goals are not only the statement of
new moral purpose but also the minimum threshold compatible with the
proclaimed values of the international community, and affirming that failure
to make serious progress towards achieving them would entail tremendous
cost in terms of human lives, quality of life and social development.
Convinced that without moral vision and political will, the challenges
of the Millennium Development Goals cannot be met, that meeting these
goals requires new knowledge used in innovative ways and better use of
existing knowledge, and that, in this regard, the social sciences have a crucial
contribution to make in formulating development policy.
Taking note that addressing hunger and poverty, lack of education,
poor health and environmental degradation - the five areas to which the
eight Millennium Development Goals relate - is crucial for human welfare,
social and economic development, the achievement of social cohesion and
the consolidation of democratic governance. None of these areas is solely
within the purview of social science, but without social sciences none is fully
comprehensible or capable of being addressed.
We thus state our conviction that better use of rigorous social science can
lead to more effective policies and outcomes. Such use requires strengthening
linkages between the social sciences and policies for social and economic
development. For the knowledge that the social sciences seek is precisely
the knowledge that policy needs. The world needs new forms of interaction
between social scientists and policy actors - and innovative spaces to make
them possible.
Commending UNESCO, the Government of Argentina and the
Government of Uruguay for their initiative in launching the process that
has led to the International Forum on the Social Science-Policy Nexus,
it is with these urgent concerns in mind that we formulate the following
recommendations and bring them to the attention of the international
community.
1. We strongly encourage UNESCO to strengthen this initiative and

facilitate similar initiatives at the regional level at the request of its
APPENDIX I 209
Member States and in cooperation with other United Nations agencies,

funds and programmes.
2. We call upon UNESCO, through the MOST Programme and in
close cooperation with the other organizations, institutes, funds and
programmes of the United Nations system, to explore the ways and
means for ensuring strengthened synergies and complementarities
between the various policy-oriented social science research programmes
within the United Nations system as a whole and international social
science organizations and civil society.
3. With due respect for the autonomy of social science research, we
encourage the establishment of new networks and the strengthening
of existing ones at the national and regional level to bring together
social scientists, policy-makers, and non-governmental and grassroots
organizations around their shared concern for the urgent demands of
social and economic development.
4. We call attention to the existence of Fora of Ministers for Social
Development at regional as well as subregional levels in developing
countries and suggest the creation and consolidation of permanent
nexuses between the latter and the above mentioned networks.
5. We therefore suggest that the International Forum on the Social
Science-Policy Nexus, otherwise known as the Buenos Aires Process,
be organized regularly in order to formalize and promote this linkage
between both types of networks at the international level.
6. We call upon the regional organizations such as MERCOSUR and the
African Union, in association with social scientists and civil society,
to further develop the social dimensions of regional integration, and
call upon the United Nations to facilitate inter-regional dialogues on
regional social policies.
7. We call upon existing funding programmes, in particular d o n o r
agencies and multilateral and regional development banks, to
participate in these new spaces of dialogue.
8. We also call upon United Nations, regional and national funding
agencies to place particular emphasis in their programming on the
development and enhancement of social science research capacities
in the developing countries, with special reference to Africa, and to
finance policy relevant social science research.
9. We further call upon governments to support social science research
and use evidence from research in formulating social and economic
policies.
10. We stress that implementation of these recommendations requires

relevant funding mechanisms and appropriate institutional structures
to support both research capacities and the dissemination of social
science research results. We further invite all academic communities,
civil society, non-governmental organizations, governments, United
Nations agencies, funding agencies and other relevant stakeholders to
work towards this end.
11. We call upon all participating national and United Nations agencies to
ensure dissemination of this Declaration and of the work of the Forum
to all relevant parties that can contribute to the implementation of the
present recommendations.
Finally, we thank the governments of Argentina and Uruguay, and the

local authorities and universities of Buenos Aires, Montevideo, Rosario and
Córdoba, for their major contribution to the success of the Forum and for
their warm hospitality. We express our gratitude to the various organizations
that contributed to this effort, in particular: UNRISD, UNDESA, ILO, the
World Bank, UNU-CRIS, the International Social Science Council and the
regional social science networks.
APPENDIX II:
LIST OF SELECTED IFSP WORKSHOPS
AND DOCUMENTS
This appendix lists selected workshops and documents, categorized under
each of the five thematic areas of the Forum. The titles of the papers are given
here in their original language.
GLOBAL ISSUES AND DYNAMICS

'The new social and political conditions of human development', organized
by UNDP.
Calderón, F. 2006. La globalización y las nuevas condiciones sociales del desarrollo
y la democracia. Paper included in this volume.
'A fair globalization: the work of the World Commission on the Social
Dimension of Globalization', organized by ILO-IILS.
Rodgers, G. 2006. The knowledge base for the work of the World Commission on
the Social Dimension of Globalization. Paper included in this volume.
'The role of international organizations in global social change', organized by

the Research Institute for Social Sciences, University of Tampere, Finland.
Alasuutari, P. 2006. The governmentality of consultancy and competition: the
influence of the OECD. Paper included in this volume.
'Think-tanks and policies: global dynamics and local specificities', jointly

organized by Fundación Adenauer and Fundación Siena, Argentina.
Garcé, A. and Uña, G. (eds). 2006. Think-tanks y políticas públicas en
Latinoamérica. Dinámicas globales y realidades regionales. Buenos Aires,
Prometeo.
'Production and use of research in trade policy-making in the Southern Cone',

organized by FLACSO.
Botto, M. (ed.). 2008. Saber y política en América latina. El uso del conocimiento en
las negociaciones. Buenos Aires, Prometeo.
'Addressing the cognitive complexity of decision-making', organized by

MOST.
Choucri, N. 2007. The politics of knowledge management. Paper included in this
volume.
Maugis, V. 2007. Policy Research Tool: Background, design methodology and
application. UNESCO/MOST background paper, included in this volume.
Zeiger, J. 2008. The representation of verbal data by GABEK*-Nets. J. Zeiger,
M. Raich and P. Schober (eds), GABEKIII: Organisations and their
knowledge nets. Vienna, Studien Verlag, pp. 97-121.
'Providing policies with online access to social science research results',

jointly organized by MOST and CLACSO.
Babini, D. and Smart, P. 2006. Using digital libraries to provide online access to
social science journals in Latin America. Learned Publishing, Vol. 19, No. 2,
pp. 107-13.
SOCIAL POLICIES
'Social policy and equality', jointly organized by UNRISD and SIDA.
Razavi, S. and Hassim, S. 2006. Gender and social policy in a global context:
uncovering the gendered structure of 'the social'. S. Razavi and S. Hassim
(eds), Gender and Social Policy in a Global Context: Uncovering the
gendered structure of'the social'. Basingstoke, UK, Palgrave, pp. 1-39.
'Which kinds of links for which kinds of policies? Comparative study of

policies in five action areas in Chile', organized by GRESCH, France.
De Cea, M. and Gárate, M. (eds.) 2006. ¿Qué tipo de nexos para qué tipo de
políticas? Estudio comparado de diversos campos de intervención pública.
Santiago de Chili: Editorial Universidad Bolivariana-LOM Editores.
'Poverty-producing policies', organized by CLACSO-CROP.

Barba, C. 2006. Regímenes de producción de pobreza: el caso de México.
Mehrotra, S. 2006. The international and national politics of poverty production
in Asia. Paper presented in the workshop 'Poverty-producing policies'.
UNESCO International Forum on the Social Science-Policy Nexus
(Argentina and Uruguay, 20-24 February 2006).
APPENDIX I I 213
'Social policies for children and youth: the search for dialogue between
researchers and policy makers', organized by Instituto de investigaciones
Gino Germani, UBA, Argentina.
Macri, M. et al. 2006. Políticas sociales en el área de infancia y adolescencia. En
búsqueda del diálogo posible entre los investigadores y comunidad política.
Las políticas del transporte urbano y los desafíos del desarrollo sustentable
en Chile. M. De Cea and M. Gárate (eds), Qué tipo de nexos para qué tipo
de políticas? Estudio comparado de diversos campos de intervención pública.
Santiago, Editorial Universidad Bolivariana-LOM Editores.
Van Kemenade, S. 2006. Investigación y elaboración de políticas sociales en el área
de la salud a nivel federal en Canadá. Paper included in this volume.
'Economic growth and social inclusion', organized by the Argentinian

Ministry of Social Development, Argentina.
Novick M. and Perez Sosto, G. (eds). 2008. El estado y la reconfiguración de la
cuestión social. Buenos Aires, Siglo XXI/Instituto Torcuato di Telia.
'Bridges to fight against and to overcome poverty in Latin America and the
Caribbean', organized by FUNGLODE.
Milani, C. 2005. Les relations entre les sciences sociales et la décision politique :
le chercheur, les institutions scientifiques, les décideurs et la gouvernance.
G. Solinis (ed.), Construire des gouvernances: entre citoyens, décideurs et
scientifiques. Brussels, P.I.E. Peter Lang.
POPULATION AND MIGRATION

