National Progress Achieved in the Social Development Agenda: Part 1

Social Policy Section
Social Development Division, United Nations ESCAP

Review of National Progress Achieved in the Implementation of

the Agenda for Action on Social Development in the ESCAP

Region, in the Context of the Programme of Action

of the World Summit for Social Development

MEETING PAPER NO 2, PART 1 OF 3:
INTRODUCTION AND STRATEGIES TAKEN IN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGENDA FOR ACTION

INTRODUCTION

A. Background

In its resolution 51/4 of 1 May 1995, the Commission endorsed the Agenda for Action on Social Development in the ESCAP Region adopted by the Asian and Pacific Ministerial Conference in Preparation for the World Summit for Social Development, held in October 1994. By that resolution, the Commission urged member and associate member governments to take early and effective action to implement the Agenda for Action, with specific reference to the goals and targets set therein. The resolution also called on the Executive Secretary to convene, on a biennial basis, a meeting at a high political level to review progress in implementing the Agenda for Action, as a follow-up to the World Summit for Social Development, held at Copenhagen in March 1995.

To facilitate the review, the present note reports on the progress made at the national level in implementation of the Agenda for Action in the context of the Programme of Action adopted at the World Summit for Social Development. This report is based on the results of a questionnaire survey mailed to members and associate members, and supplemented by the papers prepared for the Expert Group Meeting on the Enhancement of Social Security for the Poor, held in November 1995, the Regional Workshop on Guidelines for Implementation of the Agenda for Action on Social Development in the ESCAP Region, held in March 1996, and the Expert Group Meeting on Implementation of the Agenda for Action on Social Development in the ESCAP Region, held in June 1997.

B. Major features of the Agenda for Action on Social Development in the ESCAP Region

The Agenda for Action establishes specific, time-bound social development goals and targets for the ESCAP region and also identifies the means whereby governments can achieve these ends. The three core goals addressed by the Agenda are poverty alleviation, employment expansion and social integration. Their relative significance varies according to the development situation and prospects of each country.

In adopting the Agenda for Action, governments pledged themselves to set their own social development goals and targets within the framework of those contained in the Agenda. The governments recognized that the objective of social development in the region can be fully achieved in a context that ensures international peace and domestic social harmony, the observance of human rights along with civic responsibilities, governance for promoting social development, sustained and equitable development and the creation of a favourable international economic environment.

The enabling context is nurtured in an environment of peace through the reduction of tensions and greater interdependence of economic and social activities for mutual support in the interest of the well-being and dignity of humanity; social harmony through continuing efforts to reduce geographic, sectoral, gender, ethnic and other inequities in resources distribution, employment opportunities and other benefits of development; good governance ensuring the reliability and integrity of the administrative, legislative and judiciary branches, and devolution of responsibility and authority; and sustained and equitable development.

The reduction and elimination of widespread poverty, the expansion of productive employment and the enhancement of social integration require that economic growth measures embrace the social dimension. The international economic environment should afford sufficient opportunity to facilitate integrated economic growth and social development. Forging genuine international economic cooperation and solidarity in removing disparities among countries calls for multilateral commitment to improve the social situation of the population.

In adopting the Agenda for Action, governments arrived at a consensus for action on the region's critical social issues and an appreciation that appropriate programmes on those social issues would address problems faced by specific social groups such as the disadvantaged and the marginalized. Action is called for to address the region's major social issues identified in the Agenda. These major issues are population, health, education, employment, shelter, environment, disasters, crime, social protection and the family.

Furthermore, the governments in the region established their commitment (a) to review the goals and targets specified in earlier regional and international instruments and, accordingly, to adapt them to the regional, subregional and national circumstances; (b) to set goals and targets for critical social concerns where they have not been identified earlier; and (c) to introduce specific measures to address the region's pressing social issues, with particular reference to the disadvantaged and vulnerable groups. The consensus on the goals and targets was based on earlier global and regional agreements in various sectors such as those derived from the International Conference on Primary Health Care, regional and global conferences on population and development, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, the World Summit for Children, and regional and world conferences on education for all and on women.

