Reframing Global Social Policy: Social Investment for Sustainable and Inclusive Growth edited by Christopher Deeming and Paul Smyth is as much a very comprehensive and incredibly interesting, as it is a challenging, contribution to the literature – at least judging from a global social policy studies perspective (others may be better in commenting on the volume’s contribution to the social investment or development literature respectively).

It is an important contribution in that many chapters, written by the leading scholars in their fields, explain and with sophistication discuss concepts and ideas of social investment and inclusive growth paradigms as a matter of global social policy ideas. Doing that, the authors draw on an admirably broad set of literature and documents by international relations, so it is hard to claim anything is missing. In framing and concluding, Deeming and Smyth open our eyes for a new perspective on global social policy, and bring in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) as a key driver in global social governance. It also attempts to be ‘global’ in the sense of taking into account ideational accounts of developed countries, developmental welfare states and developing countries. Furthermore, it spans to different social policy fields, subject to social investment and inclusive growth concepts, including labour, education, health, and social protection. The chapters are very rich and very informative, as well as they are not only descriptions but also provide recommendation as to what should be key components of an inclusive and sustainable social policy agenda for the future, described as a ‘new coherent global social policy framework’ (p. 328).

Particularly from the chapters in Part I authored by Chris Deeming, Paul Smyth and Anton Hemerijck, we learn a lot about how social investment and inclusive growth ideas and agendas compare and speak to each other. The focus is primarily on the role and ideas of the OECD, but the chapters also refer to the European Union (EU), the IMF and the World Bank, and – to much lesser extent to United Nations (UN) agencies such as the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) or the International Labour Organisation (ILO). While Hemerijck’s chapter primarily refers to developed countries, in their chapters, Sarah Cook and Huck-ju Kwon, both of which also have experience in working for international agencies, offer theoretical frameworks on social investment and inclusive growth related to developing countries and developmental welfare states. As well as they hint at what matters for these groups of countries in terms of future social policies. In part II of the book, Stephan Klasen, Günther Schmid, Guiliano Bonoli, Marius R. Busemeyer, Jon Kvist, Guillem López-Casasnovas and Laia Maynou, James Midgley, Jane Jenson and Tim Jackson and Robin Webster go through numerous ‘policy applications’ of the theoretical frameworks introduced. The book concludes with the question and discussion about ‘a new global social policy framework.’ As all the chapters are of very high quality in itself, the following comments mainly concern the overall framing and key arguments of the book, as introduced and summarised by the two editors.

Looking at the book’s key arguments against the backcloth of what is usually considered as standard ‘Global Social Policy’ literature (particularly contributions by Bob Deacon), there are several issues in this volume about which it would be interesting to start a new debate: about what is global social policy, how can we characterize it, and who are the key global social policy actors. I will take each of these questions in turn:

What is global social policy? Deeming and Smyth employ this term as if its meaning is given for granted. It might be just another step in global social policy scholarship gaining more importance and standing in the broader social policy (and perhaps even development) literature. However, questioning and discussing the meaning(s) of global social policy, at least to some extent, might have helped to place and reflect the volume’s findings and claims better in the existing global social policy literature. The chapters follow a logic of capturing different groups of countries (developed, developmental, developing), but they are less aware of regional social policy – a focus which might have contextualised some of the findings in a different way. Also the choice of international agencies focused on is rather one-sided, thus OECD-biased. This is not a problem as such; but attempting to conceptualise on a new global social policy framework, it neglects the fact that – particularly compared to the UN agencies – the OECD as an international organisation is much less global in terms of its membership. Its messages may go global, but this is not necessarily unproblematic.

How can we characterise global social policy? For example, Deeming and Smyth find a convergence of thinking between social investment and inclusive growth for a coherent global social policy framework. The book chapters are convincing in showing the convergence, indeed. But what about the ‘coherent global social policy framework’? On the one hand, it resonates with similar arguments as to different accounts of global social policy in different social policy fields. However, it is at least debatable if taking into account a broader set of global social policy actors, and considering other global social policy ideas and initiatives than mainly providing examples that speak to the story of the book, would have led to a more ‘complex’ characterisation of global social policy.

Who are the actors in global social policy? So far, in the global social policy literature, the OECD was only to a limited extent treated as a more or less equal actor to other international agencies. Instead there was specific literature focussing on the OECD in different fields of global governance (particularly in the work by Rianne Mahon and Kerstin Martens). Other important contributions, however, placed the World Bank and the ILO in the center of global social governance. It would have been interesting to see a discussion as to what extent the generalisations of this book relate to these other accounts and approaches. How does it happen that the ILO, that has so far been considered as one of the key actors in the field, in this volume is mentioned largely in relation to Bob Deacon’s work, but then it is not discussed as the international organisation with the most explicit mandate in social policy? Does that have implications for current takes on ‘social policy’, or more about shifting roles and positions in global social governance? Is this an implicit argument on the ILO being replaced by the OECD (as there have been arguments in the past that the World Bank replaced the ILO, or the WHO in matters of health systems)? How do this book’s arguments relate to the characterisation of global social policy and governance being multi-sited, multi-faceted and multi-actored?

I am not saying that such a shift might not be the case, but I would appreciate and hope for a more intensified discussion over the meanings and developments in global social policy, in the volume but even more beyond.