'Migration without borders? Investigating a new scenario', organized by the
Migrations Division of UNESCO's Social and Human Sciences Sector.
Pécoud, A. and de Guchteneire, P. 2007. Migration Without Borders: An
investigation into the free movement ofpeople. Paris, Berghahn/UNESCO
Publishing.
'Globalisation and intercultural linkages: the case of migration and

intercultural linkages between Pakistan and Norway', organized by the MOST
Committee of the Norwegian National Commission for UNESCO (originally
organized under the theme'Global Issues').
Norwegian National Commission for UNESCO. 2006. Report on Globalization
and Intercultural Linkages. The Case of Pakistanis in Norway. Proceedings
from the workshop organized by the Norwegian National Commission for
UNESCO. UNESCO International Forum on the Social Science-Policy
Nexus (Argentina and Uruguay, 20-24 February 2006).
'The Institutionalisation of the dialogue between population research

and development policy in Africa', organized by the Department of Social
Development of the Government of South Africa (originally organized under
the theme Regional Integration).
Cross, C. et al. 2006. What are Africa's issues in migration? C. Cross,
D. Gelderblom, N. Roux and J. Mafukidze (eds), Views on Migration
in Sub-Saharan Africa. Proceedings of an African Migration Alliance
Workshop. Cape Town, HSRC Press.
REGIONAL INTEGRATION
'High-level symposium on the social dimensions of regional integration',
jointly organized by MERCOSUR/Globalism and Social Policy Programme
(GASPP)/UNU-CRIS/UNESCO.
Chavez Malaluan, J. J. 2006. The prospects for social solidarity and standards in
ASEAN: the case of labour and social protection. Paper presented in the
High-Level Symposium on the Social Dimension of Regional Integration.
De Alemeida, P. R. 2006. La dimension sociale des processus d'intégration
régionale en Amérique du Sud : vers un multilatéralisme régional.
Série Multilatéralisme Régional. UNESCO.
Deblock, Ch. 2006. Régionalisme ; arrangements institutionnels hybrides et
gouvernance à la carte. Série Multilatéralisme Régional 4. UNESCO.
Delmas-Marty, M. 2006. La dimension juridique du multilatéralisme régional.
Série Multilatéralisme Régional 7. UNESCO.
Garabaghi, N. 2006. Processus et politiques d'intégration régionale à l'oeuvre
à l'ère de la mondialisation : multilatéralisme régional et gouvernance
mondiale. Série Multilatéralisme Régional 1. UNESCO.
Hugon, Ph. 2006. Quel rôle peuvent jouer les organisations d'intégration régionale
dans une nouvelle architecture internationale? Série Multilatéralisme
Régional 3. UNESCO.
Sangare, L. 2006. L'intégration régionale multisectorielle et la marche de l'Afrique
vers les grands États fédéraux ou confédéraux. Série Multilatéralisme
Tenier, J. 2006. Construire les régions comme ensembles politiques et sociaux.
Thomas, C. and Hosein, R. 2006. The prospects for social solidarity and standards
in CARICOM: the case of health care. Paper presented in the High-Level
Symposium on the Social Dimensions of Regional Integration. UNESCO
APPENDIX I I 215
International Forum on the Social Science-Policy Nexus (Argentina and

Uruguay, 20-24 February 2006).
Threlfall, M. 2006. The social dimension of the EU: successes and shortcomings
of the open method of coordination in raising social policy standards.
UNU-CRISS Occasional Paper 0-2004/14.
Van Langenhove, L. 2006. The ascent of regional integration. UNU-CRISS
Occasional Paper 0-2004/5.
'The nation-state facing the challenges of regional integration in West Africa.

Case studies', organized by the MOST Office in Dakar.
Diop, A. and Niang Diene, A. (eds). 2007. Les États-nations face à l'intégration
régionale en Afrique de l'Ouest. Le cas du Sénégal. Paris, Karthala.
Igué, J. (ed.). 2006. Les États-nations face à l'intégration régionale en Afrique de
l'Ouest. Le cas du Benin. Paris, Karthala.
Sanankoua, B. (ed.). 2007. Les États-nations face à l'intégration régionale en Afrique
de l'Ouest. Le cas du Mali. Paris, Karthala.
Waziri Mato, M. (ed.). 2007. Les États-nations face à l'intégration régionale en
Afrique de l'Ouest. Le cas du Niger. Paris, Karthala.
URBAN POLICIES AND DECENTRALIZATION

'Social science and social awareness in urban policies: knowledge for action,
knowledge in action', jointly organized by UMR LOUEST, France; Laboratoire
de Sociologie Urbaine, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne,
Switzerland; Instituto del Conurbano, Universidad Nacional General
Sarmiento, Argentina; and Laboratoire EMAMCITERES Université François
Rabelais, France.
Navez-Bouchanine, F. (unpublished). Connaissances pour l'action, connaissances
dans l'action. UNESCO International Forum on the Social Science-Policy
'The university and local government in metropolitan environmental

management: building the interface between research, action and policy',
organized by FADU-UBA.
Baya-Laffite, N. 2009. University and local government in metropolitan
environmental management. International Social Science Journal, Vol. 59,
No. 193-4, pp. 381-96.
Lebrero, C. 2006. El compromiso del conocimiento y la gestión de la ciudad. Paper
included in this volume.
Sampaio, M. R. 2006. La gestión ambiental metropolitana y la contribución de la

Universidad. Paper included in this volume.
'Community participation of women, social practices and policies', jointly

organized by MOST and IUED.
Rauber, M. I. 2009. La educación popular y las relaciones de género en los procesos
de transformación urbano-ambiental en las organizaciones de base en
República Dominicana y Cuba. International Social Science Journal, No. 193.
Verschuur, Ch. 2009. Privatización del Estado y despliegue de los movimientos
de barrio con fuerte participación femenina: la reinvención cultural de lo
político. International Social Science Journal, Vol. 59, No. 193, pp. 409-20.
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AASSREC Association of Asian Social Science Research Councils

AGS Alliance for Global Sustainability
AMA African Migration Alliance
ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations
BSEC Black Sea Economic Cooperation
CAB Convenio Andrés Bello (Andrés Bello Agreement)
CLACSO Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales (Latin
American Council of Social Sciences)
CNCA Consejo Nacional de la Cultura y las Artes (National
Council of Culture and Arts, Chile)
CNVR Comisión Nacional para la Verdad y la Reconciliación
(National Commission for Truth and Reconciliation, Chile)
CROP Comparative Research Programme on Poverty
EAC East African Community
ECLAC United Nations Economic Commission for Latin
America and the Caribbean
ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States
ESF European Science Foundation
ETH Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich (Swiss
Federal Institute of Technology Zurich)
EU European Union
FAU-USP Faculdade de Arguitetura e Urbanismo/Universidade
de Säo Paulo (Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism/
University of Säo Paulo)
FLACSO Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (Latin
American Faculty of Social Sciences)
FTAA Free Trade Area of the Americas

FUNGLODE Fundación Global Democracia y Desarrollo (Global
Democracy and Development Foundation)
GABEK Ganzheitliche Bewältigung von Komplexität (Holistic
Processing of Linguistic Complexity)
GAM-FADU-UBA Gestión Ambiental Metropolitana, Facultad de
Arquitectura, Diseño y Urbanismo, Universidad de
Buenos Aires, Argentina (Metropolitan Environmental
Management, Faculty of Architecture, Design and
Urbanism, University of Buenos Aires, Argentina)
GASPP Globalism and Social Policy Programme
GDN Global Development Network
GRESCH Groupe d'études sur le Chili (Group of Chilean Studies,
France)
GSSD Global System for Sustainable Development
HDR Human Development Report
HSRC Human Sciences Research Council (South Africa)
ICPD International Conference on Population and Development
ICT Information and communication technologies
IDB Inter-American Development Bank
IFSP International Forum on the Social Science-Policy Nexus
IGO Inter-governmental organization
ILO International Labour Organization
ILO-IILS International Labour Organization International
Institute for Labour Studies
ISSC International Social Science Council
IUED Institute universitaire d'études du développement
(Graduate Institute of Development Studies, Geneva)
MERCOSUR Mercado Común del Sur (Southern Common Market)
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology
MOST Management of Social Transformations Programme
MWB Migration without borders
NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization
NBE National Board of Education (Finland)
NGO Non-governmental organization
ODI Overseas Development Institute (UK)
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 219
OEEC Organisation for European Economic Co-operation

ONPC Observatoire national des politiques culturelles
(National Observatory of Cultural Politics, France)
PAR Participatory Action Research
PIF Pacific Islands Forum
PISA Programme for International Student Assessment
(OECD)
PRI Policy Research Initiative (Canada)
PUMA Public Management Programme (OECD)
RAPID Research and Policy in Development (UK)
SAC MOST Scientific Advisory Committee
SADC Southern African Development Community
SHS Social and Human Sciences Sector (UNESCO)
SIDA Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency
Sida-SAREC Sida Department for Research Cooperation
SPRD Strategic Policy Research Division (Canada)
SSHRC Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (Canada)
STS Science and technology studies
UN United Nations
UN-HABITAT United Nations Human Settlements Programme
UNCRC United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
UNDESA United Nations Department of Economic and Social
Affairs
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization
UNICEF United Nations Children's Fund
UNRISD United Nations Research Institute for Social Development
UNU-CRIS United Nations University - Comparative Regional
Integration Studies
USA United States of America
USP Universidade de Säo Paulo (University of Säo Paulo, Brazil)
WB World Bank
WC World Commission on the Social Dimension of
Globalization
WEF World Economic Forum
WHO World Health Organization
WSF World Social Forum
WTO World Trade Organization
NOTES ON THE EDITORS
AND CONTRIBUTORS
EDITORS
Germán Solinís works for UNESCO's Management of Social Transformations

(MOST) Programme. He holds a doctorate in sociology from the École des
hautes études en sciences sociales (Paris); a degree in architecture from the
University of Mexico (UNAM-ITESO); and a Master's in urban studies and
town planning from Paris-VIII University. Since 2001 he has been teaching at
the Institut d'Études Politiques in Paris, and has been acting as visiting lecturer
at several universities: Paris I, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne,
Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies (Geneva),
Université de Louvain, Universidad Politécnica de Cataluña, Universidad
de Guadalajara and ITESO. He has contributed to several publications on
democratic governance, research in social sciences and policy links, and urban
studies.
Nicolas Baya-Laffite is a PhD candidate in science and technology studies