In addition to the above regional consensus, the governments also proposed the following means which governments, within their differing national circumstances, would apply towards achieving these goals and targets and strengthening their strategies and mechanisms for the planning and implementation of social development programmes:

(a) Planning and target-setting, giving priority to the improvement of the quality of life of the poor and other disadvantaged and vulnerable social groups;

(b) Mobilization of enablers through intersectoral consultation, collaboration and coordination among the various agencies involved in social development;

(c) Financing social development through new and innovative resources mobilization strategies, drawing upon various sources such as private business, financial institutions, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), local governments and communities;

(d) Upgrading of national personnel engaged in the planning and implementation of social development programmes;

(e) Support at the subregional, regional and international levels.

The above areas provide the overall framework for the assessment of national and regional action taken towards the implementation of the Agenda for Action, and achieving the goals and targets enunciated in the social development plans of countries and areas in the ESCAP region.

C. Questionnaire survey

A questionnaire was prepared by the secretariat to ascertain the actions that had been taken by ESCAP members and associate members to implement the Agenda for Action and achieve the social development goals and targets specified therein. The questionnaire covered the areas of overall national policy and planning, institutional and legislative framework, targeting and target setting, training, monitoring and evaluation, resources mobilization and regional support.

The questionnaire was sent to all ESCAP members and associate members in March 1997. Responses were received from 20 members and two associate members: Bangladesh, China, Fiji, Hong Kong China, Indonesia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Japan, Malaysia, Marshall Islands, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Niue, Palau, Philippines, Samoa, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu and Viet Nam. Among these, a few did not complete all sections of the questionnaire; some sent a situation report on general aspects of social development in the country.

The results of the survey and findings from the supplementary reports (see above) are presented below.

I. STRATEGIES TAKEN IN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGENDA FOR ACTION

A. Incorporation of social development goals and targets in overall policy and planning

Almost all respondents reported having taken steps towards incorporating the social development goals and targets in their current overall national development plans and policy documents. Some countries have formulated comprehensive social development programmes. For example, China has formulated the national programme for social development which parallels its long-term planning for economic development. Viet Nam has developed a comprehensive programme on social development. It has revised existing legislation and policies based on the 1991 "Strategy for socio-economic stabilization and development by the year 2000". Fiji and Niue have expressed the intention of their respective governments to reflect such initiatives in subsequent national development plans.

The core issues of poverty alleviation, employment expansion and social integration were addressed in various ways by the respondents. Poverty alleviation plans and programmes have been or are being incorporated into specific policy and planning documents. These include, for example, Bangladesh's pro-poor plan in the fifth five-year plan (1997-2002), China's eighth seven-year poverty reduction plan, Maldives' poverty alleviation programme, Mongolia's national poverty alleviation programme, the seventh Malaysia Plan (1996-2000), and the Social Reform Agenda of the Philippines. In Nepal, poverty alleviation will be a single goal in its upcoming ninth five-year plan.

Most countries and areas reported the implementation of new national programmes or plans of action with regard to employment expansion. For example, Nepal and the Philippines reported the formulation of an employment strategy programme; Fiji, an employment taxation scheme for first- time job-seekers; Thailand, its skills development funds. Others reported the strengthening of social safety nets (Bangladesh); re-employment programmes (China); promotion of labour migration (Sri Lanka); apprenticeship and technical and vocational training (Palau, Sri Lanka); and diversification of economic activities through agro-processing and light industries (Samoa).

The responses on new programme initiatives for social integration focused mainly on the need for the protection, welfare and enhanced participation of target groups such as youth, women and children, persons with disabilities, ethnic groups and marginalized communities. For example, China reported the formulation of the ninth five-year plan for disabled persons; Fiji, a national implementation plan of action for women; and the Philippines, a comprehensive programme for indigenous peoples. A few countries did not report any new programmes or plans of action for achieving social integration.

Only a few countries reported the conducting of specific studies or research aimed at examining the social impact of major development programmes. For example, China has prepared a national study on sustainable development, Fiji and Mongolia have undertaken a study on poverty and the Philippines a study on the micro-impact of macroeconomic adjustment. Samoa indicated that social impact assessments had been instituted in most of their development projects. Systematic research plans to support social policy development and implementation were reported by seven countries (China, Indonesia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Malaysia, Philippines, Uzbekistan and Viet Nam).

