7.5 The Guideline Documents and Working for Discourses of Social Investment
103
In the above excerpt, mandatory community financial contributions are imposed
on communities who are the recipients of social projects. The Community-Driven
document’s use of working for discourses articulates expectation that communities contribute to social investment and therefore aid their government in delivering/managing its social agenda. The following World Bank Group CommunityDriven Development Principles excerpt illustrates how community contributions are
expected to foster or fund social investment and reduce government expenditure
in delivering social services: “Contributions from beneficiaries [communities] and
local actors toward initial start-up costs and the recurrent operation and maintenance
(O&M) costs of services can help reduce the burden on scarce public resources and
improve sustainability of service” (WBG, 2002, p. 319). In working for discourses,
social investment represented companies’ compulsory social investments to assist
the government to deliver social goods in order to meet its development agenda. The
Community-Driven Development Principles has introduced another facet of working
for discourses. In this alternative construction of working for discourses, communities, not companies, were the ones compulsorily responsible to financially contribute
social investments in order to assist governments to deliver their social development
agenda. However, ultimately, communities might not have the financial resources to
be an equal partner in this equation.
7.6 Summary
The four discourses of O&G social investment that emerged in my research interviews also appeared in the IFC Performance Standards and the World Bank Group
Community-Driven Development Principles. In my analysis, I have demonstrated
how working with, working on, working around and working for discourses of social
investment were operating in the guidelines’ statements, descriptions, principles and
recommendations. Participants’ discussion of the complexity of social investment,
seem to reflect the guideline documents’ complex and contradictory deployment of
the four discourses of social investment, as Fig. 7.1 illustrates.
Most of the participants preferred two of the World Bank’s general investment
guideline documents over other O&G social investment documents, which suggests
that the World Bank’s agenda has had a direct impact on O&G social investment. The
participants’ use of conflicting and multiple discourses of social investment likely
reflects contradictions in the guideline documents, again indicating the complex
realities within which they work.
O&G personnel are influenced by many different agendas from community
groups, the O&G industry, and national and local governments. Asymmetric, contradictory and multi-levelled power relations reflect an unbalanced distribution of rights
and duties among governments, companies, guideline agencies and communities
(Cameron, 2001; Foucault, 1970, 1980, 1982). On the other hand, social investment
personnel can still be agentic and construct social investment outside these dominant
discourses despite how they are positioned by companies and official guidelines.
103
In the above excerpt, mandatory community financial contributions are imposed
on communities who are the recipients of social projects. The Community-Driven
document’s use of working for discourses articulates expectation that communities contribute to social investment and therefore aid their government in delivering/managing its social agenda. The following World Bank Group CommunityDriven Development Principles excerpt illustrates how community contributions are
expected to foster or fund social investment and reduce government expenditure
in delivering social services: “Contributions from beneficiaries [communities] and
local actors toward initial start-up costs and the recurrent operation and maintenance
(O&M) costs of services can help reduce the burden on scarce public resources and
improve sustainability of service” (WBG, 2002, p. 319). In working for discourses,
social investment represented companies’ compulsory social investments to assist
the government to deliver social goods in order to meet its development agenda. The
Community-Driven Development Principles has introduced another facet of working
for discourses. In this alternative construction of working for discourses, communities, not companies, were the ones compulsorily responsible to financially contribute
social investments in order to assist governments to deliver their social development
agenda. However, ultimately, communities might not have the financial resources to
be an equal partner in this equation.
7.6 Summary
The four discourses of O&G social investment that emerged in my research interviews also appeared in the IFC Performance Standards and the World Bank Group
Community-Driven Development Principles. In my analysis, I have demonstrated
how working with, working on, working around and working for discourses of social
investment were operating in the guidelines’ statements, descriptions, principles and
recommendations. Participants’ discussion of the complexity of social investment,
seem to reflect the guideline documents’ complex and contradictory deployment of
the four discourses of social investment, as Fig. 7.1 illustrates.
Most of the participants preferred two of the World Bank’s general investment
guideline documents over other O&G social investment documents, which suggests
that the World Bank’s agenda has had a direct impact on O&G social investment. The
participants’ use of conflicting and multiple discourses of social investment likely
reflects contradictions in the guideline documents, again indicating the complex
realities within which they work.
O&G personnel are influenced by many different agendas from community
groups, the O&G industry, and national and local governments. Asymmetric, contradictory and multi-levelled power relations reflect an unbalanced distribution of rights
and duties among governments, companies, guideline agencies and communities
(Cameron, 2001; Foucault, 1970, 1980, 1982). On the other hand, social investment
personnel can still be agentic and construct social investment outside these dominant
discourses despite how they are positioned by companies and official guidelines.