UNRISD is an autonomous United Nations agency that carries out research on the social dimensions of contemporary problems affecting development.

The United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) is an autonomous UN agency engaging in multidisciplinary research on the social dimensions of contemporary problems affecting development. Through its research, UNRISD stimulates dialogue and contributes to policy debates on key issues of social development within and outside the United Nations system.

UNRISD was created in 1963 as part of the first United Nations Development Decade. The Decade emphasized a "new approach to development", in which "purely economic indicators of progress were seen to provide only limited insight and might conceal as much as they indicate". UNRISD thus became a pioneer in developing social indicators and broadened the development debate. Since then, the Institute has sought to promote a holistic and multidisciplinary approach to social development by focusing on decision-making processes, often conflicting social forces, and the question of who wins and who loses as economies grow or contract and societies change.

Over the years, UNRISD research has been guided by two core values: that every human being has a right to a decent livelihood and that all people should be allowed to participate on equal terms in decisions that affect their lives. The challenge for research is not only to reinforce and help operationalize these values, but also to expose the extent to which they are ignored.

For more than 40 years, UNRISD has engaged exclusively in research on social development and remains the only United Nations organization that does so. The Institute is an autonomous organization within the United Nations system. It is associated with no single specialized agency, it is restricted to no narrow field of concern, and its work is not bound by the bureaucratic or political constraints that frequently characterize many intergovernmental agencies.

UNRISD is an unusually open space for research and dialogue. This provides both an opportunity and an obligation to question prevailing mindsets within the development community and to encourage new thinking. The Institute conducts rigorous comparative research in collaboration with scholars and activists, primarily in the developing world, whose ideas are not sufficiently reflected in current debates. Strong ties to the global research community combined with proximity to the UN system are the comparative advantages of the Institute and help it to carry out policy-relevant research on issues of social development.



Poverty eradication, the promotion of democracy and human rights, gender equity, environmental sustainability and the effects of globalization are overarching concerns in UNRISD's work.
These overarching concerns are reflected in research carried out under the programmes and areas listed in the left navigation bar.

Programmes and Areas of Research 2000-2005:

1. Civil Society and Social Movements:

Research within this programme aims to improve understanding of the potential for civic action and local self-organization in different kinds of societies and political regimes around the world. This, in turn, should clarify thinking about the concept of civil society.
The need to strengthen civil society has become a truism within the development debate-something that can be stated without further analysis or discussion. But civil society is a complex of different forms of organization, developing within specific contexts. Placing too great a faith in civil society, vaguely defined, glosses over important differences between non-governmental organizations, grassroots organizations, social movements and other forms of civic action. It also ignores an array of problems inherent in local politics and social relations.

This UNRISD programme encourages a critical review of the concept of civil society, based on new research. It analyses some important contemporary social movements, in which alliances are increasingly forged across classes and continents. It also attempts to improve understanding of various forms of local self-organization oriented toward defending or improving access to resources, income and services. And it is following the evolution of the non-governmental sector, exploring the challenges inherent in the triangular relation between the international development community, non-governmental organizations and national governments.
Research Projects
Civil Society Strategies and Movements for Rural Asset Redistribution and Improved Livelihoods
Evolving Agricultural Structures and Civil Society in Transitional Countries: The Case of Central Asia
Global Civil Social Movements: Dynamics in International Campaigns and National Implementation
Grassroots Movements and Initiatives for Land Reform
UN World Summits and Civil Society Engagement

2. Democracy, Governance and Human Rights:

The global debate on democratization and human rights can be sharpened by paying greater attention to specific problems of political and institutional reform at the local, national and international levels. This programme provides an opportunity to learn from recent experiences in countries, beset by economic crisis, where efforts are being made to create an enabling environment for democratic governance.
The promotion of democracy and respect for human rights is a central aspect of development. It is also a very complex undertaking. Thus despite the growing strength of the human rights movement, there is still a wide gulf between the articulation of global principles and their application in the majority of national settings. The same can be said of democratization. In fact, a large number of countries attempting to move toward democracy are suffering serious crises of state capacity and governance. And without a stable and efficient public sector that enjoys the confidence of the population, it is virtually impossible to uphold the basic rules of political competition on which democracy depends.