(STS) at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales (Paris). He holds
degrees in political science and urban environmental management, both
from the University of Buenos Aires. His research focuses on the interplay
between science, expertise and politics, sustainable development, and forms of
public engagement in socio-technical controversies. He teaches at Sciences-Po
Paris and at AgroParisTech. He is a consultant for UNESCO's Management
of Social Transformations (MOST) Programme, where he worked on the
theoretical approaches to the linkages between research and policy. He is also
a consultant to various French state agencies in thefieldof'science in society'.
CONTRIBUTORS
Pertti Alasuutari, Ph.D., is academy professor at the University of Tampere,
Finland. He is the editor of the European Journal of Cultural Studies, and has
published widely in the fields of social theory, cultural and media studies,
and social research methodology. His current research focuses on the role of
knowledge production in global governance. His books include Researching
Culture: Qualitative method and cultural studies (Sage, 1995), An Invitation
to Social Research (Sage, 1998), Rethinking the Media Audience (Sage, 1999),
and Social Theory and Human Reality (Sage, 2004).
Fernando Calderón holds a PhD in sociology from the École des Hautes
Études en Sciences Sociales (Paris). He was the coordinator of Human
Development Reports and Democracy in Bolivia and has taught at the
Universidad Mayor de San Andrés in La Paz and the Universidad Mayor de
San Simón in Cochabamba. He was executive secretary of CLACSO and Social
Policy Adviser of ECLAC. He is currently UNDP regional special advisor on
governance and human development.
Nazli Choucri is professor of political science at Massachusetts Institute of

Technology (MIT). She works in international relations and international
political economy, with a special focus on conflict, connectivity and the global
environment. As director of the Global System for Sustainable Development
(GSSD), she manages an e-knowledge networking system designed to facilitate
the provision and uses of knowledge in transitions to sustainability. She has
served as an advisor to numerous international organizations as well as to
a large number of national agencies. She is currently in her second term as
chairperson of the Scientific Advisory Committee of UNESCO's Management
of Social Transformations (MOST) Programme.
Carlos Lebrero, architect, is founding director of the Specialization and

Master's Degree in Metropolitan Environmental Management (GAM)
at the University of Buenos Aires, where he is also full professor and
secretary of the Graduate School of the Faculty of Architecture, Design and
Urbanism. He has wide professional experience as an architect and urban
planner, and has won numerous awards in national and international
competitions. He was secretary of urban planning for the City of Buenos
Aires (1996-97). His work focuses on urban programmes, plans and
projects that require an environmental approach to territorial issues. He
is actively involved in this area, directing teams of professionals working
NOTES ON THE EDITORS AND CONTRIBUTORS 223
for municipalities and other local organizations. He publishes regularly

in professional journals.
Vincent Maugis was a consultant at UNESCO's Management of Social

Transformations (MOST) Programme, where he was responsible for
methodologies of knowledge management. After a Master's in strategic
information technology and innovation at the Institut des Sciences et
Techniques de l'Ingénieur d'Angers (ISTIA), he worked with the Global
System for Sustainable Development (GSSD), a project of the Department
of Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where
he conducted research on the contributions of information technology for
decision-making in sustainable development.
Georgios Papanagnou was a consultant at UNESCO's MOST Programme.

He holds a PhD in political science (Panteion University, Athens) and an
MSc in international relations from Bristol University. He specializes in
the relationship between research and policy. He is the author of 'Research.
Discourses and Democracy: Innovating the Social Science-Policy Nexus',
MOST Policy Paper No. 20.
Gerry Rodgers is currently visiting professor at the Institute for Human

Development in New Delhi. He was a staff member of the International Labour
Organization (ILO) until 2008; his posts included director of the International
Institute for Labour Studies, director of the Policy Integration Department,
adviser to the director general, and director of the Multidisciplinary Technical
Team in Santiago de Chile. His work has been mainly concerned with
poverty, social exclusion, employment and labour markets in South Asia,
Latin America and Western Europe, and he has published widely on these
subjects. His most recent publication is a co-authored history of the ILO: The
ILO and the Quest for Social Justice, 1919-2009 (ILO, 2009).
Maria Ruth Amarai de Sampaio, sociologist, is full professor of the history

of architecture and urbanism and, in the Graduate School, of habitat and
social grounds of architecture and urbanism, at the Faculty of Architecture
and Urbanism, University of Sao Paulo (FAU/USP). She was dean of FAU/
USP between 1998 and 2002. She is the author of several books, including
Casas proletarias em Säo Paulo, with Carlos Lemos (1993), Habitaçao e cidade
(1998) and A promoçâo privada da habitaçao econòmica e a arquitetura
moderna: 1930-1964, with Sheila Walbe Ornstein (2002). She is a member
of the UNESCO Programme for 'City Professionals', which aims to foster the
university-society nexus.
Solange van Kemenade has a PhD in sociology. She holds a bachelor's degree
in anthropology and a degree in population and development. She is currently
senior research analyst for the Public Health Agency, Canada. She is also
an associate researcher at the Community-University Research Alliance in
social innovation and development of communities at Québec University in
Outaouais. She has previously taught at universities in Argentina and Canada.
Her research interests include social policies in general and particularly in
health, social determinants of health, health of immigrant and indigenous
peoples, social impacts derived from climate change, and global health. She is
co-founder and a volunteer at the Center on Cultural Diversity and Solidarity
Practices (CEDISOL), which focuses on the integration of immigrants in the
city of Gatineau.
REFERENCES
IFSP MATERIAL
Alasuutari, P. 2006. The governmentality of consultancy and competition: the
influence of the OECD. Paper presented in the workshop 'The role of
international organizations in global social change', organized by the
Research Institute for Social Sciences, University of Tampere, Finland.
Almeida, P. R. 2006. La dimension sociale des processus d'intégration régionale en
Amérique du Sud: vers un multilatéralisme régional. Série Multilatéralisme
Régional. UNESCO.
Babini, D. and Smart, P. 2006. Using digital libraries to provide online access to
social science journals in Latin America. Learned Publishing, Vol. 19, No. 2,
pp. 107-13.
Barba, C. 2006. Regímenes de producción de pobreza: el caso de México. Paper
presented in the workshop 'Poverty-producing policies'. UNESCO
Baya-Laffite, N. 2009. University and local government in metropolitan
environmental management. International Social Science Journal, Vol. 59,
No. 193-4, pp. 381-96.
Botto, M. (ed.). 2007a. Saber y política en América latina. El uso del conocimiento
en las negociaciones [Knowledge and policy in Latin America: knowledge
use in international trade negotiations]. Buenos Aires, Prometeo.
Botto, M. 2007b. Introducción. La incidencia del conocimiento en la formulación
de la política commercial. M. Botto (ed.), Saber y política en América latina.
El uso del conocimiento en las negociaciones. Buenos Aires, Prometeo.
Botto, M. 2007c. Los think-tanks en las negociaciones comerciales externas,
¿aconsejan, median o legitiman intereses? Un análisis comparado del Cono
Sur. M. Botto (ed.), Saber y política en América latina. El uso del conocimiento
en las negociaciones. Buenos Aires, Prometeo.
Botto, M. (ed.). 2008. Saber y política en América latina. El uso del conocimiento en
las negociaciones. Buenos Aires, Prometeo.
Botto, M. and Peixoto, J. 2008. La incidencia de la academia en las negociaciones
de los servicios de salud y educación en la Argentina: desafíos y
oportunidades. M. Botto (ed.), Saber y política en América latina. El uso del
conocimiento en las negociaciones. Buenos Aires, Prometeo.
Botto, M. and Quiliconi, C. 2008. La influencia de la academia en la política
arancelaria del Mercosur. M. Botto (ed.), Saber y política en América latina.
El uso del conocimiento en las negociaciones. Buenos Aires, Prometeo.
Braun, M. et al. 2006. 'Lejos de Thinktanklandia': los institutos de investigación
de políticas en los países en desarrollo. A. Garcé and G. Uña (eds), Think-
tanks y políticas públicas en Latinoamérica. Dinámicas globales y realidades
regionales. Buenos Aires, Prometeo.
Brennan, B. 2006. Regionalism, social policy and social development: findings
and policy lessons from the Alternative Regionalisms research programme
'Integration for and from the people is necessary and possible!' Paper
presented in the High-Level Symposium on the Social Dimensions of
Regional Integration. UNESCO International Forum on the Social Science-
Policy Nexus (Argentina and Uruguay, 20-24 February 2006).
Brunborg, H. et al. 2006. Statistical patterns and demographic change in Norway.
Norwegian National Commission for UNESCO, Report on Globalization
and Intercultural Linkages. The Case of Pakistanis in Norway. Proceedings
Buenos Aires Declaration calling for a new approach to the social science-policy
nexus.
Calderón, F. 2006. La globalización y las nuevas condiciones sociales del desarrollo
y la democracia. Paper presented in the workshop 'The new social and
political conditions of human development'. UNESCO International
Forum on the Social Science-Policy Nexus (Argentina and Uruguay, 20-24
February 2006).
Ceballos, M. 2006. La reforma de menores y la retórica de los derechos. M. De Cea
and M. Gárate (eds), ¿Qué tipo de nexos para qué tipo de políticas? Estudio
comparado de diversos campos de intervención pública. Santiago de Chile,
Editorial Universidad Bolivariana-LOM Editores.
Chaudhry, Hafeez-ur-Rehman. 2006. Socio-economic impact of migration on
rural communities of Pakistan. Norwegian National Commission for
UNESCO, Report on the Globalization and Intercultural Linkages. The
Case of Pakistanis in Norway. Proceedings from the workshop organized
REFERENCES 227
by the Norwegian National Commission for UNESCO. UNESCO

