The crucial challenges facing humanity today – environmental degradation, climate change, energy crisis, poverty, violence and other major global problems – demand the contribution of all of society with responsibility and commitment, based on an ethic of life and solidarity.

Both academia and politics have linked these challenges to development, resulting in different positions: approaches that dismantle and deny development; others that reinvent or reconceptualize it; and still others that reduce it to economic growth. These positions are conditioned by factors as diverse as the socio-historical context, the state of science at a given time, and the more structural geographical space; but also by the life stories, professional, intellectual, and political trajectories, disciplinary backgrounds, and identities of gender, class, race, and ethnicity, among others, of those who make up the academic and political spheres.

Despite the existence of a well-founded Latin American critical thought that avoids including development in its debates, it retains a pivotal importance on the agendas of international organizations, national governments, and academia itself. For this reason, the debate on this topic, and in particular the critical examination of what constitutes development and which actors are involved in it, cannot be considered closed or exhausted.

Regarding the first point, this proposal seeks to problematize the visions of development held by different actors, particularly how they connect it to social justice, equality, sustainability, and systemic crises, as well as what conditions would foster dialogue—if it were possible—among actors as diverse as governments, academia, social movements, non-governmental organizations, and political parties, among others. The region's recent historical experience demonstrates that national development agendas are conditioned not only by the political orientation of governments and the continuity or disruption of their political programs, but also by the flow of aid from international organizations, their political alliances, the demands of social movements, and the positions of academia.  

In the case of academia, there are epistemological, theoretical, and methodological challenges to be faced within its boundaries, including the development of theories with greater pertinence and social relevance:

“…the need to develop more and better theories, capable of guiding research that addresses the most prominent social problems in the region; encouraging the use of more prominent methodologies that allow for testing and improving theories in complex and heterogeneous historical contexts” (Cimadamore, 2010: 35)

The sciences have to confront the Coloniality of knowledge, since the end of political colonialism has not meant its end in epistemology, where it is reproduced endogenously; hence the need to promote social and political emancipatory processes (de Sousa, 2010).

Another challenge is the need for the integration of knowledge in the sciences, so that it has the capacity to explain, interpret, and transform realities and problems that, according to Morin (1999), are increasingly multi-disciplinary, transversal, multidimensional, transnational, global, and planetary; this means transgressing the compartmentalization and fragmentation of disciplines with multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary visions and complex thinking.

But without a doubt, one of the most difficult challenges is achieving a constructive dialogue between academia and policy, building permanent bridges between the two, with the primary interest being the well-being of the population:

This dialogue cannot be conceived apart from the necessary and still unachieved dialogue of knowledge between different disciplines, with other forms of knowledge - popular, art, religion, beliefs - diverse cultures and dissimilar actors; always with the aspiration that such exchange is characterized by participatory horizontality, active citizenship, symmetry, recognition, openness and respect.

Some elements that illustrate the complexity of this challenge are the following:

ü The necessary involvement of knowledge of different kinds, and of diverse actors –scientific and technological academia, politicians, intellectuals, citizens– with different backgrounds and interests.

ü The use of dissimilar languages ​​and communication codes, in the case of specialized and disciplinary science and technology, which are reflected in scientific articles and books, theses and research reports, many of them very long.

• Times and rhythms characterized by urgency and immediacy, along with strategic projections of transcendence in the case of politics; while science requires a longer period for obtaining research results, their validation and systematization.

Greater access to scientific and technical information through science and greater access to information on the economic and political situation of each context through politics.

In politics, the approach to problems prevails from a problem-based and institutional/sectoral perspective; in the sciences – as previously noted – disciplinary fragmentation persists alongside the emergence of multi, inter and transdisciplinary approaches.

ü Different ways of assuming commitment and distancing, in both social commitment is essential, which in the sciences is inseparable from a critical perspective.

Recent world reports[1] call for the need to promote studies on two of humanity's most pressing problems – the environmental crisis and social inequalities – and to establish closer links between science, policy and society in order to develop and implement effective policies for their solution.

This proposal, in line with CLACSO's objectives, aims to contribute to promoting sustainable development policies in economic, social, and environmental terms, to link social research and public policy, to contribute to public debates on these issues, and to train diverse stakeholders. Several working groups[2] have contributed to this topic. The unique aspect of this proposal lies in the dialogue between academia and policy for sustainable and inclusive development, taking into account the contextual, structural, and individual circumstances of the stakeholders involved.

[1]World Social Science Report (2013) Global Environmental Change. CICS / UNESCO; World Social Science Report (2016). Tackling the challenge of inequalities and charting pathways to a just world.

[2] Among the current groups, the following are identified: Politicized social science, Intellectuals and politics, Social sciences: trends, perspectives and challenges, Science and society

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Ac

To understand the cardinal issues surrounding the dialogue between academia and politics, the contributions of different fields of knowledge are essential: sociology of knowledge, epistemologies of the South, social communication, all connected with development studies and public policies.  

The challenges and complexities of contemporary societies continually reinforce the importance of policies for achieving development goals. This justifies the need to strengthen the links between knowledge production and decision-making, the consequent increase in the proactive capacity of the social sciences, and the expansion of the participation and interaction of diverse actors in the design, implementation, evaluation, and communication of policies.

