Human security and social quality: contrasts and complementaries

Two authors who have been leaders of the "social quality approach" that emerged in European social policy circles in the 1990s, and two authors who have worked with the "human development" and "human security" approaches that emerged in international development policy circles in the 1980s and 90s, collaborate in this paper in order to outline and compare the two traditions. The "human development" tradition has focused on the quality of individual human lives, understood as influenced by interconnections that transcend conventional disciplinary boundaries; its "human security" branch goes deeper into study of human vulnerability and the textures of daily life. The "social quality" tradition tries to understand individual lives as lived within a societal fabric, to identify and measure key elements of that fabric, and to develop a correspondingly grounded public policy approach. The paper is a first step in a project to assess the possible complementarity, in theorising and practical application, of these two streams of work

Connecting ‘Human’ and ‘Social’ Discourses: The Human Development, Human Security, and Social Quality Approaches

__Abstract__ The human development approach emerged in the late 1980s in response to the negative effects of structural adjustment programmes applied to countries in the South. Led originally by two South Asian scholars, Mahbub ul Haq and Amartya Sen, in cooperation with a large international network, the approach is comparative in perspective and global in reach and has been incorporated into parts of the United Nations (UN) system, including the United Nations Development Programme. Over the years this approach has integrated three dimensions – human development, human rights and human security –, and looks at people’s well-being or ill-being, security and insecurity, in the context of issues arising from global interconnectedness and inequities. It has had significant influence, but one constraint has been that its focus on the ‘human’ is accompanied by a widely recognised gap in respect of ‘the social’ (Apthorpe 1997, Gasper 2011, Phillips 2011)