Non-governmental organizations have been involved to varying extents in policy planning and programming. Almost all countries and areas reported that NGOs and the academe were most often involved in formulating and implementing social development policies or programmes. With lesser frequency, self-help groups, the general public and private business were sometimes involved. Eight of the 21 respondents reported that they had involved the general public in policy formulation. NGOs, self-help groups and the academe are mostly represented in planning and advisory committees. The latter are also involved in conducting research and studies, while private business collaborated in service provision.

B. Institutional and legislative framework

(a) National focal body

The Agenda states that appropriate institutional arrangements should be put in place for effective planning, implementation and monitoring. The need for a national coordination body at the highest level of government to focus commitment, manage intersectoral programmes and link government and other agencies, including NGOs, community groups and industry, is underscored.

Almost all countries reported that a national intersectoral coordinating body has been or is being established or designated to provide leadership in the implementation of the Agenda for Action. In some countries, the focal point has been located at the multisectoral national planning office (Bangladesh, China, Fiji, Maldives, Nepal, Philippines, Samoa, Vanuatu and Viet Nam). In others, a specific sectoral ministry has been designated to head the multisectoral or intersectoral committee. Examples are the Ministry of Social Welfare, Relief and Settlement in Myanmar; the Ministry of Health, Highways and Social Services in Sri Lanka; the Ministry of National Unity and Social Development in Malaysia; and the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare in Mongolia. In China, a unified interdepartmental coordinating agency has been established to provide guidelines on social development activities with the State Planning Commission as the central agency for coordination and liaison in related matters.

These national focal points have multiple roles. Most promote networking and coordination among social development partners, advocacy on social policies and programmes, and consultation on the implementation of social development plans. Some are able to influence the government's budgetary allocation process and support evaluation of social initiatives.

Collaboration between central and local governments and NGOs has been forged to strengthen initiatives at the local level. For example, in China, the National Association for Social Development was founded to work closely with NGOs on social development matters. In the Philippines, the Social Development Committee, which is a multi-agency and multisectoral body, oversees the implementation of the Agenda for Action. In Thailand, the National Economic and Social Development Board is the focal point for the implementation of social development programmes.

Most countries have adopted a policy of decentralization of social development functions. The extent and nature of functions devolved range from local area planning and programme implementation to funding and personnel and resource mobilization. For example, China, Fiji, Maldives, Philippines, Samoa, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Vanuatu and Viet Nam report substantive devolution in all the above aspects in their social programmes. Support has been given to local governments mostly in health, education, shelter, employment and poverty alleviation programmes. Respondents also identified those sectoral concerns as areas where local-level capacity for planning and implementation of programmes had been clearly demonstrated.

Interaction of the national and subnational entities has occurred in a variety of ways. In Hong Kong China, public consultations have been held on social issues. In Malaysia, dialogues are held by agencies at the state and federal levels. In Mongolia, local committees incorporate national development programmes in their general plans. In Viet Nam, the Planning Ministry guides subnational authorities in the planning and development of programmes. In Vanuatu, a planner from the National Planning Office is responsible for implementation of development programmes at the provincial level. Specific local bodies have also been identified as the subnational focal point for the implementation of programmes.

(b) Non-governmental organizations

To enlist the participation of NGOs in the implementation of the Agenda for Action, most respondents mentioned including NGOs in the plan formulation process at both the national and the subnational levels and as members in the national coordinating body and other intersectoral mechanisms. Others mentioned conducting regional dialogues with NGOs, channelling overseas development assistance to NGO programmes and providing incentive schemes for programmes in the implementation of the Agenda. Eleven respondents mentioned instituting guidelines on government-NGO collaboration in recognition of the complementary role of NGOs.

The participation of civil society and the business sector is considered important in the attainment of the goals and targets of the Agenda for Action. Such involvement is enhanced through public forums or debates on key social development goals and major concerns (13 respondents), translation of the Agenda into the local language (4 respondents: Bangladesh, Indonesia, Niue and Thailand), use of the mass media and campaigns (14 respondents) and dissemination of information on the Agenda to the bureaucracy (11) and the general public (9). The Government of Thailand has established a joint committee on public and private coordination on social development which involves ministries and NGOs. The National Committee on Social Welfare is assisted by NGOs in addressing the needs of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups.