Social policy is a central theme for modern societies and the social sciences, both as a practice and an object of study. Its definition regularly includes two basic elements: its practical nature, as it refers to strategies, interventions, programs, measures, and actions; and its objective of contributing to the well-being, security, and quality of life of individuals, addressing the social needs of human groups, and providing services, which are realized through labor policies, social services, and social assistance. This is reflected in many of its definitions.

“… social policy is a set of objectives and measures aimed at improving the quality of life or the well-being of the population” (Ferriol, Therborn and Castiñeiras, 2004:15)

“State policies and practices that directly influence the well-being and security of various groups within a particular society” (UNSRID, 2003)

Cuban sociologist Mayra Espina highlights a topic less present in the usual definitions of social policy: its impact on the social structure:

“Social policy constitutes a strategy of intervention, from political power, on social relations, configuring the social structure based on a predetermined model of society, in which the interests of a particular social agent are prioritized. A strategy that operates by stimulating or cutting off certain routes of mobility, creating constraints that limit and enable possibilities of social change in the macro-microsocial intertwining.” (Espina, 2008: 66)

This view of policy, connected to the interests of diverse social actors and to the opening or restriction of channels for social mobility, allows us to move beyond the view of the homogeneous effects of policies on society as a whole, and instead focus on the objective of reducing social inequalities—linked to the existing social structure—through policies of equity and social inclusion. In this sense, Ander Egg (1990) makes explicit the purpose of social policies—as part of public policy—to reduce social inequalities and to address the needs of specific groups.

Both issues, the intentionality regarding well-being and the effects in terms of social structure and inequalities, justify the need for the systematic evaluation of the impacts of policies, which constitutes a priority area in their practical exercise and in studies about them.

Another aspect on which there is consensus is the organization, implementation, and institutionalization of policies through specific programs and institutions. This issue relates to political power and the management capacity of states, governments, and institutions. Accordingly, some authors refer to social policies as "government policy" (Marshall, 1970), thus excluding the management of other actors operating beyond national borders, at the local level, or without governmental ties. We share Boaventura de Sousa's (2010) view regarding the recognition of the theoretical and epistemological contributions of social movements—peasant, environmental, feminist, Afro-descendant, indigenous, anti-homophobia, etc.—in recent decades.

Current debates revolve around social policies, among the most important of which are: the relationship between economic and social policies, their universal or targeted nature, the social actors involved—the State or a plurality of actors—the welfare or participatory nature of programs and the potential for empowering the population, the territorialization of policies, and the scope of their objectives, which range from achieving well-being and eradicating the social problems that affect it, to alleviating or mitigating them. Regarding this last point, the Brazilian sociologist Laura Tavares (2014) distinguishes between preventive or developmental social policies, aimed at eliminating or minimizing the conditions that generate social problems; compensatory or welfare policies, focused on solving or alleviating existing problems; and redistributive policies, which ensure an effective transfer of income. Based on this distinction, she establishes the need for interrelation among them.

The relationship between social policy and social development differs according to the approaches taken to each of these concepts. Understanding social development as the progressive improvement of the population's quality of life, not limited to the distribution of the benefits of economic growth but encompassing a holistic approach—employment, nutrition, health, education, culture, information, integration, and political and social participation, among others—and placing human beings at the center, both in terms of meeting their needs and fostering values ​​and attitudes, undoubtedly establishes the preeminence of social policy and its comprehensive nature. Conversely, neoliberal experiences have led to the “marginalization of social policy” (UNRISD, 2003), with the consequent undervaluation of the social dimensions of development in policymaking, both at the governmental and multilateral levels.

Laura Tavares clarifies the conditions and need for a social policy that constitutes a development alternative, as well as the desirable articulations with economic policy:

“Thinking of social policy as an integral part of development means assuming that its projects, programs, and actions are a necessary, indispensable, and priority investment. It is to reverse the equation in which social development arises naturally from economic growth, by removing social policy from its traditional position subject to economic policy.” (Tavares, 2011: 72).

Along these same lines and highlighting the existing interdependencies between social policy and development, Cuban authors point out: “…social policy is part of the development strategy and at the same time, an effect of it.” (Espina and Valdés Paz, 2011: 14)

On the other hand, the existing social policy approach also specifies the relationship with social development; in the social integration approach, development is the guiding principle of social policy, which is characterized by its universality. Conversely, in the selective or residual approach, strategies focus on precarious populations to address specific problems, regardless of development goals (Espina, 2008). These approaches are based on different models of citizenship—assisted or emancipated—which differ in the importance given to achieving equality and social inclusion, and in the connections between social and economic policy (Bustelo and Minujin, 1997).

Undoubtedly, the study of policy is a necessity both in the field of research and in response to the demands of social practice; hence the importance of a solid epistemological and theoretical foundation. To achieve this, Carrizo (2011) advocates for intersectoral dialogue, transdisciplinary and multidimensional approaches, knowledge relevant to development problems, effective communication of results, and the design of linkage strategies between the actors involved—researchers and policymakers—that strengthen complementarity. Therefore, beyond the specific field of social research, issues related to development, policy influence, and citizen participation are paramount.