This UNRISD programme explores some of the political and institutional factors affecting the creation of an enabling environment for democracy and human rights in different country settings. The international context is important in this regard, because strong pressures for reform are often exercised in a piecemeal fashion by global actors without adequate appreciation of inconsistencies in approach or the unintended consequences of their policy advice. Case studies highlight areas in which new approaches are required.
Research Projects
Ethnic Structure, Inequality and Governance of the Public Sector
Gender Justice, Development and Rights
Public Sector Reform and Crisis-Ridden States
Technocratic Policy Making and Democratization
Urban Governance

3. Identities, Conflicts and Cohesion

Identities give structure and meaning to life. They provide a basis both for conflict and for cohesion, and-despite attempts to paint them as eternal-they are constantly undergoing adaptation. This programme asks how an emphasis on certain identities affects patterns of exclusion and solidarity in a globalizing world.
The rapid reorganization of economies and societies occurring at the turn of the twenty-first century is associated with a web of shifting identities. Some of these, formed around a common language, religion or cultural history, have sparked particularly bloody conflict during recent years. But there are many other elements in the shifting terrain of identity. Women are developing new forms of solidarity, often on a transnational or transcultural level. Young people in many parts of the world are struggling to avoid marginalization at a time when restrictive economic policies threaten to exclude them from productive work. New religious denominations and cults are springing up and old ones are adapting to changing times.

During the coming years, UNRISD aims to conduct research on problems of identity in a shrinking world. The construction of citizenship constitutes an important subject for research within this field. The concept of citizenship explicitly superimposes a single, egalitarian political identity on the array of narrow loyalties that is likely to exist in a population of any significant size. This provides a space for the orderly recognition of difference and a setting for debate on the rights and obligations of different groups in society. In a world characterized by extraordinary diversity and increasingly threatened by intolerance, understanding how the identity of citizen can be created and strengthened must rank high on the list of priorities.
Research Projects
Racism and Public Policy

4. Social policy and development

Social Policy and Development is one of the main research programmes at the Institute. UNRISD defines social policy as public policies and institutions that aim to protect citizens from social contingencies and poverty, and ultimately to enable them to strive for their own life goals.
Through the research projects carried out under this programme, the Institute seeks to stimulate interdisciplinary debate on the nexus between social policy and economic development. The programme explores the ways in which social policy can be a powerful instrument for democratic progress and economic development while, at the same time, pursuing its intrinsic goals such as social protection and justice.
Research Projects
Agrarian Change, Gender and Land Rights
Commercialization of Health Care: Global and Local Dynamics and Policy Responses
Commercialization, Privatization and Universal Access to Water
Community Responses to HIV/AIDS
Gender and Social Policy
Globalization, Export-Oriented Employment for Women and Social Policy
Globalization, Inequality and Health Care
HIV/AIDS and Development
Macroeconomics and Social Policy
Neoliberalism and Institutional Reform in East Asia
Politics and Political Economy of HIV/AIDS
Social Policy and Democratization
Social Policy in a Development Context
Social Policy in Late Industrializers: A Comparative Study of Latin America
Social Policy in Late Industrializers: Social Policy and Development Outcomes in the Middle East and North Africa
Social Policy in Late Industrializers: Sub-Saharan Africa and the Challenge of Social Policy
Social Policy in Late Industrializers: The Nordic Experience
Social Policy in Late Industrializers: Transforming the Developmental Welfare State in East Asia

5. Technology, Business ans Society

The world is caught up in a rapidly accelerating process of scientific and technological change that can benefit the majority of humankind or, on the contrary, only benefit the few. This programme examines the politics and economics of efforts to ensure that new technologies are used in socially responsible ways.
In market economies, where the uses of technology are heavily determined by decisions made in private research institutions and companies, there is a constant tension between the desire of the private sector to maximize profits, and the expectation on the part of the public that new products and techniques will meet (perhaps less profitable) social needs. This gives rise to various forms of public regulation and to a continuing test of strength between public interest groups, the scientific research community and the corporations whose use of new technologies has direct effects on the economy, society and natural environment.

UNRISD work in this area draws on case studies and debates at national and international levels to explore ways of encouraging a more socially responsible use of science and technology in a number of fields, including information technology, biotechnology and genetic engineering. It also draws on broader studies of corporate responsibility, often generated in relation to social and environmental issues.

