Abstract
•Negative, militarized definitions of peace based on the absence of violent conflict fail to acknowledge the links between the absence of positive peace and grievances, discrimination, unfairness and inequality, as well as the breath of governmental and non-governmental sectors and actors involved in building resilient, sustainable, positive peace. This article emphasises the central role social policy can build in fostering positive peace in the MENA region, while simultaneously contextualizing and questioning the role of the state in this process.•Social policy faces increasingly complex risk landscapes. Social vulnerabilities and structural inequalities, compounding with climate change and state fragility require a redefinition of risk itself, as well as of social protection mechanisms and an integration of compound risk analyses of social grievances into social policy designs that foster positive peace.•There is some reliable evidence showing that income redistribution and provision of social services by the state and civil society can reduce the risk of social unrest and contribute to positive peace. However, further research is needed to show the impact of social policies in creating conditions conducive to peace, countering inequality, and lowering reasons for political tensions and social unrest, as well as on how the modality and timing of interventions interact with socio-economic drivers of conflict.•Social policy interventions can play repressive and progressive roles in relation to peace since welfare services can be politicised by powerful state and non-state actors to pacify discontented populations or to exclude marginalised groups. The new wave of decolonisation and social justice-oriented peace research decries the political role of the state in peacebuilding as potentially elitist and exclusionary in MENA countries (part of the liberal peace model which underpins decades of welfare retrenchment in the Global South). These trends contradict the increased emphasis by scholars and policy makers on the social role of the state in public services and redistribution, particularly in the context of fostering positive peace. They also strengthen the argument for peace landscapes including a wider breadth of governance and social actors.•In the MENA region, ideological cleavages and international military interventions pose additional complications for the role of social policy interventions and resource redistribution in supporting peacebuilding, which is why a focus on social service provision can promote positive peace better if it is embedded in relationships and institutions which enhance social solidarity and social citizenship (rather than political hegemony).
This article critically examines of the current state of knowledge on the conceptual and operational intersections between social policy and peace using a comprehensive desk-based review of the literature in the MENA region. Situating itself within the conceptual framework of positive peace, the paper critically assesses the role of social policy in a diversifying landscape of compounding risks, exacerbated by global climate change, environmental degradation, structural inequality, and state fragility, which negatively affect peace.
Advocating for a broader and more critical perspective on the role of social policy in relation to peace building, the paper highlights the intrinsic value of social policy as a comprehensive framework for action − as opposed to the current emphasis in the peace literature on disparate elements of social policy: “welfare”, “protection”, “service delivery” (Richmond, 2011; Mcloughlin, 2018; Furness and Trautner, 2020; UN and World Bank, 2018). Such a framework can lead to more nuanced and contextual analysis of social policy solutions that address structural inequalities, encompass the notion of compound risk, and foster positive peace. At the same time, the paper addresses the mixed record of social policy in relation to processes and indicators of war and peace: social policy practice in MENA (as elsewhere in the world) can act as a positive peace-sensitive tool, but also be used to maintain law and order, sometimes reflecting a form of “hegemonic pacification”. These negative forms of peace (social control or political co-option) raise further questions about the nature of peace, and the extent to which social policy can support better governance of and pathways to peace (Chandler, 2016; Skocpol, 1992). In addition, the complex ideological nature of violent conflict, particularly in MENA, adds further layers of complexity. Our key argument is that despite these limitations, greater scope should be accorded to social policy as a critical contributor to shaping social conditions that foster positive peace. Beyond that, we recognise the need for greater interactions and dialogue between advocates of both security and social pathways to peace. Conclusions include suggestions for future research: a) greater focus on what types of social policy interventions work at key points in time and in what kinds of conflict situations, b) better understanding of the dynamics of peace-sensitive social policy indicators discussed in this paper.