Chavez, J. J. 2006. The prospects for social solidarity and standards in ASEAN:
the case of labour and social protection. Paper presented in the High-Level
Choucri, N. 2007. The politics of knowledge management. Paper prepared for the
UNESCO Forum on Higher Education, Research and Knowledge.
Cross, C. 2006. What are Africa's issues in migration? C. Cross, D. Gelderblom,
N. Roux, and J. Mafukidze (eds), Views on Migration in Sub-Saharan
Africa. Proceedings of an African Migration Alliance Workshop. Cape Town,
HSRC Press.
Crowley, J. 2007. Editorial, International Forum on the Social Science-Policy
Nexus/Reshaping identities in post-conflict societies: ex-combatants,
heroes and exiles. International Social Science Journal, Vol. 58, No. 189,
pp. 389-94.
Dani, A. A. 2007. Social sciences, globalisation and regionalism. Reflections on
Alain Touraine's keynote speech. International Forum on the Social
Science-Policy Nexus/Reshaping identities in post-conflict societies:
ex-combatants, heroes and exiles. International Social Science Journal,
Vol. 58, No. 189, pp. 409-12.
De Cea, M. 2006. Hacia una nueva institucionalización de la experticia cultural en
Chile: el rol del Consejo Nacional de la Cultura y de las Artes. M. De Cea
and M. Gárate (eds), ¿Qué tipo de nexos para qué tipo de políticas? Estudio
comparado de diversos campos de intervención pública. Santiago de Chile,
Editorial Universidad Bolivariana-LOM Editores.
De Cea, M. and Gárate, M. (eds). 2006. ¿Qué tipo de nexos para qué tipo de
políticas? Estudio comparado de diversos campos de intervención pública.
Santiago de Chile, Editorial Universidad Bolivariana-LOM Editores.
Deblock, Ch. 2006. Régionalisme; arrangements institutionnels hybrides et
gouvernance à la carte. Série Multilatéralisme Régional 4. UNESCO.
Delmas-Marty, M. 2006. La dimension juridique du multilatéralisme régional.
Diaz, P. 2006. Análisis de la Comisión Nacional de la Verdad y Reconciliación
como dispositivo de experticia. M. De Cea and M. Gárate (eds), ¿Qué
tipo de nexos para qué tipo de políticas? Estudio comparado de diversos
campos de intervención pública. Santiago de Chile, Editorial Universidad
Bolivariana-LOM Editores.
Diop, A. and Niang Diene, A. (eds). 2007. Les États-nations face à l'intégration
régionale en Afrique de l'Ouest. Le cas du Sénégal. Paris, Karthala.
Garabaghi, N. 2006a. Processus et politiques d'intégration régionale à l'oeuvre

à l'ère de la mondialisation: multilatéralisme régional et gouvernance
mondiale. Série Multilatéralisme Régional 1. UNESCO.
Garabaghi, N. 2006i». International Forum on the Social Science-Policy Nexus;
Argentina and Uruguay; 2006. Symposium de haut niveau sur les
dimensions sociales des processus d'intégration régionale: Table ronde de
réflexion sur les dimensions sociales des processus d'intégration régionale:
problématiques émergentes et multilatéralisme régional, Montevideo;
2006. Available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ulis/index.html (Accessed on
24 June 2010).
Gárate, M. 2006. El economista como profesional de las ciencias sociales.
Reflexiones en torno a la experiencia chilena. M. De Cea and M. Gárate
(eds), ¿Qué tipo de nexos para qué tipo de políticas? Estudio comparado
de diversos campos de intervención pública. Santiago de Chile, Editorial
Universidad Bolivariana-LOM Editores.
Garcé, A. and Uña, G. (eds). 2006. Think-tanks y políticas públicas en
Latinoamérica. Dinámicas globales y realidades regionales. Buenos Aires,
Prometeo.
García Delgado, D. and Casalis, A. 2006. Desarrollo local protagónico y estrategia
país. Paper presented in the workshop 'Economic growth and social
inclusion'. UNESCO International Forum on the Social Science-Policy
Gutiérrez, C. 2006. Las interferencias-relaciones entre campos de la política
de descentralización en Chile. M. De Cea and M. Gárate (eds), ¿Qué
Haagensen, E. 2006. Migration research in policymaking. Norwegian National
Commission for UNESCO, Report on Globalization and Intercultural
Linkages. The Case of Pakistanis in Norway. Proceedings from the
workshop organized by the Norwegian National Commission for
Hugon, Ph. 2006. Quel rôle peuvent jouer les organisations d'intégration régionale
dans une nouvelle architecture internationale? Série Multilatéralisme
Igué, J. (éd.) 2006. Les États-nations face à l'intégration régionale en Afrique de
l'Ouest. Le cas du Benin. Paris, Karthala.
Kerneur, G. 2006. Acerca del espacio público en poblaciones marginales de
Santiago de Chile. M. De Cea and M. Gárate (eds), ¿Qué tipo de nexos para
qué tipo de políticas? Estudio comparado de diversos campos de intervención
pública. Santiago de Chile, Editorial Universidad Bolivariana-LOM
Editores.
REFERENCES 229
Landau, L. 2006. Myth and rationality in Southern African responses to migration,

displacement and humanitarianism. C. Cross et al. (eds), Views on
Migration in Sub-Saharan Africa. Proceedings of an African Migration
Alliance Workshop. Cape Town, HSRC Press.
Lebrero, C. 2006. El compromiso del conocimiento y la gestión de la ciudad.
Paper presented in the workshop 'The university and local government
in metropolitan environmental management'. UNESCO International
Forum on the Social Science-Policy Nexus (Argentina and Uruguay,
20-24 February 2006).
Lee, R. E., Martin, W. J., Sonntag, H. R., Taylor, P. f., Wallerstein, I. and
Wieviorka, M. 2005. Social science and social policy: from national
dilemmas to global opportunities. Reference paper for the UNESCO
Macri, M. et al. 2006. Políticas sociales en el área de infancia y adolescencia. En
búsqueda del diálogo posible entre investigadores y comunidad política.
Final Report of the workshop 'Social policies for children and youth: the
search for dialogue between researchers and policy-makers'. UNESCO
Malbrán, H. 2006. Las políticas del transporte urbano y los desafíos del
desarrollo sustentable en Chile. M. De Cea and M. Gárate (eds), ¿Qué
Maugis, V. 2007. Policy research tool: Background, design methodology and
application. UNESCO/MOST background paper.
Mehrotra, S. 2006. The international and national politics of poverty production
in Asia. Paper presented in the workshop 'Poverty-producing policies'.
Milani, C. 2005. Les relations entre les sciences sociales et la décision politique: le
chercheur, les institutions scientifiques, les décideurs et la gouvernance.
G. Solinis (ed.), Construire des gouvernances: entre citoyens, décideurs et
scientifiques. Brussels, P.I.E. Peter Lang.
Mkandawire, T. 2007. Social development policies: new challenges for the social
sciences. International Social Science Journal, Vol. 58, No. 189, pp. 395-404.
Naustdalslid, J. 2006. Use and usefulness of social science research. Norwegian
National Commission for UNESCO, Report on Globalization and
Intercultural Linkages: The Case of Pakistanis in Norway. Proceedings
from the workshop organized by the Norwegian National Commission
for UNESCO. UNESCO International Forum on the Social Science-
Policy Nexus (Argentina and Uruguay, 20-24 February 2006). Norwegian
National Commission for UNESCO. 2006. Report on Globalization and

Intercultural Linkages: The Case of Pakistanis in Norway. Proceedings
Navez-Bouchanine, F. (unpublished). Connaissances pour l'action, connaissances
dans l'action. UNESCO International Forum on the Social Science-Policy
Pécoud, A. and de Guchteneire, P. 2007. Migration Without Borders: An investigation
into thefreemovement ofpeople. Paris, Berghahn/UNESCO Publishing.
Rauber, I., San Sebastián, A. and Inda, N. 2008. The city, the environment and
gender relationships seen through Latin American eyes. International
Social Science Journal, No 193-194, pp. 421-433.
Razavi, S. and Hassim, S., 2006. Gender and social policy in a global context:
uncovering the gendered structure of 'the social'. S. Razavi and S. Hassim
(eds), Gender and Social Policy in a Global Context: Uncovering the
gendered structure of'the social'. Basingstoke, UK, Palgrave, pp. 1-39.
Rodgers, G. 2006. The knowledge base for the work of the World Commission.
Paper presented in the workshop 'A fair globalization: the work of the
World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization'. UNESCO
Sampaio, M. R. 2006. La gestión ambiental metropolitana y la contribución de la
Universidad. Paper presented in the workshop 'The university and local
government in metropolitan environmental management'. UNESCO
Sanankoua, B. (ed.). 2007. Les états-nations face à l'intégration régionale en Afrique
de l'Ouest. Le cas du Mali. Paris, Karthala.
Sané, P. 2006a. 'Regional integration, social inequalities and new policy spaces'.
Speech by Pierre Sané, Assistant Director-General for Social and Human
Sciences, at the Opening Ceremony of the High-Level Symposium on the
Social Dimensions of Regional Integration, 21 February 2006, Montevideo.
Sané, P. 2006b. Closing remarks by Pierre Sané, Assistant Director-General for
Social and Human Sciences. Buenos Aires, 24 February 2006. UNESCO
Sané, P. 2008. Social development: from research to policy to action. Address by
Pierre Sané, Assistant Director-General for Social and Human Sciences,
at the Dialogue Forum on Social Policies in Southeast Asia: Probing the
REFERENCES 231
Social Science-Policy Nexus, Bangkok, Thailand, 20-22 August 2008. Paris,

