A critical review of the state-of-the-art on social policy, conflict and peace in the Middle East and North Africa region: Why social policy matters for peace and why it is also not enough

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.