Hi, That`s an important and good question. First of all, if one developing country lacks democratic governemnt system, it cannot solve the problem to deter the rising of the social and cultural power; secondly, if it lacks the efficient government, the social and cultural policies maybe face more problems to practicable. Thirdly, it is hard to assess the other mean` exhaustion. Of course it is promising future to develope the social and cultural policies. 

A very interesting and challenging question. The importance of social and cultural policies lies in the way we define development itself. For me, I strongly believe that social and cultural policies are very vital for development of developing countries.  This is because development is rooted in the social and cultural rubrics of the society; it is itself social and cultural. As such, development cannot be understood nor achieved outside the sociocultural contexts. Economic development may be achieved but if it does not address the social and cultural issues, then it means nothing. I would definitely stress the importance of shaping and formulating social and cultural policies grounded in the real and lived experiences of the people in developing countries as a means of achieving socioeconomic development.

I think that, unfortunately, it is very hard for outsiders to help countries with poor, weak,  or conflicted institutions to develop better ones. The track record of foreign aid and similar innovations is rather poor. Western attempts to make a positive difference in the Arab Spring uprisings were frustrated in nearly every instance, to take one example. Another society's customs and institutions are hard enough for insiders to understand and are a near black box to outsiders. Even if outsiders' motives are pure, obviously not something to take for granted, they have a hard time knowing how to help efficiently. We need a deeper understanding of human behavior and the evolution of human institutions before we can have more than marginally effective methods for helping other societies, again not even to worry about purity of motives. Perhaps the best we can do at the moment is provide humanitarian assistance so as to keep people alive to try again. Western societies developed strong institutions that support prosperity and democracy over about a 500 year long period. The later developing countries are catching up faster than it took the original pioneers, witness Japan, Korea, China, and India. That is encouraging, but it would certainly be good to do better.

In the meantime Some of us in the West need to look after our own problems. I was in a meeting a couple of weeks ago in which US DOD funders were talking blithely needing to better understand failed states. I remarked that I might apply for a grant to study the US Congress!

See, for Example:

Gibson, C. C., Andersson, K., Ostrom, E., & Shivakumar, S. (2005). The Samaritan's Dilemma: The Political Economy of Development Aid. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

I agree with Fabio - social policies should not be (and have not been) measures of last resort in countries that have successfully "developed" (or improved the well-being of the majority), but part and central parcel of successful development plans. They have not been implemented to correct market failures only but have helped made growth or development more inclusive and built the productive potential of the workforce. 

It is sort of asking too much when social policy on the verge of loosing its stonghold in developed countries where it was born. Social policies cannot operate by themselves to produce effects. Social policies are costly and requires a strong revenue base of the government. Alternatively, a government can rely upon aid, but the effect of it could oscillate because of uncertainty associated with international aid and the accountability of aid utilization. The alternative is NGO-led social protection programs, but often these programs are truncated or enlarged without relating to real needs. The bottom line is, social policies can contribute to social development, but they can't be alternative to other policies.