UNESCO.
Sané, P. 2009. Research-policy linkages: UNESCO's experience. Statement by
Pierre Sané, Assistant Director-General for Social and Human Sciences,
at the International Conference on 'The role of think-tanks in developing
countries: challenges and solutions' organized by the Egyptian Cabinet
Information and Decision Support Center (IDSC). Cairo, Egypt, 17 January
2009. Paris, UNESCO.
Sangare, L. 2006. L'intégration régionale multisectorielle et la marche de l'Afrique
vers les grands États fédéraux ou confédéraux. Série Multilatéralisme
Schindlmayr, T., Huber, B. and Zelenev, S. 2006. Inclusive policy processes.
UNDESA discussion paper.
Solinís, G. 2008. Theoretical and methodological reflections on the linkages
connecting research and policy. UNESCO MOST working document.
Syed, S. H. 2006. Pakistani Government and the Overseas Pakistani Foundation
in the migration process. Norwegian National Commission for UNESCO,
Report on Globalization and Intercultural Linkages: The Case of Pakistanis in
Norway. Proceedings from the workshop organized by the Norwegian National
Commission for UNESCO. UNESCO International Forum on the Social
Science-Policy Nexus (Argentina and Uruguay, 20-24 February 2006).
Taylor, V. 2006. Beyond the rhetoric of social development: the case of social
protection in SADC. Paper presented in the High-Level Symposium on
the Social Dimensions of Regional Integration. UNESCO International
Forum on the Social Science-Policy Nexus (Argentina and Uruguay,
20-24 February 2006).
Tenier, J. 2006. Construire les régions comme ensembles politiques et sociaux
Thomas, C. and Hosein, R. 2006. The prospects for social solidarity and standards
in CARICOM: the case of health care. Paper presented in the High-Level
Threlfall, M. 2006. The social dimension of the EU: successes and shortcomings
of the open method of coordination in raising social policy standards.
UNU-CRISS Occasional Paper 0-2004/14.
Torre, B. 2007. La academia mexicana y la formulación y puesta en práctica
de la política comercial en México. M. Botto (ed.), Saber y política en
América latina. El uso del conocimiento en las negociaciones. Buenos Aires,
Prometeo.
Tussie, D. and Heidrich, P. 2007. El desafío de la investigación en el escenario de
negociaciones permanentes. M. Botto (ed.), Saber y política en América
latina. El uso del conocimiento en las negociaciones. Buenos Aires,

Prometeo.
UNESCO. 2006a. International Forum on the Social Science-Policy Nexus,
Programme. Paris, UNESCO.
UNESCO. 2006b. International Forum on the Social Science-Policy Nexus, Final
Report. Paris, UNESCO.
UNESCO. 2008a. 34/C4 Medium-Term Strategy for 2008-2013. Paris, UNESCO.
UNESCO. 2008b. 34/C5 Programme and Budget 2008-2009. Paris, UNESCO.
UNESCO MOST. 2007a. Social development: from research to policy to
action. Background paper for MOST activities to support regional and
interregional fora of Ministers of Social Development.
UNESCO MOST. 2007b. Social development: from research to policy to action.
Concept paper for the meeting 'From Research to Policy to Action'
(Nairobi, 22-24 January 2007).
UNESCO MOST. 2007c. Report of the Secretariat on the Activities of the
UNESCO MOST Programme Phase 2 (2006-2007).
UNESCO MOST. 2008. UNESCO MOST Work Plans 2008-2009.
UNESCO SHS. 2004a. Social science: the research and policy connection,
Newsletter 07, October-December. Paris, UNESCO.
UNESCO SHS. 2004b. Strategies and actions. Paris, UNESCO.
UNESCO SHS. 2005. Thought for action - a matter of place. Newsletter 11,
December 2005-February 2006. Paris, UNESCO.
UNESCO SHS 2007. Dossier: The dialogue between researchers and policy makers:
what is the role of UNESCO? Views 18, October-December. Paris, UNESCO.
Urzúa, R. 2006. Prólogo. M. de Cea and M. Gárate (eds), ¿Qué tipo de nexos para
qué tipo de políticas? Estudio comparado de diversos campos de intervención
pública. Santiago de Chile, Editorial Universidad Bolivariana-LOM
Editores.
Van Kemenade, S. 2006. Investigación y elaboración de políticas sociales en el área
de la salud a nivel federal en Canada. UNESCO International Forum on
the Social Science-Policy Nexus (Argentina and Uruguay, 20-24 February
2006).
Ventura, D. 2007. El rol de la academia en la gobernanza regional. M. Botto
(ed.), Saber y política en América latina. El uso del conocimiento en las
negociaciones. Buenos Aires, Prometeo.
Verschuur, Ch. 2009. Privatización del Estado y despliegue de los movimientos
de barrio con fuerte participación femenina: la reinvención cultural de lo
político. International Social Science Journal, Vol. 59, No. 193, pp. 409-20.
Waziri Mato, M. (ed.). 2007. Les États-nations face à l'intégration régionale en
Afrique de l'Ouest. Le cas du Niger. Paris, Karthala.
REFERENCES 233
Yeates, N. and Deacon, B. 2006. Globalism, regionalism and social policy: framing
the debate. Background paper for the High-Level Symposium on the Social
Dimensions of Regional Integration. UNESCO International Forum on
the Social Science-Policy Nexus (Argentina and Uruguay, 20-24 February
2006).
Zeiger, J. 2008. The representation of verbal data by GABEKS-Nets. J. Zeiger,
M. J. Raich and P. Schober (eds), GABEKIII: Organisations and their
knowledge nets. Vienna, Studien Verlag.
Zurbriggen, C. 2007. La gestion del conocimiento en la política comercial. El caso
uruguayo. M. Botto (ed.), Saber y política en América latina. El uso del
conocimiento en ¡as negociaciones. Buenos Aires, Prometeo.
GENERAL REFERENCES
Abelson, D. 2002. Do Think-Tanks Matter? Assessing the impact ofpublic policy
institutes. Quebec, McGill-Queen's University Press.
Bourdieu, P. 2002. Science, politique et sciences sociales. Actes de la recherche en
sciences sociales, Vol. 141, No. 2, pp. 9-12.
Brunner, J. J. and Sunkel, G. 1993. Conocimiento, sociedad y política. Santiago de
Chile, FLACSO.
Callón, M., Lascoumes, P. and Barthe, Y. 2001. Forums hybrides. M. Callón,
P. Lascoumes and Y. Barthe (eds), Agir dans un monde incertain: Essai sur
la démocratie technique. Paris, Le Seuil, pp. 29-60.
Castells, M. 1996. The Rise of the Network Society. Cambridge, Blackwell.
Castells, M. 1996-97. La era de la información. Economía, sociedad y cultura.
Madrid, Alianza.
(eds). 2007. Mapping Sustainability: Knowledge e-networking and the value
chain alliance for global sustainability. New York, Springer.
Court, J. and Young, J. 2004. Bridging research and policy in international
development: An analytical and practical framework. ODI Rapid Briefing
Paper 1.
Davies, H., Nutley, S. and Walter, I. 2005. Assessing the impact of social
science research: conceptual, methodological and practical issues.
Background discussion paper for the ESRC Symposium on Assessing the
Non-Academic Impact of Research.
Deutsch, K.W. 1963. The Nerves of Government: Models ofpolitical communication
and control. New York, Free Press.
Escobar, A. 1995. Encountering Development: The making and unmaking of the
Third World. Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press.
Etzkowitz, H. 2003. Innovation in innovation: the triple helix of university-
industry-government relations. Social Science Information, Vol. 42, No. 3,
pp. 293-337.
Feldman, M. S. and March, J. G. 1981. Information in organizations as signal and
symbol. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 171-86.
Foucault, M. 1972. The Archaeology of Knowledge. London, Tavistock.
Foucault M. 1979. Histoire de la sexualité, Vol. 1: La volonté de savoir. Gallimard,
Paris.
Foucault, M. 1999. Governmentality. G. Burchell, C. Gordon and P. Miller (eds),
The Foucault Effect: Studies in governmentality. Chicago, 111., University of
Chicago Press.
REFERENCES 235
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C, Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M.
1994. The New Production of Knowledge: The dynamics of science and
research in contemporary societies. London, Sage.
Guimaräes, R. 2006. Defining and implanting a national policy for science,
technology and innovation: lessons from the Brazilian experiences.
Cuadernos de Saude Pública, Vol. 22, No. 9, pp. 1775-94.
Gomez, G. 2008. Valorisation des aspects scientifiques du premier Forum
international sur les interfaces entre politiques et sciences sociales.
MOST working document, Paris, UNESCO.
Gramsci, A. 1957. The formation of intellectuals. A. Gramsci, The Modem Prince
and Other Writings. New York, International Publishers.
Haas, E. B. 1990. When Knowledge is Power: Three models of change in
international organizations. Berkeley, Calif., University of California Press.
Haas, P. M. 1992. Epistemic communities and international policy coordination.
International Organization, Vol. 46, No. 1, pp. 1-35.
Habermas, J. 1968. Technik und Wissenschaft als Ideologie. Frankfurt a.M.,
Suhrkamp Verlag.
Habermas, J. 1981. Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns (Bd. 1:
Handlungsrationalität und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung; Bd. 2: Zur
Kritik der funktionalistischen Vernunft). Frankfurt a.M., Suhrkamp Verlag.
Habermas, J. 1990 [1962]. Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit. Untersuchungen zu
einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft. Frankfurt a.M., Suhrkamp
Verlag.
Hainard, F. and Verschuur, C. (eds). 2005. Mouvements de quartier et
environnements urbains. Paris, Karthala.
Hall, P. 1990. Policy paradigms, experts and the state: the case of macroeconomic
policy making in Britain. S. Brooks and A. Gagnon (eds), Social Scientists,
Policy and the State. New York, Praeger, pp. 53-78.
Hall, P. 1997. The role of interests, institutions, and ideas in the comparative political
economy of the industrialized nations. M. Lichbach and A. Zuckerman (eds),
Comparative Politics. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Haraway, D. 1989. Primate Visions: Gender, race, and nature in the world of
modern science. New York, Routledge.
Haraway, D. 1991. Simians, Cyborgs and Women. New York, Routledge.
Haraway, D. 1997. Modest Witness@Second Millennium. FemaleMan©_Meets_
OncoMouse": Feminism and technoscience. London, Routledge.
Huber, E. 2007. Comments on Thandika Mkandawire's presentation. International
Social Science Journal, Vol. 58, No. 189, pp. 405-7.
IDRC. 2004. A strategic evaluation of the influence of research on public policy.
Working document.
Jobert, B. and Müller, P. 1987. L'état en action. Politiques publiques et