Research Projects

Business Responsibility for Sustainable Development

Information Technologies and Social Development



Globalization and Civil Society: NGO Influence in International Decision-Making

Area Author(s): Riva Krut
Programme The Social Effects of Globalization
Code: DP83
Project Title: Globalization and Citizenship
No. of Pages: 61
Pub. Date: 1 Apr 1997
Pub. Place: Geneva
ISSN: 1012-6511
Since the 1980s, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have emerged as an important force on the world stage working to democratize decision-making processes, protect human rights and provide essential services to the most needy. Underpinning this expanded role in global governance has been a certain disillusionment with the role of the state in facilitating sustainable human development and the belief that more flexible, motivated and decentralized structures have the required skills and responsibility to undertake this role.
In recent years, the arena of NGO action has expanded rapidly from local and national settings to the international level. The institutional transformations that are occurring in the context of globalization have seen international actors - such as United Nations agencies, regional organizations, finance and trade institutions and transnational corporations - as well as inter-governmental "summits" assume an increasingly prominent role in global governance. NGOs have been late-comers to this evolving system of global governance but are now finding ways to influence the international decision-making process associated with development issues.

UNRISD work on the institutional and social effects of globalization has highlighted the concern that certain international economic, finance and trade organizations are enjoying greater freedom and power, but often without any commensurate increase in social responsibility. There are high hopes that the role of NGOs on the world stage will act to correct this potentially dangerous imbalance. But are NGOs sufficiently effective to perform this role? Have they been able to penetrate the dominant fora of international decision-making? And can they retain the cohesion and moral authority needed to influence the process of global governance?

These are some of the questions addressed in this paper by Riva Krut. Basing her inquiry on a rich collection of secondary sources and a survey of 500 NGOs, she examines the achievements, tensions and limits of NGO action in global governance.

Following an introduction that identifies some of the concerns that globalization poses for democracy and the potentially constructive role that civil society organizations might play in global governance, the paper consists of three main sections. The first considers the issue of NGO representation and participation: who are they, what do they stand for, and how representative are they? The second section looks at the varying degrees of access which NGOs enjoy to different international decision-making institutions. The third assesses the impact of NGOs in certain areas of international decision-making and the various strategies adopted to exert influence and pressure.

The author concludes with a dual warning. First, NGO access to global institutions of power has indeed improved - but it remains highly uneven, and in relation to certain key institutions that have tremendous power to affect our lives the door still remains firmly shut. Second, the ability of global civil society to act in a cohesive fashion may be coming under greater strain as the NGO "community" becomes increasingly differentiated and as tensions increase between Northern and Southern NGOs.

Civil Society and Social Movements: The Dynamics of Intersectoral Alliances and Urban-Rural Linkages in Latin America

Author(s): Henry Veltmeyer
Programme Area: Civil Society and Social Movements
Paper No.: 10
Code: PP-CSSM-10
Project Title: Civil Society Strategies and Movements for Rural Asset Redistribution and Improved Livelihoods
No. of Pages: 32

The study of development has always been surrounded by debate about its driving forces, its facilitating and inhibiting conditions, obstacles to its achievement, and the appropriate agents for bringing it about. At the centre of this debate have been questions about structure and agency. To what extent and under what conditions are poverty and underdevelopment rooted in the institutionalized practices or structures of the prevailing economic and social system? What are the most effective agents and strategies for generating the structural changes and conditional improvements that constitute development? Over the years, these and other such questions have been raised and addressed with numerous permutations in different and changing contexts, most recently in terms of the role of civil society and social movements.
This paper aims to shed some light on these questions as they relate to developments in Latin America-and similar developments are unfolding elsewhere in the developing world. Part I discusses the alternative meanings associated with the term "civil society". This term is at the centre of current discourse on development theory and practice. Part II reviews the available studies on the macro and meso dynamics of urban social movements in Latin America. Part III takes a closer look at the role of the urban poor in these movements, particularly in the context of conditions that prevailed in the 1980s. In part IV, the role of government and the state in the development process is briefly explored, as is the role of the "middle strata" in the social struc-ture of Latin American societies. Part V turns to the struggles and social movements of organized labour, while part VI considers development theory with a brief discussion on the sustain-able livelihoods approach to the problem of rural poverty. Part VII makes reference to, and use of, an alternative approach to development in exploring the dynamics of struggle associated with peasant-based rural sociopolitical movements, which, according to the author, appear in the current context to be the most dynamic forces for social change in the region. Part VIII examines intra- and intersectoral linkages and strategic alliances in the building of a popular movement of resistance against the system in place. In Henry Veltmeyer's view, these linkages are critical for the dynamics of an emergent and vibrant civil society and for the coordination of the diverse struggles for social change and development.

