Formal social citizenship is limited in how it enables us to think about informal social citizenship and informal welfare. This informal perspective is important in all contexts where access to social rights is negotiated through local and transnational spaces, and where the state is a relatively minor player. By drawing on work on moral economy (Scott, 1976) and informal welfare (Gough and Wood, 2006) the article aims to propose a new theoretical model to understand the nature and social practice of both informal citizenship and welfare. This model departs from a western-centric understanding of nation-state-based citizenship and national welfare states, adopting instead the perspective that informal social citizenship and welfare have existed independently of the nation state as long as there have been human communities. Formal citizenship together with formal welfare rights represent just one particular crystallization of such informal practice. Our proposed model highlights the interdependent (rather than evolutionary) relationship between formal welfare at national level and informal welfare practices at local and transnational levels.

This paper reflects upon the position of the nation state and non-state-centred actors in the support for welfare and the security of agency. In particular it argues that the normative agenda of rights-based autonomous security is undermined by the social facts of dependent, personalised and thus precarious security. The roles of other actors above and below the nation state are thus significant in any analysis of power relations, social reproduction and policy outcomes. In many middle- and lower-income countries, the problem for state actors is that power, authority and, more problematically, legitimacy lies significantly elsewhere across the domain of state, market, community and household. Aspects of globalisation can thereby interact directly with sub-national entities by-passing and undermining the state: multinational corporations, international donors, international non-governmental organisations, remittances, wider faith movements and cross-border ethnic solidarities. This is clearly a complicated institutional landscape within which to formulate the idea of responsibility for social policy and consider its intersecting role with international development.