corporatismes. Paris, Presses Universitaires de France.
Knorr-Cetina, K. 1981. The Manufacture of Knowledge - An essay on the
constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford, Pergamon Press.
Kuhn, T. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, 111., Chicago
University Press.
Lasswell, H. D. 1951. Who gets what when how. The Political Writings of Harold
D. Lasswell. Glencoe, 111., Free Press.
Lasswell, H. and Kaplan, A. 1950. Power and Society: A framework for political
inquiry. New Haven, Conn., Yale University Press.
Latour, B. 1991. Nous n'avons jamais été modernes. Essai d'anthropologie
symétrique. Paris, La Découverte.
Latour B. 1994. Les objets ont-il une histoire? Rencontre de Pasteur et Whitehead
dans un bain d'acide lactique. I. Stengers, L'effet Whitehead. Paris, Vrin.
Lindblom, C. 1968. The Policy-Making Process. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice
Hall.
Lindblom, C. 1959. The science of 'muddling through'. Public Administration
Review, No. 19, pp. 79-88.
Merlingen, M. 2003. Governmentality: Towards a Foucauldian framework for the
study of IGOs. Cooperation and Conflict, No. 38, pp. 361-84.
Müller, P., Palier, B. and Surel, Y. 2005. L'analyse politique de l'action publique.
Confrontation des approches, des concepts et des methods. Revue Française
de Science Politique, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 5-6.
Muller, P. and Surel, Y. 1998. L'analyse des politiques publiques. Paris,
Montchrestien.
Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. 2001. Re-thinking Science, Knowledge and
the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge, Polity Press.
Pestre, D. 2008. Challenges for the democratic management of technoscience:
governance, participation and the political today. Science as Culture,
Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 101-19.
Powell, W. W. and DiMaggio, P. J. 1991. Introduction. W. W. Powell and
P. J. DiMaggio (eds), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis.
Chicago, 111., University of Chicago Press, pp. 1-38.
Rius, A. 2003. The knowledge systems implications of building institutions for
high-quality growth. Working paper, Montevideo, IDRC.
Sabatier, P. and Jenkins-Smith, H. (eds). 1993. Policy Change and Learning.
An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder, Colo., Westview Press.
Solinis, G. 2005. Construire des gouvernances: entre citoyens, décideurs et
scientifiques. Brussels, Peter Lang.
REFERENCES 237
Stone, D. 2000. Learning lessons, policy transfer and the international diffusion of
policy ideas. CSGR Working Paper 69/01: 1-41. http://www.warwick.ac.uk/
fac/soc/CSGR/wpapers/wp6901.pdf (Accessed on 24 June 2010).
Stone, D. 2001. Getting research into policy? Paper presented to the third Annual
Global Development Network Conference on 'Blending Local and Global
Knowledge', Rio de Janeiro, 10 December.
Stone, D. and Maxwell, S. (eds). 2005. Global Knowledge Networks and
International Development: Bridges across boundaries. New York, Taylor &
Francis.
Stone, D., Maxwell, S. and Keating, M. 2001. Bridging research and policy. GDN
paper.
Surei, Y. 2000. The role of cognitive and normative frames in policy-making.
Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 495-512.
UNESCO. 2008. 34/C4 Medium-Term Strategy for 2008-2013. Paris, UNESCO.
Weber, M. 1948. The Methodology of the Social Sciences. New York, Free Press.
Weber, M. 1978. Economy and Society. Berkeley, Calif, University of California
Press.
Weber, M. 2003 [1919], Le savant et le politique. Paris, La Découverte.
Weingart, P. 1999. Scientific expertise and political accountability: paradoxes of
science in politics. Science and Public Policy, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 151-61.
Weiss, C. 1977a. Using Social Science Research in Policymaking. Toronto, Canada,
Lexington.
Weiss, C. 1977b. Research for policy's sake: the enlightenment function of social
research. Policy Analysis, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 531-45.
Weiss, C. H. 1979. The many meanings of research utilization. Public
Administration Review, Vol. 39, No. 5, pp. 426-31.
Wittgenstein, L. 1971. Philosophische Untersuchungen. Frankfurt a.M., Suhrkamp
Verlag.
Woolgar, S. 2000. The social basis of interactive social science. Science and Public
Policy, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 165-73.
Wynne, B. 2006. Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science
- hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genetics, Vol. 9,
No. 3, pp. 211-20.
Young, K., Ashby, D„ Boaz, A. and Grayson, L. 2002. Social science and the
evidence-based policy movement. Social Policy and Society, Vol. 1, No. 3,
pp. 215-24.
INDEX
A c
Abelson, D., 86 Calderón, Fernando, 90-1
action research, 33, 97 Canada
participatory, 101 General Social Survey on Social
advocacy coalitions, 63, 106 Engagement, 139, 140, 141-2
Africa knowledge transfer in, 61-2
migration in, 47-50 Ministry of Health, 62, 137
post-colonial balkanization of West Africa, Policy Research Initiative, 138
44 Public Health Agency, 61, 137
African Migration Alliance (AMA), 47-50 research and policy making in health field,
Alameda County, 137 135-45
Alasuutari, Pertti, 88-90 Statistics Canada, 138-9
Allen, A., 193 Castells, M., 90, 176n25, 177
Alliance for Global Sustainability (AGS), 52-7, Cea, Maite de, 66-7
Ceballos, M., 65-6
118
Chaudhry, Hafeez-ur-Rehman, 78
Amarai de Sampaio, Maria Ruth, 94-5
Chavez, Jenina Joy, 41
Argentina, 77, 197
children, policies for, 61, 143
Association of Asian Social Science Research
Chile, 178n27, 181
Councils (AASSREC), 22
cultural expertise in, 66-7
Association of Southeast Asian Nations
National Commission for Truth and
(ASEAN), 41 Reconciliation (CNVR), 67
National Council of Culture and Arts
B (CNCA), 66
Babini, Dominique, 52, 59-61
reconciliation in, 67-8
Bacon, Francis, 112
reform of policy on minors, 65-6
Barba, Carlos, 68-9 Choucri, Nazii, 52-6, 118
Baya-Lafitte, N., 95-6 Churchill, Winston, 111
Beck, U., 180 citizenship, active, 33, 188
benchmarking, 41 City Professionals Network, 203
Benin, 44 civil society
Bennett, A., 162 need for, 6
Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC), 40 as part of the research-policy nexus, 38-9
Botto, Mercedes, 73-5, 76 see also public (general)
Braun, M., 86 climate change, 124
Brazil, 94-5, 199-206 Club of Rome, 197
Brennan, Brid, 41 cognitive frames/paradigms, 49
Brown, John Seely, 118 Comparative Research Programme on Poverty
Budapest Declaration on Science and the Use of the International Social Science Council
of Scientific Knowledge, 207 (CROP/ISSC), 68
Buenos Aires Declaration, 7,12, 22, 207-10 competition policy, 155
Buenos Aires Process, 7, 22, 209 conflict management/resolution, 71, 132, 203
Consejo Latinamericano de Ciencias Sociales loss of bargaining power for workers, 176
( C L A C S O ) , 51,52,60,68 policy, 167-71, 177-8
digital library, 59-61 environment, as a social right, 204
Convenio Andrésn Bello (CAB), 40 environmental management, 93-6, 191-8
Costa Rica, 178n27 failures of, 180
crises, confluence of, 5 international agreements on, 196-7
Cross, Catherine, 47, 50 urban, 191-8, 199-206
cultural epistemic communities, 76
global trends and multiculturalism, 185-6 equality see inequality
market, 177, 183 European Science Foundation (ESF), 22
policy, 66-7 European Union, 41, 158
cyberpolitics, 52,56, 112, 121-5, 126 evidence-based policy-making, 5-6, 21, 128,
cyberspace, 52, 56, 112, 126 136, 140
definition and meaning, 53
D potential anti-democratic bias, 39, 97
data experts
difficulty of obtaining, 21, 49-50 relationship with politicians, 38, 71
need for free access, 65-6
quantitative and qualitative, 21 F
de Guchteneire, P., 84 Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales
Deacon, Bob, 40 (FLACSO), 73
decisionist model, 38 famine, 44
Della Noce, Luis Gustavo, 205 Feldman, M. S., 82
democracy Finland, 87-90, 147-63
democratic m anagement of techno- Competition Authority, 155-6
science, 39 education policy in, 156-61
democratization of knowledge provision, 56 membership of OECD, 153, 158
and the excluded, 182 Ministry of Education, 156-7, 160
fragility of, 87 National Board of Education, 89, 156-7, 160
and knowledge usage, 30 in the post-war era, 151
in Latin America, 181 regional administration, 157
loss of legitimacy, 178 Research Institute for Social Sciences,
more narrow forms, 71 University of Tampere, 87
and policy-making, 30-1 Foray, Dominique, 115
democratization of knowledge content, 123 Foucault, Michel, 67, 87, 87nl0, 88, 149, 151-2
Dervis, K., 176n25 framing, 63-4, 106
Deutsch, Karl W, 56, 122 France, Observatoire nationale des politiques
Diaz, Paola, 67-8 culturelles (ONPC), 66
digital libraries, 59-61 Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), 75
Dominican Republic, 69 Fundación Global Democracia y Desarrollo
Duguid, Paul, 118
(FUNGLODE), 69
E
East African Community (EAC), 40 CJ
Echabarria, Medina, 183 GABEK method for knowledge management,
ecological damage, 180 52
Economic Community of West African States Garabaghi, Ninou, 40
(ECOWAS), 6, 43-6 Garcé, A., 87
economics, 65 gender perspectives, 30-1, 92, 101, 169
and globalization, 173-4 Gibbons, M., 39, 75
see also neoliberal economics Gino Germani Research Institute, 61
education Global Development Network (GDN), 74, 86
access to, 183 Global and Social Policy Programme
policy, 89-90, 156-61 (GASPP), 40, 42
employment Global System for Sustainable Development,
131-2
INDEX 241
globalization, 23, 90-1, 167-71 and exclusion, 187-8