It is clear that various institutional arrangements have been initiated for the promotion of concerted and coordinated action within many countries and areas in the implementation of the Agenda. Apart from the role of the sectoral ministries and departments, these arrangements have included establishing mutisectoral coordinating bodies and advisory boards and designating focal points. Governments have also made efforts to mobilize the role and participation of local government units, NGOs, the corporate sector and other members of civil society in invigorating social development and progress.

Country initiatives remain largely sectoral and programmes are developed and implemented by concerned ministries with minimum coordination and integration. Few have made systematic efforts to consolidate inputs towards the attainment of the desired goals. It would be useful to assess the effectiveness of the decentralized structures in promoting social development.

The smooth implementation of the Agenda for Action requires an appropriate administrative and legislative framework supported by creditable, equitable and effective representative government and a judicious administration. Openness, accountability and transparent decision-making are important features of the legislative and institutional framework for programme implementation. Many respondents indicated that the following five key major areas of concern were most in need of reinforcement in legislative and regulatory actions: social protection, health, education, environment and employment. The issues of population and the family were mentioned by nine respondents.

C. Targeting and target setting

The social development goals and targets determined by each nation should be congruent with the Agenda for Action and reflected in national development policies and plans. The international agreements relating to specific social groups and social development issues should be incorporated, as appropriate, in these plans. A convergence exists in terms of the principles, aims and objectives of these various international instruments.

In the formulation and implementation of the national programmes in the context of the Agenda for Action, a multisectoral, integrated approach is relevant. This is particularly so in addressing the concerns of disadvantaged and vulnerable groups such as women, children, youth, the elderly and disabled persons. Given the multifarious demands and the resource constraints, governments are not able to implement simultaneously all the action plans and need to prioritize and target their interventions.

Various activities have been implemented by the governments to improve the target setting process. Almost all governments identified the priority issues as poverty alleviation and employment expansion. Population, health and education concerns were also identified; a few countries and areas indicated shelter, child protection, services for the elderly and social integration. Few countries mentioned social integration, specifically the creation of an enabling environment for all social groups to attain equality in opportunities and access to services as a priority with definite targets.

Differences in the identification of the target groups were noted. Most respondents mentioned the poor, women, unemployed youth, ethnic minorities, and abused and destitute children. Others such as China, Fiji, Myanmar, Nepal and Viet Nam also delineated the targets geographically, for example, the border areas in Myanmar and the mountainous region in Viet Nam. In Mongolia, programme priority is given to the population considered below the poverty line.

To improve the targeting process, most respondents reported the use of surveys and collection of data disaggregated by gender, ethnic group, poverty level and age. Consultations were also held with various ministries, data producers and agencies. The establishment of a social development information system was reported by Bangladesh, Fiji, Hong Kong China, Malaysia, Niue, the Philippines and Viet Nam. However, these systems vary in scope and coverage. The mechanism for ongoing exchanges and dialogues and the extent of data utilization were not clear.

Respondents listed different indicators to reflect progress in meeting the major goals and targets. With regard to poverty alleviation, a range of variables was mentioned, including access to health, education and other basic services (Bangladesh, Philippines, Samoa, Vanuatu), income distribution, informal sector participation and rural development (Thailand); poverty incidence (Fiji, Malaysia, Nepal, Philippines, Sri Lanka) and calorie intake and malnutrition (Bangladesh, Nepal, Samoa). The employment rate was used most frequently as an indicator relating to employment expansion. Only eight respondents mentioned using indicators for assessing social integration. These indicators included the distribution of assets and access to services (Bangladesh, Samoa), the status of women and children, including violence against women, the percentage of participation in economic and political processes at national and local levels, and children displaced by armed conflicts (Bangladesh, Mongolia, Nepal, Philippines, Samoa, Sri Lanka). Also mentioned as indicators were the budget allocation for social integration (Mongolia), the rehabilitation rate among disabled persons and the participation of youth in the political process (Sri Lanka). The incidence of drug and substance abuse (Philippines), the number of HIV/AIDS cases and other socially disadvantaged groups (Thailand), and the life expectancy of ethnic minorities (Viet Nam) were also listed.