In the conclusion, Veltmeyer identifies two modalities of change and development, both at odds with the recent (and dominant) economic model of neoliberal capitalist development and its associated project of "globalization". One of these modalities relates to the political dynamics of Latin America's social movements, while the other relates to a ubiquitous search in the region for "another development"-development that is initiated from within and below rather than from the outside and above. Despite (or perhaps because of) its reformist orientation (and its commitment to allay the negative effects of neoliberal capitalist development and associated policies), the author argues that the sustainable livelihoods approach has the greatest potential for bringing about an improvement in the quality of life of the rural poor-that is, for providing a theoretical and practical solution to the problems of poverty, social exclusion and underdevelopment.

Henry Veltmeyer is a Professor of Sociology and of International Development Studies at St. Mary's University, Halifax, Canada. This paper was prepared under the Institute's project on Civil Society Strategies and Movements for Rural Asset Redistribution and Improved Liveli-hoods, which was carried out between 2000 and 2003. The project was led by K.B. Ghimire, with assistance from Anita Tombez.

Technocratic Policy Making and Democratic Accountability

Research and Policy Brief 3
Code: RPB 3
Project Title: Technocratic Policy Making and Democratization
Programme Area: Democracy, Governance and Human Rights

Many new democracies have emerged since the late 1980s following worldwide demands for respect of human rights, accountability and transparency in policy making. Aid donors have promoted the view that democratization improves the quality of public policies and services. However, democratization is occurring at a time when the power of investors and financial institutions is changing both parameters and styles of governance. Financial globalization, high levels of indebtedness and neoliberal prescriptions narrow economic policy options to a limited set of objectives that emphasize fiscal restraint, privatization and liberalization.
In order to meet these objectives, policy making is increasingly restricted to "technocrats", or those with highly technical knowledge and expertise whose decisions are unconstrained by political processes. Technocrats tend to work in those executive institutions of government that are the most insulated from public pressure, and therefore the least democratically accountable-such as central banks, and finance and trade ministries.

Technocratic styles of policy making pose problems for democracies. They distort structures of accountability, as governments become more answerable to multilateral agencies and investors than to representative institutions and the public at large. Such styles of policy making also affect responses to employment and social protection, poverty eradication and conflict management. Even though these issues are important in consolidating new democracies, they may be sidelined by policy objectives that emphasize macroeconomic stability. Furthermore, citizens may lose confidence in the democratic process if they believe their votes are irrelevant in decisions that affect their lives.

Yet if governments are to be responsive to citizens' demands, policies-including economic policies-must be decided democratically. The role of legislative institutions in holding the executive accountable is crucial in this regard. In democracies, legislative institutions-parliament or congress-are expected to aggregate and articulate citizens' choices, scrutinize policy proposals and provide legitimacy for policy outcomes. But economic policies affect social groups and institutions differently, and democratic processes and accountability suffer when important decisions about trade-offs are entrusted exclusively to technocrats. Central bank chiefs and ministers of finance and trade, for example, may be beholden to special interest groups in the financial world, which may privilege strategies for inflation reduction, or financial and trade liberalization, over those for employment generation or more inclusive social protection.