anti-globalization movements, 173, 179 Institute of Political Science, Universidad de la
and asymmetries, 183-4 República, 85
challenges to social policy systems, 40 institutionalization, different models of, 70
and the crisis of politics, 179 Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), 138
definition, 175 inter-state bargaining, 41
different perceptions of, 167-8 intergovernmental organizations, 87-90,
fair globalization, 170 148-9
global growth strategy, 170-1 and analysis of power relations, 152
global race for knowledge, 52, 116 four levels of influence, 89, 152-3
and the information society, 175-81 impact on social change, 150 (see also
and new social conditions of development OECD)
and democracy, 173-89 see also individual organizations by name
techno-economic, 176 international agencies, role of, 33
workshop brief, 23 International Forum on the Social Science-
governance Policy Nexus (IFSP), 7, 11-12, 20, 22-6, 103
cognitive challenges of, 132 documents analysed, 27
as different system of decision-making, 71 final report, 26
global, 23, 152 as a hybrid forum, 39
new modes of, 38, 159 International Steering Committee, 22
OECD's direction of, 149 main results, 26
participatory, 33 mapping of approaches process, 26-31
structures, 69-70 methodological approaches, 26-34
governmentality, 87-8, 149, 151-2 organizers, 22
Graduate Institute of Development Studies participants, 22-3
(IUED), 98 thematic areas, 23
Grostein, Maria Dora, 202 theoretical foundations of, 37-9
Group of Chilean Studies (GRESCH), 64 workshops, 7, 11, 12, 23-6, 27-34, 106-7
Guimaräes, R., 74 International Labour Organization (ILO), 22,
42, 168
H International Institute for Labour Studies
Haagensen, Eva, 78-9 (ILO-IILS), 90
Habermas, Jürgen, 38 International Social Science Council (ISSC),
Hall, Peter, 63 22
health sector, 61-2, 135-45 internet, the, 57, 60, 127
Heidrich, Pablo, 75 and the local-global-national dynamic, 184
High-Level Symposium on the Social see also cyberspace
Dimensions of Regional Integration, 39-43
recommendations of, 42 J
housing policy, 95, 200, 203-5 Jenkins-Smith, H., 63
human rights, 67, 177, 184, 208 Jobert, B., 63, 64
hybrid forums, 6, 39
K
1 Kaplan, A., 73
Inda, Norberto, 101 Keeley, J. E, 152
inequality Kennedy, D., 115
and equality issues, 91-2 knowledge
and globalization, 177-84 base for World Commission on the Social
worsening of, 5, 177-9, 208 Dimension of Globalization, 168-70
information see data, knowledge chain, 54, 116-17
information and communication technologies co-production of, 30, 33, 38-9
(ICT), 51,52, 74 commitment and city management, 191-8
and knowledge creation, 114 conceptions of, 63
information sciences, 51 as content and content of knowledge, 53-4,
information society, 90-1, 177, 187 113-15
definitions of, 29, 112, 125 meeting in, 6

economy, 114-15, 122 Management of Social Transformations
existing, use of, 55 (MOST) Programme, 5-6, 17-19, 37-9, 40,
flow of, 121 51,98, 101, 129-30
for the future, 194 meetings arranged bym, 6
institutional, 124-5 national seminars in ECOWAS member
as instrumental and contextual, 53 states, 43-6
key attributes, 112 phases, 18-19
lay knowledge, 98 policy research service, 57, 127
management, 50-61, 74, 105-7, 111-25 Policy Research Tool, 52, 57-9, 128-32
mapping, 130-1 publication series, 7, 12, 37
networks, 54, 55-6, 57, 116, 119-21, 127, responsibilities of, 18
131-2, 168-9 Scientific Advisory Committee, 7, 12, 27, 52
'new knowledge', 120-1 Secretariat, 12,26
'new production of, 75 structure and management frame, 17-18
as object or process, 51 managerialization, 158
online systems, 53, 57 Mannheim, Karl, 70
politically contentious, 105-6 Mapping Sustainability initiative, 55
and power, 21, 30, 106, 113, 121, 196-7 March, J. G., 82
production, constructivist and positivist market
approaches to, 33 deregulation, 177
re-use, 119 economy, 147, 148
situated, 31 global, 176, 187
social knowledge, 20 global of ideas, 74
society, 173 for labour, 92, 168
sources, use of, 20 paradigm, 76, 155-60
system, 54-5, 57-8, 117-19, 127-34 and the techno-economy, 90
transfer, 61-2, 142-3 marketing of research projects, 143
and uncertainty, 113 Martin, L. L., 150
use of, 19 Martins, Maria Lucia Refinetti, 203-5
value of, 54, 55, 115-17 Mathus, Carlos, 193
Konrad Adenauer Foundation, 85 Maugis, Vincent, 52, 57-9
Mercado Común del Sur (MERCOSUR), 40,
L 75, 76, 77
labour standards, 41 Merlingen, M., 152
Landau, Loren, 48-50 Merton, R., 70
languages, trans-border, 44 migration, 24, 41, 77-84, 178
Lasswell, Harold, 56, 73, 121 in Africa, 47-50
Latin America inequality and exclusion, 185-6
new social complexity in, 181-8 and integration, 79-80
poverty production regimes in, 68-9 myth, rationality and, 48
trade policy in, 73-7 new scenario, 83-4
see also individual countries by name policies and research, 46-50, 77-84
Latour, Bruno, 71 push and pull factors in, 78
Lebrero, Carlos, 93-4 Milani, Carlos, 69-72
legislative research, 129 Ministers of Social Development, gatherings
libraries, digital, 59-61 of, 6
Limits to Growth, The, 196, 197 models
Limoges, C , 39, 75 agent-based, 132
Lindblom, C , 74 interactive, 81
Lisbon Declaration on Social Sciences, 207 of knowledge management, 51
of the politicians-experts relationship, 38
M of research use, 82-3
Mali modernity, theories of, 148
issues for, 44-5 modernization, 147-8
INDEX 243
Moreira, Antonio Claudio, 202-3 Parsons, Talcott, 147-8

Morin, Edgar, 194 participatory approaches, 31, 99-101
Muller, P., 63, 64 participatory action research, 101
multiculturalism, 185 Pécoud, A., 84
myths, creation and propagation of, 49-50 Peixoto, Juliana, 77
policy
N convergence, 148, 150
nation-states effective, 57-8
with artificial boundaries, 44 paradigms, 63
and definitions of community, 50 reasons for the under-scientization of, 37
loss of sovereignty with globalization, 174, policy-makers, three ways of describing
180 interest of, 70-1
Naustdalslid, Jon, 63, 79-83 policy research institutes, 86
Navez-Biouchanine, Françoise, 98-100 political science, 65
neoliberal politicians and experts, relations between, 38
economics, 40, 41, 65, 67, 75, 88, 154-6, 177 politics
governance, 71, 149, 154 and globalization, 179, 188
network(s) and knowledge, 116, 122, 125
definition, 119 politicization of knowledge, 56
e-networks, 116, 120-1 and power, 121-2
and globalization, 187 and science, ethics of, 38
society, 90-1, 177 see also cyberpolitics
theory, 55-6, 119 population
value of, 120 growth, need to stabilize, 46
North American Free Trade Agreement and migration, 24, 46-50
(NAFTA), 77 policies and research, 46-50
Norway, 77-8 poverty, 41
Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion, 78 fight against, 69-72
Norwegian National Commission for production, regimes of, 68-9
UNESCO, 77, 79 in West Africa, 44
Nowotny, H., 39, 75 see also inequality
power
O of capital and labour, 177
open access, 60 knowledge and, 53, 54, 107
directory of publications, 60 legitimized by knowledge, 21
Open Access for Developing Countries, 60 polycentrism of, 179-80
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and relations, Foucauldian conception of, 88,
Development (OECD), 87-90, 138, 147-65 151-2
levels of influence, 152-4 transformation of, 38
Programme for International Student pragmatic model, 38
Assessment (PISA), 159 privatization, 91-2, 154-6, 159, 177, 178, 197
Public Management Programme (PUMA), psychology, 51
158 public (general)
Regulatory Reform Programme, 158-9 as bearers of situated knowledge, 31, 97-8
research on impact of, 149-61 understanding of science, 36
role of, 148 see also civil society
organizational learning, 51
organizational theory, 51 Q
Overseas Development Institute, 86 quantitative and qualitative data, 21
Quiliconi, Cintia, 77
P
Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), 40 R
Pakistan, 77-8 race to the bottom, 41
paradigms, 21, 49, 53, 57, 62, 64-5, 69, 73-5, rationality, instrumental and substantive, 175
93, 106, 128, 150, 192 Rauber, Isabel, 101
Razavi, Shahra, 92-3 Sané, P., 45