Specific sectoral plans with at least some corresponding targets relating to the major social concern areas, especially health and education, have been formulated by most governments. Targets in employment creation, population and environment-related plans were also mentioned. Disaster management plans were mentioned by countries that have experienced typhoons, flooding and earthquakes such as Fiji, Mongolia, Nepal, Niue, the Philippines and Samoa. Crime prevention and family welfare plans were mentioned only by Hong Kong China, Malaysia, Mongolia and Thailand.

Many considered that targets for poverty alleviation and employment generation were most difficult to attain (China, Fiji, Nepal, Samoa, Sri Lanka and Viet Nam). Others mentioned control of HIV/AIDS (Philippines, Thailand), reduction of malnutrition (Philippines, Viet Nam) and targets in education and literacy (Bangladesh, Nepal, Philippines, Viet Nam). The following targets were considered most difficult to achieve: population (Bangladesh; repopulation for Niue, Samoa, Viet Nam), disaster management (Islamic Republic of Iran, Niue), crime (Fiji, Samoa, Sri Lanka), shelter (China, Nepal, Philippines, Vanuatu) and social security provision (China, Malaysia, Samoa). Thailand also mentioned problems associated with economic growth, income distribution and social mobility.

Respondents considered that the following social development issues needed to be better addressed; access to international markets and debt servicing (Bangladesh); family welfare, gender equity in income distribution (Thailand); ethnic disputes resolution, social stability and unity (China), employment of youth and women (Niue), care of the elderly, mental health, readjustment of education policies (Sri Lanka); and agrarian reform, as well as ancestral domain for indigenous people (Philippines).

D. Training

The Agenda underscores the need to improve the professional capabilities of personnel engaged in the planning and implementation of social development programmes through such means as enhanced opportunities for training, retraining and advanced training. Initiatives and commitments are promoted through performance, improved working conditions and greater freedom to introduce innovative mechanisms for action.

Training activities in the implementation of the Agenda were reported by only 10 governments. These include needs assessment (Hong Kong China, Malaysia and Thailand) and the development of a comprehensive training plan for social development personnel at various levels (China, Hong Kong China, Malaysia and Thailand). Many countries and areas reported that special seminars and workshops were held for senior planners and policy makers on the role of social development in overall development planning and the Agenda. Some had regular practical training to strengthen technical skills. Only Hong Kong China, Indonesia and Malaysia reported the inclusion of community-level volunteers and NGO staff in training courses. By and large, training has not been addressed systematically by members in their social development programmes and plans.

E. Monitoring and evaluation

The survey results indicated that, to a large extent, no comprehensive central social development information system has been established to monitor the implementation of the Agenda. Where data are available, these are collected and maintained in various ministries and sectoral departments, such as health, child protection, statistics or economic planning. Few have national coordinating bodies to undertake monitoring efforts. In the Philippines, a human development monitoring framework has been drawn up at the national level and a regional social development committee set up at the subnational level, and the results are considered in facilitating the implementation of the Agenda for Action. In Nepal, the ministries and the National Planning Commission have their own monitoring and evaluation units systems. In Myanmar, a health management information system exists, while Malaysia generates social indicators from the Statistics Department, providing a basis for the formulation of the five-year plans. It would appear that the findings of monitoring and evaluation have not been adequately used to improve the implementation of the Agenda.

F. Resource mobilization

In adopting the Agenda, governments in the region recognized that the goals can only be attained with adequate support for programme implementation. The Agenda stipulates the need for (a) a review and revision of budgetary priorities to accord with the terms of the Agenda; (b) new and innovative sources of financing, including additional resources for the establishment of an international fund for social development; and (c) support from private business, financial institutions, NGOs, and local government and communities.

Many countries and areas indicated an increase in percentage allocation of overseas development aid and multilateral development assistance for social programmes (Bangladesh, China, Fiji, Mongolia, Palau, Samoa, Sri Lanka, Viet Nam). Measures taken or being considered by the governments for mobilizing resources include the adoption of the United Nations Development Programme 20:20 compact on human development, whereby 20 per cent of the national budget and donor aid is directed to basic social services (nine, including Bangladesh, Fiji, Mongolia, Philippines, Thailand and Vanuatu); payment of user charges for social services (nine, including China, Hong Kong China, Malaysia, Maldives, Niue, and Viet Nam); private sector participation in social services delivery, self-help schemes, cooperatives (almost all countries); build-operate-transfer schemes (Bangladesh, Malaysia, Samoa); loans, seed money and NGO funding (almost all countries).