Civil Society and the Uncivil State: Land Tenure Reform in Egypt and the Crisis of Rural Livelihoods

Author(s): Raymond Carey Bush
Programme Area: Civil Society and Social Movements
Paper No.: 9
Code: PP-CSSM-9
Project Title: Civil Society Strategies and Movements for Rural Asset Redistribution and Improved Livelihoods
No. of Pages:33

In this paper, Ray Bush examines the impact of recent changes in the relationship between landowners and tenants in Egypt. He does so by looking at Law 96 of 1992, which revoked rights of tenure that had been a hallmark of President Gamal Abdel Nasser's social revolution. In this context, Bush explores the links between economic liberalization, on one hand, and political liberalization, on the other, specifically as they relate to rural Egypt-rural livelihoods, asset redistribution and, especially, land. Bush also considers the declared intentions of the government and donors (the United States Agency for International Development-USAID, and the World Bank, in particular) relating to political liberalization and the role of rural civil society, and sets those intentions against actual outcomes in terms of political representation, participation in local institutions, rule of law, improvement of rural well-being and protection of rural livelihoods.
While the government of Egypt has declared the importance of widening political participation, and donors have stressed the need for an expansion of what they call civil society, concrete evidence of either is lacking. This raises two immediate questions related to Egypt's rural areas that the government is reluctant to address. The first relates to the likely outcome of the state's withdrawal from the provision of agricultural inputs. How have the fellahin (peasants) coped with the reduction of government support? The second question is whether civil society organizations (CSOs) have been able to substitute for the state's withdrawal from agricultural provision, and whether this has ushered in a new era for political liberalization and democratisation.

Bush claims that recent years have seen political deliberalization. There has been a narrowing of the possibility for political action independent of the state. According to the author, the state continues to determine what constitutes formal political practice-the extent to which a political party can recruit new members, hold meetings and organize democratic opposition to the regime, for example.

This is the political context-referred to as the "uncivil state"-within which the author examines opportunities that have arisen for the fellahin, especially those dispossessed since 1997, to mobilize and promote their interests. Bush discusses issues raised by tenants who have lost land, and the consequences for their asset base, level of poverty, social exclusion wider rights to land. He examines the violence that took place in Egypt's countryside, especially after 1997, and assesses the extent to which that might be seen as indicative of protest within the realm of civil society, or as a new and different form of political mobilization. Bush shows that while donors and the government intended the 1992 reform of tenancy to promote improvements in Egypt's land market and, in parallel, enhanced opportunities for rural political expression, this has not taken place. Moreover, market liberalization has generated greater rural poverty and unemployment, and has resulted in greater dependence on family resources for the fellahin

Civil Society Organizations and Service Provision

Authors: Andrew Clayton, Peter Oakley, Jon Taylor
Programme Area: Civil Society and Social Movements
Paper No.: 2
Code: PP-CSSM-2
No. of Pages: 30

Civil society organizations (CSOs) emerged in the 1990s as increasingly influential actors in national development. In one area in particular-the provision of basic services-CSOs have in many countries assumed a major responsibility. This study identifies and analyses the operational lessons concerning CSOs and service provision that have emerged to date. The analysis is based on a range of criteria: targeting the poor, quality of services provided, efficiency and sustainability.

The study also examines a number of broader issues that can influence the performance of CSOs in service provision: the nature of the contracts that CSOs have with governments to provide services; government legislation affecting CSOs' ability to provide services to the poor; and how CSOs can use their work in service provision to influence policy.

A key influence on CSO involvement in service provision is the relationship with government, and this is critically reviewed in the context of the notion of partnership. In this respect the study finds that CSOs need to ensure that they are able to maintain their own distinctive contribution to development and not merely become contracting agents of the state.

Finally, the study summarizes a number of critical issues that will continue to be at the core of CSO involvement in service provision: (i) performance, and the ability of CSOs to improve access, coverage, quality and efficiency in partnership with the state; (ii) the accountability of CSOs in terms of service provision, and the extent to which CSOs are more accountable to international donors than to the poor whom they are supposed to serve; (iii) the influence of current trends to decentralize government bodies, and how this affects CSOs; (iv) the dilemma between CSOs' commitment to service provision and their ability to play a broader role in economic and social development; and (v) the potential for CSOs to broaden the focus of their work in service provision and integrate a more rights-based approach.

The study concludes with a number of key policy issues for governments and official agencies in relation to CSOs and service provision.

