7.4 The Guideline Documents and Working Around Discourses of Social Investment
101
act ethically and avoid generating any harmful impacts (Blowfield & Frynas, 2005;
Crush, 1995; Gibson-Graham, 2003, 2006).
Capitalist assumptions and values, when taken for granted as universal laws,
can compromise the well-being of local communities and the natural environment
(Blowfield & Frynas, 2005; Crush, 1995; Gibson-Graham, 2003, 2006). One takenfor-granted neoliberal assumption is that capacity building types of social investment enhance a community’s well-being. According to my participants, capacity
building programmes represented the most widely adopted form of social investment (I discuss this further in Chapter 8). Capacity building social investment is also
highly recommended by the World Bank Group Community-Driven Principles:
Invest in capacity building at local and municipal government levels. To support CDD
[Community-Driven Development] effectively on a large scale, local governments need to
have access to qualified personnel and to finance, planning and monitoring systems. Capacity
can be built internally or it can be accessed via partnerships and contracting arrangements
with private sector firms or NGOs capable of supporting local and municipal governments.
(WBG, 2002, p. 312)
Key to this growth is a demand for their [communities’] services, at sufficiently attractive
terms, over several years. Capacity building and training support are important, but more
important is the power of market demand in inducing social entrepreneurs to create support
organizations. (WBG, 2002, p. 312)
The taken-for-granted understanding that capacity building inherently benefits the
host community derives from a neoliberal perspective (Crush, 1995; Gibson-Graham,
2003, 2006). Training the host community to be employed in O&G activities serves
the dual purpose of benefiting the company while appearing to provide ‘opportunities’
to local communities. On the other hand, it may also generate ideological conflicts that
cannot always be anticipated. For example, indigenous societies whose traditional
politics are not based on market relations may not benefit from such an approach
(Ellwood, 1989; Jessop, 2002a, 2002b; Murray, 2008; Torfing, 1999).
The understanding that communities and companies have to liaise with each other
in order to create job opportunities—and foster development—also fosters a shift
of responsibility for creating jobs from the government to O&G companies and
communities. Such a shift of responsibility can be seen in two ways; first it shifts
responsibility from the State onto the company, and second, it shifts responsibility
from the State to communities. As noted, O&G social investment may harm society
if it is presented as an alternative to government, as it shifts the role of the government
from being an active to a passive provider of social welfare (see Blowfield & Frynas,
2005). In this sense, the Community-Driven document may be incentivising a shift
of responsibilities that, according to the literature on O&G social investment, may
not be beneficial for communities in the long run.
On other hand, paradoxically, the Community-Driven document also stresses the
role of the government in social investment programmes: “not all goods and services
are best managed through collective actions at the community level. Public goods
that span many communities or that require a large, complex system are often better
provided by local or central government” (WBG, 2002, p. 304). In this segment,
the Community-Driven Principles recognise the central role of the government in
101
act ethically and avoid generating any harmful impacts (Blowfield & Frynas, 2005;
Crush, 1995; Gibson-Graham, 2003, 2006).
Capitalist assumptions and values, when taken for granted as universal laws,
can compromise the well-being of local communities and the natural environment
(Blowfield & Frynas, 2005; Crush, 1995; Gibson-Graham, 2003, 2006). One takenfor-granted neoliberal assumption is that capacity building types of social investment enhance a community’s well-being. According to my participants, capacity
building programmes represented the most widely adopted form of social investment (I discuss this further in Chapter 8). Capacity building social investment is also
highly recommended by the World Bank Group Community-Driven Principles:
Invest in capacity building at local and municipal government levels. To support CDD
[Community-Driven Development] effectively on a large scale, local governments need to
have access to qualified personnel and to finance, planning and monitoring systems. Capacity
can be built internally or it can be accessed via partnerships and contracting arrangements
with private sector firms or NGOs capable of supporting local and municipal governments.
(WBG, 2002, p. 312)
Key to this growth is a demand for their [communities’] services, at sufficiently attractive
terms, over several years. Capacity building and training support are important, but more
important is the power of market demand in inducing social entrepreneurs to create support
organizations. (WBG, 2002, p. 312)
The taken-for-granted understanding that capacity building inherently benefits the
host community derives from a neoliberal perspective (Crush, 1995; Gibson-Graham,
2003, 2006). Training the host community to be employed in O&G activities serves
the dual purpose of benefiting the company while appearing to provide ‘opportunities’
to local communities. On the other hand, it may also generate ideological conflicts that
cannot always be anticipated. For example, indigenous societies whose traditional
politics are not based on market relations may not benefit from such an approach
(Ellwood, 1989; Jessop, 2002a, 2002b; Murray, 2008; Torfing, 1999).
The understanding that communities and companies have to liaise with each other
in order to create job opportunities—and foster development—also fosters a shift
of responsibility for creating jobs from the government to O&G companies and
communities. Such a shift of responsibility can be seen in two ways; first it shifts
responsibility from the State onto the company, and second, it shifts responsibility
from the State to communities. As noted, O&G social investment may harm society
if it is presented as an alternative to government, as it shifts the role of the government
from being an active to a passive provider of social welfare (see Blowfield & Frynas,
2005). In this sense, the Community-Driven document may be incentivising a shift
of responsibilities that, according to the literature on O&G social investment, may
not be beneficial for communities in the long run.
On other hand, paradoxically, the Community-Driven document also stresses the
role of the government in social investment programmes: “not all goods and services
are best managed through collective actions at the community level. Public goods
that span many communities or that require a large, complex system are often better
provided by local or central government” (WBG, 2002, p. 304). In this segment,
the Community-Driven Principles recognise the central role of the government in