Introduction to the forum: Social welfare and conflict in the MENA region

How should we understand the links between social policy and conflict? Existing work emphasises that the relationship is complex, bidirectional and sometimes contradictory. On one hand, social welfare or social protection programmes may improve state legitimacy, enhance social cohesion, or reduce horizontal inequalities, all of which may in turn reduce the likelihood of conflict. On the other hand, armed conflict or other forms of societal violence are likely to undermine social welfare and social protection systems, making them more politicised and undermining their effectiveness by eroding public trust and state capacity, reducing available financing for social protection, or by increasing the extent of external engagement (Sabates-Wheeler et al., 2022). In conflict settings, elites are more likely to establish social protection schemes or to deliver or reform services in ways that benefit their own social group (Burchi et al., 2022), a dynamic which can exacerbate conflict (McLoughlin, 2019; Stewart, 2009). Inadequate services may generate conflict in the form of violent or non-violent protests. Conversely, wars may create moments of opportunity where new rules of the political game can be established, when public expectations about the role of the state change and where political leaders have space to make radical changes in the foundations of state legitimacy. An example of these dynamics can be seen in the emergence of welfare regimes in European countries following the end of the Second World War (Obinger et al., 2018; Skocpol, 1995).

These linkages have been examined in foundational social policy research into the emergence of advanced welfare states in Western countries in the aftermath of the world wars, or following the American civil war (Titmuss, 2018 [1958], Skocpol, 1995). They have been analysed further in more recent comparative social welfare research, which has investigated how the warfare-welfare nexus varies in the emergence of other advanced Western welfare states (Obinger et al., 2018). Social policy research, however, has largely failed to investigate the contemporary experiences of countries in the Global South. As we will explore in this volume, this represents an important gap since the linkages between warfare and welfare in these contexts appear very different from those observed in the West.

This failure to probe the links between conflict and social policy can be observed in the field of peace and conflict studies, as well as in policy and practice. Harvey (2021) points out that social protection discourses ‘are often characterised by a large degree of conflict blindness’. As Cocozzelli (2006) has argued, post-conflict reconstruction strategies have neglected social policy and social welfare more broadly. Peace and conflict scholars have observed that international peacebuilding efforts fail partly due a tendency to privilege economic and security issues over social welfare concerns (Lee et al., 2016; Richmond and Franks, 2008; Vogel, 2022).

In this forum, we explore these intersections with reference to a region blighted by intense and persistent conflict – Middle East and North Africa (MENA). Along with Africa, the MENA region has seen the highest number of conflict-related fatalities this century with major wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen and most recently with the devastating escalations of violence in Gaza and Lebanon (Davies et al., 2024). We adopt a broad view of social welfare, encompassing both social protection and the provision of services. Our conceptualisation of conflict considers both organised armed violence and some forms of non-violent conflict such as protests.

The papers in this forum explore the relationship between social welfare and conflict from several perspectives. Walton’s (this volume) paper outlines some of the key features of this relationship between social welfare and conflict/peace in the MENA region. He argues that existing frameworks for examining this relationship may be of limited relevance in places such as the MENA region, where social protection is fragmented and has been used primarily as part of a strategy of regime consolidation. Kivimaki (this volume) explores the different trajectories and intersections between social policy and peace studies as academic disciplines. His paper emphasises that while peace studies has veered away from social policy, there is growing recognition that the intersections between the two fields need to be taken more seriously again, particularly in contexts such as the MENA region where factionalism and collective socio-economic grievances loom large.

Escalating regional conflict dynamics have been all too apparent since the Israel-Gaza war began in October 2023. Drawing on data from the Arab Spring, Merouani et al. (this volume) highlight a neglected aspect of these spillover effects – the negative impact of conflict on human development.

The final two papers in the collection explore the relationship between social protection and conflict in two MENA countries with contrasting experiences of violence. While Jordan has remained a peaceful outlier in the region, Lebanon has been persistently impacted by armed conflict, most recently with Israel’s invasion in 2024. Maria del Mar Logrono-Narbona’s paper (this volume) on the provision of health in Jordan explores a pattern of patrimonial welfare provision that is common in the region. She argues that unequal provision is driving widespread (though rarely public) social discontent which may in time lead to wider dissatisfaction with the regime. Finally, Maysa Baroud’s paper (this volume) examines how lack of effective social protection in Lebanon has driven tensions and violence among refugees and other marginalised groups.

Together these papers highlight a need for closer dialogue between social policy and peace and conflict studies. There is growing evidence from both macro-level research and case studies that the economic or political drivers of conflict closely intertwine with questions of social policy: with the absence of social protection often acting as a key contributor to protest, and with states using the provision of welfare to mitigate tensions. This collection underlines a need to reflect critically on mainstream models for understanding the linkages between social welfare and conflict. Both opportunity cost models and approaches rooted in Weberian models of state legitimacy have important limitations, which are highlighted when examining regions such as MENA where the provision of social welfare provision is used to forge ‘authoritarian bargains’ rather than addressing structural inequalities (Walton, this volume).

The recent wars in Gaza and Lebanon have highlighted starkly how armed conflicts stem from regional and global as well as national-level factors. International financial institutions have driven a policy agenda that has called for cutbacks to welfare spending and the targeting of social protection, which in turn has created conditions for protests and violence across the region, most notably during the Arab Spring of 2011. The security interests of global powers like the United States and Russia continue to play a central role in shaping conflicts across the region. Providing support for regimes such as Jordan who are seen as playing a stabilising role in the region, has often driven the patrimonial and exclusionary forms of social protection highlighted in Logrono Narbona’s (this volume) paper. As Baroud’s paper (this volume) explores, international support for refugees has also generated social tensions and violence (Fakhoury, 2017; Lenner and Turner, 2019). These dynamics highlight the importance of Merouani et al.’s (this volume) call to examine the regional dynamics and spillover effects when seeking to understand contemporary armed conflicts.

Finally, there is a need for policymakers to reflect more deeply on how social welfare policies may drive conflict in the MENA region and beyond. In countries such as Lebanon and Jordan, the provision of social welfare is most often used as a short-term or symbolic fix, to quell protests, or to buy off wavering supporters. When used in this way, social policy often supports a move towards ‘negative peace’ or short-term stabilisation, while undermining ‘positive peace’ or transformative changes that may challenge existing inequitable structures and institutions (Galtung, 1969). Opening up a more sustained conversation between peace and conflict scholars and the global social policy community is an important first step in this endeavour.