Conference News: The Role of Civil Society in Policy Formulation and Service Provision
Report of the UNRISD Geneva 2000 Seminar, New York, 31 March 2000 (CN 2)

Pub. Date: 1 May 2000
Pub. Place: Geneva
ISSN: 1020-8054

As part of its work for Geneva 2000, the five-year review of progress in implementing the 1995 World Summit on Social Development's commitments, UNRISD held this seminar to bring some of the main messages from its current research on civil society and social movements at local, national and international levels to delegates, NGOs and agencies at the second Preparatory Committee meeting.

The first session of the seminar centred on discussion of the changing role of civil society organizations (CSOs) in social service provision. The second session highlighted the importance of collaboration between trade unions and NGOs: trade unions today cannot advance their agenda without NGOs, and NGOs need unions as well. The third session studied key elements that vitally affect the role of CSOs in making and implementing policy at national and local levels. The final session of the seminar dealt with reform of international institutions. Consensus emerged that as long as CSOs remain sidelined from key decisions over trade, investment, finance and global economic governance, the environment would not be conducive to social development. It was also felt that the chief challenge for global civil society was to develop a framework that will hold multilateral economic institutions accountable.

Grassroots Movements, Political Activism and Social Development in Latin America: A Comparison of Chile and Brazil

Author(s): Joe Foweraker
Programme Area: Civil Society and Social Movements
Paper No.: 4
Code: PP-CSSM-4
No. of Pages: 40

This paper examines the evolution of grassroots political activity in Latin America, with special reference to Chile and Brazil, and assesses its impact on the policy and practices of social devel-opment. It traces this trajectory through the transition from authoritarian to democratic rule, and focuses on the response of grassroots organizations to democratic governance and the rise of neoliberalism in the 1990s.
The social movement activity of the authoritarian period is seen to decline or change, leading to an emphasis on negotiation rather than mobilization, and on increasing interaction and in-volvement with state agencies. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), in contrast, multiply or become more visible, but where they interact effectively with the state they can be subordi-nated to state policy, and where they fail to interact they can be ineffective. Grassroots organi-zations did achieve some impact on social development in the 1990s, but the impact was on policy implementation rather than policy making, and was likely to be partial and patchy rather than comprehensive or fundamental.

Prior to the 1990s, grassroots political activity was already primarily urban and oriented to the state. Prior to the democratic transitions, grassroots demands were often driven by local and material concerns but came to be stated in terms of rights. With transition to democracy the fo-cus on the state has remained, but the cohesive effect of rights demands lost; and the combina-tion of "elite" democracy with neoliberal economic policy has pushed grassroots organizations to the political sidelines.

These tendencies have been compensated in part by the proliferation of NGOs with external sources of support. But the NGOs themselves entered into crisis with the decline or constricted agendas of external funding. This created an acute dilemma for grassroots organizations, with traditional forms of mobilization unable to achieve their policy objectives (the Movmiento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (MST) in Brazil, the Mapuche peoples of Chile) and a closer relationship with the state (especially NGOs seeking financial survival) often leading to com-plete or partial co-optation. The grassroots organizations may simply deliver social services for the state (health and educational reform in Chile), or be split and demobilized by bureaucratic infighting (health reform in Brazil). In all cases a closer involvement with state agencies has left the organizations exposed to clientelist controls and political bossism.

Grassroots organizations across Latin America cannot survive now without state funding. But the price is often a loss of their capacity to maintain a critical stance or promote alternative development projects. With or without the state, they are increasingly preoccupied with their own financial survival, often to the detriment of the constituencies they are meant to serve. Many organizations disappear, and grassroots leaders leave to work elsewhere.

Yet there are more hopeful signs. Neoliberalism also means the reform of the state apparatus, and especially its decentralization, and this sometimes promotes new forms of popular participation. Grassroots organizations may begin to move from service delivery to influencing social policy-at least at the municipal level. Furthermore, NGOs in particular have begun to form local, national and even international associations to take maximum advantage of these opportunities. But decentralization does not always dissolve-and may even strengthen-clientelist politics, and so the risk of co-optation remains; and state policy may seek greater participation through the creation of its own "user groups" rather than responding to autono-mous grassroots activity.

This analysis does not suggest that grassroots political activity in the 1990s is unimportant, or entirely ineffective. But a realistic view must recognize that its influence on social policy is piecemeal, and that its role is more in social service delivery than in shaping social policy itself. This is not necessarily a bad thing, and may be a perfectly proper role in the context of decen-tralization and financial constraint. But international agencies should seek to identify and nur-ture those grassroots organizations that can take on the distinct task of criticism and advocacy, and so promote possible alternative futures for social development.