Resource mobilization at the national and local levels is constrained by the fact that allocation to the social sectors is highly sensitive to macroeconomic fluctuations. Social spending has been used as an instrument of adjustment to balance the fiscal accounts. Hence, it suffers a high degree of instability, which hampers its utilization as a long-term instrument. In spite of various difficulties, the countries and areas of the Asian and Pacific region have made a strong commitment to ensure that social spending is accorded a much-needed priority.

There has been an increase, though modest, in national budgetary outlay for social development programmes in most countries. Specific information from recent country reports illustrates the trend towards increasing government expenditure for social services. For example, in Bangladesh, the share in annual development expenditure rose from 17.9 per cent in 1992 to 31 per cent in 1997. In the Philippines, the proportion of the national budget allocated to social services increased from 20.5 per cent in 1992, and 23.2 per cent in 1993, to 31 per cent in 1996.

In some countries such as China, special measures have been taken to increase resource allocation to the social service sector. The central government in China plans to increase the special funds and create new funds in the areas of education, primary health care, housing for the poor and family planning. The Islamic Republic of Iran noted that the growth of allocations to social programmes had exceeded the average growth of the national annual budget.

The social sector allocations cannot be precisely quantified in view of the multisectoral dimension of social development. The definition of social development sector coverage also differs from place to place.

G. Regional support

The Agenda for Action pronounced that governments would participate in technical exchanges on policy and programme matters relating to the implementation of the Agenda. They would cooperate in research on social issues of critical concern at the regional and subregional levels to strengthen policy and programme development. The establishment of regional and subregional data banks would be considered. Governments would participate in technical cooperation activities pertaining to research and development of technologies aimed at improving the quality of life of the poor and disadvantaged groups.

Throughout the questionnaire, views were sought from governments on the means by which regional bodies such as ESCAP could support governments in their policy and programming initiatives; in strengthening national mechanisms and focal points in social development; in prioritizing goals and targets; and in implementing the Agenda to accelerate progress towards achieving its goals and objectives.

The results of the survey revealed a clear consensus that regional bodies such as ESCAP can support government policy and planning initiatives including prioritization through: (a) capability-building initiatives, including training and advisory services; (b) information dissemination and exchanges; (c) technical assistance for the integration of social development aspects in planning and budgetary processes; and (d) the conduct or support of research in needs assessment, developing a much-needed database for planning and evaluation of programme performance, including determination of relevant indicators for priority and target setting, and documentation of related country experiences.

Governments identified priority intercountry cooperation areas as (a) training on planning and implementation of social development programmes, including issues in social development manpower planning, the privatization of social amenities, rural industrialization, poverty alleviation, employment creation, education, health and social protection; (b) the establishment of a regional social development information system and data bank; (c) consultations, workshops and dialogues to share country experiences, including government organizations, NGOs and the private sector; (d) research on social issues of critical concern; (e) exchange of national experts for project planning and implementation; and (f) technical assistance for resource mobilization, including the 20:20 compact and revolving funds.

Specifically, governments proposed that regional cooperation activities of ESCAP should support regional seminars, training workshops and research on critical social development issues and programmes, advisory and technical services for the planning and implementation of social development programmes, infrastructure development, the conduct of research and information dissemination. Technical assistance was also requested on methodologies and processes for implementing innovative financial resource mobilization schemes, including build-operate-transfer schemes in the social sector; privatization of social amenities; the provision of advisory services; review of plans, mechanisms and procedures for evaluating the implementation of the Agenda for Action; strengthening the establishment of management information systems in health and education; the promotion of income generation and employment opportunities; networking; cooperation in programme design and training of public administrators; exchange of experiences through technical cooperation among developing countries; information dissemination; and the establishment of a social development management information system.

Next: Part 2 of 3 of this paper: Programme Measures Implemented Towards Attaining the Goals and Targets in the Agenda for Action

Back to the overview page of the Ministerial Conference