POLICY BRIEF
Social Protection
in the post-2015
Development Agenda
armando barrientos and david hulme, brooks world poverty
institute, school of environment and development,
university of manchester, uk
text: A rmando Barrientos & David Hulme
editor: Gunnel Axelsson Nycander
POLICY BRIEF
Social Protection in the
post-2015 Development Agenda
Growth delivers economic opportunity and basic services support productive
capacity, but without social protection they are unlikely to reach the poorest.
The quotation is taken from the present policy brief. The fight against hunger has long been
an important theme of the international work of Church of Sweden. Much of this work
involves promoting people’s opportunities to support themselves.
However, hunger and poverty cannot be eradicated solely by improving people’s ability to
earn a living. This work needs to be supplemented by methods that directly strengthen the
purchasing power of disadvantaged people through various forms of social protection.
In its work on social protection Church of Sweden has asked Prof Armando Barrientos
and Prof David Hulme, Brooks World Poverty Institute, School of Environment and
Development, University of Manchester, UK, to write this policy brief about ways in which
social protection can be addressed in the post-2015 Development Agenda.
3
POLICY BRIEF
Social Protection in the
post-2015 Development Agenda
In the discussion leading to the review of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), it will be important to
take account of the recent extension of social protection
in the South and its contribution to the reduction of global poverty and vulnerability. Antipoverty programmes,
providing direct transfers in cash and in kind to households and individuals, have emerged as a key instrument
for delivering the MDGs. The rapid expansion of social
protection in the South is making a significant contribution to the reduction of extreme poverty and is largely
based on nationally designed programmes.
Yet, the discussions leading to the MDGs contained
no references to social protection and, until recently,
the literature about the MDGs paid very little attention to social protection.1 Discussions on the post-2015
Development Agenda will find it impossible not to address social protection. The purpose of this brief paper is
to help frame this discussion and suggest ways in which
social protection can be addressed in the post-2015 review.
What is social protection?
Uncertainty over terminology can easily prevent effective communication across global stakeholders. It will
prove helpful to start by discussing the scope of social
protection in the South.
Taking an institutional perspective, social protection includes three main components: social insurance which
consists of schemes financed by contributions from
workers and employers aimed at addressing life course
and work contingencies; social assistance which includes tax-financed programmes addressing poverty; and
employment programmes, whether ‘active’ or ‘passive’.2
In developed countries, welfare states have been successful in integrating the provision of basic services, like
health and education, with social protection institutions. For the majority of countries in the North, social
insurance and service provision are the largest components of welfare states and social assistance can be a
relatively small and residual component.
In developing countries, social insurance schemes and
4
employment programmes are limited in coverage. Even
in Latin America and the Caribbean, where social insurance schemes can be traced back to early 20th century,
coverage is restricted to workers in formal employment
around one half of the labour force. In Asia and Africa,
a very small minority of workers are in formal employment and social insurance is small scale.
The recent expansion of social protection in the South
has concentrated in the social assistance component, and
through a variety of programmes: child and family transfers, social pensions, conditional cash transfers, employment guarantees, and others.3
In the context of developing countries, stakeholders
sometimes conflate humanitarian and emergency assistance with public assistance. The notion of safety nets,
as employed by Bretton Woods institutions for example,
makes no distinction between short term emergency
assistance and social or public assistance. Humanitarian
and emergency assistance has an important role to play
in addressing the effects of disasters and conflict. But the
recent expansion of social protection in the South is
focused on establishing and developing longer term institutions needed to eradicate poverty and deprivation.
A key point to retain is that Northern researchers and
policy makers normally have in mind a broad definition
of social protection, one that includes insurance, assistance and employment programmes. In international development policy debates and among Southern
researchers and policy makers, social protection is used
to describe antipoverty programmes or social assistance.
In what follows we use the term in its narrower sense.
The growth and diversity of social protection in
the Global South
The main focus for the rapid expansion of social protection in developing countries has been on providing direct
transfers in cash and in kind to families and individuals
facing poverty and vulnerability with the objective of facilitating escape from poverty. Estimates suggest that by
2010 between 750 million and 1 billion people in developing countries live in households receiving cash transfers.4
POLICY BRIEF
Social protection programmes show considerable diversity in developing countries, reflecting local learning
about what works in poverty reduction, economic development, institutional capacities, and political processes
and priorities. They include categorical transfers for
households or individuals in poverty, like social pensions
or child and family allowances; transfers combined with
asset accumulation, like human development conditional
cash transfers, employment guarantees, asset protection
transfers; and integrated antipoverty transfers.
Mexico’s 1997 Progresa/Oportunidades developed out
of a concern with the impact of agricultural liberalisation on intergenerational poverty persistence in rural
areas. Its design, including transfers to families with
children conditional on school attendance and primary
health care utilisation, was a reaction to ineffective food
subsidies.5 India’s 2005 National Rural Employment
Guarantee Scheme, providing 100 days employment
on demand to unemployed heads of household, is a
response to persistent poverty in rural areas designed
around existing state level employment guarantees.6
South Africa’s 1998 Child Support Grant extended social assistance to children in poor households, and was
based on the perceived effectiveness of old age transfers.
China’s 1999 Minimum Living Standards Scheme was
initially set up to provide assistance to older and disabled urban residents in poverty, but was swiftly extended
to support growing numbers of unemployed workers
from recently liberalised state owned enterprises.7
Political support for the expansion of social protection is
grounded on a growing commitment to the gradual realisation of rights and social citizenship, and the pursuit of
equity. This is often expressed in very simple terms, as
support for vulnerable groups like older people and
children, but deeper values underpin these policies.
The diversity in social assistance programmes in the
South confirms the primacy of national policy and political processes in the emergence of social protection in
each country.