United Nations Research Institute
for Social Development (UNRISD)
Palais des Nations
1211 Geneva 10
Phone: ++41 (0)22 917 3020
Fax: ++41 (0)22 917 0650
Email: info@unrisd.org



Social Policy
Development Economics


Deputy Director
Peter Utting


TNCs and Corporate Social Responsibility
Environment and Sustainable Development
Social Effects of Globalization
Participatory Approaches to Development
Post-Conflict Rebuilding
Food Policy and Agrarian Issues

Civil Society and Social Movements:

K. B. Ghimire
Research Co-ordinator


Civil Society and Rural
Agrarian Issues
Environment and Sustainable
Tourism Planning
Population Dynamics

Civil Society, Migration


Project Staff

Structural Adjustment
Ethnic Conflict and Identity
State Restructuring
and Democratization


Comparative Social Policy in East Asia
Social Policy and Democracy
Politics of Public Policy

Economics, socio-economic development, small islands


Social Policy

Publications / Dissemination and Reference Centre
Suroor Alikhan - Associate Editor
Nicolas M. L. Bovay - Information Officer
Sylvie B. Liu - Dissemination Assistant
Caroline Danloy - Associate Information Officer
Jenifer Freedman - Editor
Véronique Martinez - Information and Dissemination Assistant
Pamela Smaridge - Publications Assistant
Maria Zaballa - Event Organizer

Administrative and Support Staff
Katrien de Moor - Secretary
Josephine Grin-Yates - Administrative Clerk
Angela Meijer - Secretary to the Director
Wendy Salvo - Administrative Assistant
Anita Tombez - Secretary
Nina Torm - Assistant to the Director

Research Assistants and GSP Participants
Maria Victoria Avilés Blanco - Research Assistant
Alexandra Efthymiades - Research Assistant
Carl-Johan Hedberg - Research Assistant
Kate Ives - Research Assistant
Alexander Peyre Dutrey - Research Assistant
Britta Sadoun - Research Assistant

Consultants and External Research Co-ordinators
Jimi O. Adesina - External Co-ordinator
Joseph Collins - External Co-ordinator
Giovanni Andrea Cornia - External Co-ordinator
Susana Franco - Consultant
Olli Kangas - External Co-ordinator
Massoud Karshenas - External Co-ordinator
Peter Lloyd-Sherlock - External Co-ordinator
Rene Loewenson - External Co-ordinator
Maureen Mackintosh - External Co-ordinator
Edda Magnus - Consultant
Valentine M. Moghadam - External Co-ordinator
Joakim Palme - External Co-ordinator
Nicola Piper - Consultant
Michael Powell - External Co-ordinator
Bill Rau - External Co-ordinator
Manuel Riesco - External Co-ordinator
Laurence Whitehead - External Co-ordinator
Meredith Woo-Cumings - External Co-ordinator
Ann Zammit - Consultant

Former Staff
Désirée Abrahams
Catherine Agg
Renato Alva
Thomas Ansorg
Joseph Apedo
Solon L. Barraclough
Lacina Barro
Jem Bendell
Francesca Bossano
Christopher Brading
Maria-Julia Castillo
Hongyu Chen
Alessandra Dal Secco
Santiago Daroca Oller
Lucy Earle
Jing Fang
Dharam Ghai
Uzma Hashmi
Anna Hemmingson
Cynthia Hewitt de Alcántara
Safia Houmed Houssein
Susan Joekes
Kevin Lo
Justin MacDermott
Michele Marzuin Tan
Rosemary Max
Carol Miller
Behzod Mingboev
Hubert Morsink
Mariana Mozdzer
Toshihiro Nakamura
Cristina Paciello
Claude Richard
Virginia Rodríguez
Irene Ruiz de Budavari
Marc Rwabahungu
Federico Saenz
Amanda Sloat
Rodolfo Stavenhagen
Constanza Tabbush
Magloire Tchouansi
LaMond Tullis
Cecilia Ugaz
Jenny Vidal
Jessica Vivian
David Westendorff