reconciliation, role of experts in, 67-8 Santos, Milton, 193
référentiel, 63 Sào Paolo, 94-5
regional Schwartzman, S., 39, 75
bodies, emphases of, 41 science and technology studies (STS), 96
cooperation, 24 Scott, P., 39, 75
integration, social dimension of, 25, 39-43 search engines, 55, 119
integration, workshops on, 40 Sen, Amartya, 188
religion, 181 Simmons, B. A., 150
research Skweyiya, Zola, 22
access to published, 59-61 Smart, Pippa, 52, 59-61
accountability of uses, 105 social capital, 137-43
applied and basic, 19, 62 social exclusion, 41, 178, 182-7
conceptual uses, 63-84 complexity of, 184-5
and the 'development centre' model, 156 social movements, 174, 179
evaluation of, 143 social networks, 138-9, 141-2
needs, identification of, 62 social policies
paradigms for influence over policy, 73-4 social demand for regional, 41
reasons for commissioning, 37, 136-7 workshops on, 23-4
relevance of, 20 social protection issues, 41
strategic uses of, 82, 136 social science
usefulness, analysis of, 29 and analogies with natural sciences, 80-1
value-neutral and engaged, 30 importance of, 18
research-policy nexus 'in house', 100
current trends in linking, 61-2, 104-6 nature of, 6
four analytical levels, 69-70
in society, 30
four factors influencing, 49, 86
two kinds of, 99
instrumental approaches to, 35-7, 64
wider ways of seeing and dealing with, 30
mapping of approaches to, 26-34, 103,
Social Sciences and Humanities Research
105-7
Council (Canada) (SSHRC), 22
MOST s contribution to, 5, 19
social transformations, management of, 52, 53,
practical nature of, 28, 103
127-34
purposes of enhancing, 21
social values, 52
rationalistic and constructivist approaches,
sociology, 65
104-6
Socrates, Jodete Rios, 202
reflection on, 19-21
Somavia, Juan, 168
role of civil society, 38
South Africa
supply and demand in, 36
'Department of Social Development, 46, 47
theoretical and methodological framework
Human Sciences Research Council, 47
for, 107
researchers meetings in, 6
as agents of change, 72 migration, displacement and
see also experts, think-tanks, universities humanitarianism in, 48-9
resource steering vs market steering, 154-6, South African Development Community
161 (SADC), 6, 41
rights Stiglitz, Joseph, 127
articulation mechanisms, 40 supply chain, 117
see also human rights sustainable development, 53, 55, 115, 118, 122,
Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit, 193, 197 125-6
Rodgers, Gerry, 91 ontology of sustainability, 55
Roseto, 137 Swedish International Development
Cooperation Agency Department fo
S Research Cooperation (SIDA-SAREC), 24,
Sabatier, P., 63 91
San Sebastián, Alvaro, 101 Syed, Sabiha H., 78
INDEX 245
role in urban-environmental management,

T 92-6,199-206
Tanaka, Marta Soban, 202
Taylor, Viviene, 41 University of Buenos Aires, 92-3
techno-economy, the, 90, 174-5 University of Ottawa, 138
technocratic model, 38 University of Sâo Paolo, 95, 199
terrorism, 180 urban policies and management, 25, 92-101,
think-tanks, 21, 33, 75, 76, 85-7, 138 191-8, 199-206
Threlfall, Monica, 41 Urzúa, Raúl, 64-5
Torre, Blanca, 77
Touraine, A., 175 V
trade policy, 73-7, 171 value(s)
transitional justice, 67
concept of, 115
Trow, M., 39, 75
core social, 52, 56, 111, 121, 124, 186, 188,
Tussie, Diana, 76
192, 208
u of knowledge/knowledge systems, 54-5,
Uña, G., 87 111-16,118-19
United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), 22 and migration, 50
United Nations Convention on the Rights of of networks, 120
the Child (UNCRC), 65 neutrality, 30
United Nations Department of Economic and
new social, 53, 67
Social Affairs (UNDESA), 22
of researchers and policy actors, 32, 105
United Nations Department of Social Policy
and Development, 42 universal, 17
United Nations Development Programme van Kemenade, Solange, 61-2
(UNDP), 22, 90 Ventura, Daisy, 76
Human Development Reports, 90, 177-8 Verschuur, Christine, 101
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Vienna Declaration on Social Sciences, 207
Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 42, 208
main functions, 17 w
Medium-Term Strategy 2008-2013, 18 Wallerstein, I., 176n24
Social and Human Sciences Online water management, 200-3
Periodicals Index, 60 Weber, Max, 38, 88
Social and Human Sciences (SHS) Sector,
Weiss, C , 63
17,22,83
welfare policies, 150,154-6, 178
see also Management of Social
Transformations (MOST) Programme women's movements, 44
United Nations Fourth World Conference on world system, 176n24
Women, 92 World Bank, 22, 74, 75, 138, 178n26
United Nations International Conference on World Commission on the Social Dimension
Population and Development (ICPD), 46 of Globalization, 90, 91, 167-71, 207
United Nations Millennium Declaration/ World Conference on Science, 207
Development Goals, 207, 208 World Economic Forum, 91, 167-8
United Nations Research Institute for Social
World Health Organization (WHO), 42
Development (UNRISD), 22, 42, 91
World Social Forum, 91,167-8
United Nations Security Council, 124
United Nations University - Comparative World Summit on Social Development, 207
Regional Integration Studies (UNU-CRIS), World Trade Organization (WTO), 76
22,42
United States of America Y
power of, 185 Yeates, Nicola, 40
research in, 137 young people, policies for, 61, 65-6, 143
universities
in the Alliance for Global Sustainability, 118 z
current transformations of role, 33, 45 Zeiger, Joseph, 52

Mapping The Research-Policy Matrix PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Mapping The Research-Policy Matrix PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

UNESCO

Edited by German SoHnis

Cover design: Pierre Finot

Edited by Germán Sol in is and Nicolas Baya-Laffite

Management of Social Transformations Programme

Research & Policy Series

Alicia Kirchner, President of the MOST Intergovernmental Council,

Nazli Choucri, President of the MOST Scientific Advisory Committee,

Elizabeth Longworth, Director of the Division of Social Sciences Research

Zdenka Mansfeldová, MOST Scientific Advisory Committee,

Virginia A. Miralao, Rapporteur MOST/IGC,

Charly Gabriel Mbock, MOST Scientific Advisory Committee,

Luc van Langenhove, MOST Scientific Advisory Committee,

Masanori Naito, MOST Scientific Advisory Committee,

Tuomo Melasuo, Vice-President of the MOST Intergovernmental Council,

The world we face today is characterized by ever-increasing complexity and

The International Forum on the Social Science-Policy Nexus (IFSP),

intellectual accomplishment. The authors have not only successfully captured

PART I: FRAMING THE LINKS

Chapter 1 : Instrumental approaches to the links

Chapter 2: Focusing on the conceptual uses of research

Chapter 3: Focusing on specific actors shaping the nexus

PART II: COLLECTED DOCUMENTS

A knowledge system for managing social transformations

Research and policy-making in the field of health

The governmentality of consultancy and competition:

Globalization and the new social conditions

The knowledge commitment and city management 191

Metropolitan environmental management

APPENDIX I: BUENOS AIRES DECLARATION

APPENDIX II: LIST OF SELECTED IFSP

Abbreviations and acronyms 217

Notes on the editors and contributors 221

Organizing the first International Forum on the Social Science-Policy Nexus

MOST Programme Secretariat and presented for discussion, examination

then Assistant Director-General of UNESCO's Social and Human Sciences

FRAMING THE LINKS:

Nicolas Baya-Laffite and Georgios Papanagnou

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

• shaping (capacity-building and policy advice), and

Priority will be assigned, in the framework of the MOST Programme, to

Hence, the primary purpose of the MOST Programme is to transfer relevant

and practice in the fields of poverty eradication, migration, gender equality

THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL REFLECTION

connected with the 'social uses of social sciences'. Furthermore, it should

The presence of policy-makers, researchers and NGO members of non-

In general, it is a matter of fact that the relationship between research and

THE INTERNATIONAL FORUM ON THE SOCIAL

global issues and dynamics

The twenty-seven workshops on 'Global issues and dynamics' held in Buenos

Globalization is a fact in today's world. However, the dynamics ofglobalization

International migration and changing population patterns have become major

The fourteen workshops on 'Urban policies and decentralization' organized

In recent years, regional integration schemes of various kinds have been

MAPPING THE ANALYTICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL

• gathering an IFSP critical mass on research-policy links

Methodology and research questions

• identifying the most relevant workshops with a view to exploring their

• population and migration: two out offifteenworkshops and one written

Of the institutions and actors identified, approximately one-third belong

Following suggestions made by some workshops, the third set of

of accountable policies in democratic societies. Indeed, the focus on issues

BOX 1. Exploring the IFSP workshops' understanding of the social