EDIAIS :Conference papers

The practice of impact assessment reveals an unevenness in the treatment of environmental, social and economic impact assessment. Unlike economic analysis, which utilizes cost-benefit analysis or cost-effectiveness analysis to justify and design development interventions, environmental and social impact analyses have typically been undertaken downstream to assess adverse impacts and design mitigation strategies. This has created an impression of commensality among environmental and social impact practitioners. Many practitioners believe that environmental impact assessment (EIA) is the "mother of all impact assessments", social impact assessment (SIA) being a subset. Closer scrutiny suggests that this kinship, has been problematic and that, for SIA to realize its full potential, it needs to go beyond the environmental paradigm. By following the example of economic analysis, SIA would be more effective in designing pro-poor and socially strategic development interventions.

This essay draws on three sources of information to examine the theory and practice of SIA, and the benefits and downside of its alliance with EIA. First, it looks at the outputs of the International Association for Impact Assessment as a proxy for the sustainable development paradigm. Second, it looks at the policies and practice of SIA within multilateral development banks, which have shared the "do-no-harm" model of EIA since the 1980s. Third, it examines more recent work on poverty and social impact analysis (PSIA) promoted by the World Bank in partnership with some bilateral donors that has shifted attention from the project level, and deliberately chosen a developmental rather than safeguard model to assess the likely impacts of policies and programs.

In contrast to EIA which has received greater acceptance in national policies and which has developed a strong community of advocates and practitioners, SIA has been hamstrung by its attempt to emulate or ride on the coat-tails of environment. The PSIA approach, which combines economic and social analysis, has allowed social impact practitioners to move beyond analysis of adverse impacts toward ex-ante upstream analysis that has a better chance of influencing the choice and design of policies and programs. Notwithstanding the challenges of ex-ante PSIA, the replacement of a "safeguard" stance by strategic analysis upstream may be a more effective way for social analysis to influence development outcomes.

to top of page

The Adobe Acrobat Reader can be downloaded by clicking here