The growth of social protection programmes has been
swift in middle income countries, which is of great importance given the fact that a majority of poor people in
the world lives in middle income countries. Progress has
been slower in low income countries. To an extent, this
is explained by acute constraints in financial resources
5
and implementation capacity in these countries. Political factors are significant too. Limited democratisation
and the absence of political competition can make elites
unresponsive to the needs of their citizens. In aid dependent countries, elites are able to ‘export’ poverty reduction to donors, which becomes a task for aid agencies.
Successful antipoverty programmes require good technical analysis but also political support.
Democratisation and enhanced fiscal space in low income countries, especially with recent economic growth in
Africa, could become the drivers for the expansion of
social protection.
In just a decade, social protection has become widely
accepted in developing countries as an essential component of an inclusive development strategy. Growth delivers economic opportunity and basic services support
productive capacity, but without social protection they
are unlikely to reach the poorest.
Social protection has contributed to achieving
the MDGs
Social protection has contributed to advancing several
of the MDGs. The main contribution has been to the
Goal 1 Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger. Impact
evaluations have demonstrated that well designed and
well implemented social protection programmes can
make an important contribution to the reduction of
global poverty and hunger.8
In countries where social protection programmes include human development objectives, such as Mexico’s
Oportunidades or Bangladesh’s Challenging the Frontiers of Poverty Reduction – Targeting the Ultra Poor,
social protection has a direct effect upon other Goals,
especially health, education, and gender equality.
Mexico’s Oportunidades, for example, aims to improve
school enrolments and attendance, especially for girls,
and health care utilisation among the poorest.
The extension of social protection in developing
countries can also make an important contribution to
the gradual realisation of human rights, through protecting, embedding, and institutionalising the rights
of groups facing extreme poverty and vulnerability.9
Social protection programmes establish rights and
responsibilities between citizens and their governments,
as in India, Brazil and South Africa.
POLICY BRIEF
Learning from the MDGs
A review of the MDGs will generate valuable insights
on potential linkages to social protection.
The MDGs emphasis on targets reflected the interests of
the rich, aid donor countries and especially their politicians and senior public servants who wanted to be able
to explain to their publics that aid would not be wasted
because ‘best practice’ management tools would ensure
effectiveness. The common sense nature and linearity of
this approach made it attractive – set targets, monitor
achievement and reward staff on the basis of performance. For the aid-financed programs of the DAC
members and the UN, this approach was particularly
attractive. This results-based management approach is
better suited to development projects but might be
dysfunctional to the kind of institution building at the
core of social protection.
The MDGs have been very successful in attracting attention to the need to address extreme poverty at the
national and global levels. Goal 1 Target 1, however,
focuses on extreme poverty headcount without reference to other, more comprehensive, measures of poverty.
The poverty headcount prioritises policies that take
households in poverty across the line. The squared poverty gap measure places priority on reducing poverty
among the poorest of the poor. The simplicity of Goal 1
Target 1 can give mixed messages. Governments in lowincome countries with very limited resources to combat
poverty might be tempted to focus these resources on
the moderately poor, at the expense of the extreme poor
because this approach maximises the chance of reaching
the targets. Social protection in the South is designed to
improve consumption and productive capacity among
groups in poverty, but transfer levels are generally insufficient to raise households above the poverty line.
An important criticism of the way in which the MDGs
have worked out as a policy influencing agenda, suggests that over time they have become entrapped within
the global UN agencies and their stakeholders. In a
sense, setting global norms is a great deal easier, and
cheaper, than engaging with a multiplicity of agencies
and stakeholders at the national level. The MDGs, this
criticism goes, have become part of the global aid industry, with important implications for their effectiveness
and credibility. This argument can be helpfully rehearsed in a social protection context. Social protection
6
‘works’ at the national level, through national political
and policy processes. The greatest ‘breakthroughs’ in
poverty reduction and social protection have been in
countries that pursue national strategies rather than the
MDGs, countries like China, India, and Brazil.
The dominant role of UN agencies in the management
of the MDGs ensured that international aid became the
sole resource base. The role of international aid in supporting social protection is limited. International aid
has a very positive role to play in reducing the large set
up costs of social transfer programmes, for example the
costs of setting up registration and financial systems,
training and recruiting staff, ensuring effective monitoring and evaluation protocols. These costs can be a barrier, especially for low income countries. However, to be
sustainable social protection programmes must be
domestically financed.
Linking social protection and the MDGs requires a
stronger focus on national level policy and politics, with
UN Agencies and international aid having a supportive
role. This would involve paying attention to, and supporting, national social contracts and fiscal pacts, with a
focus on institution building, not development projects.
It would also require a shift away from North-South
financial transfers and towards South-South learning.
How best to link social protection to the
post-2015 Development Agenda?
Social protection is not an outcome, but an instrument to
achieving the reduction and eradication of poverty. Social
protection can be incorporated within a new Development Agenda as a commitment, as in the text below:
A Commitment within post-2015 Development Agenda
Recognising the importance of social protection, and
especially social assistance, in
(i) achieving the MDGs;
(ii) r educing the effects of poverty and vulnerability
experienced by individual, households, and
communities in the South;
(iii) facilitating much needed improvements in the
productive capacity of households in poverty,
especially through investment in the capabilities
of children, and
(iv) preventing the descent of people into poverty.
POLICY BRIEF
It recommends that the international community steps
up its support to developing countries in establishing
and extending social protection programmes, policies,
and institutions, as exemplified by the Livingstone process in Africa, and the follow up by the Africa Union.
Acknowledging that social protection institutions must
reflect national policy priorities and values, it recommends that countries develop their own goals, targets
and indicators to measure progress and effectiveness of
social protection, starting from social assistance.
It recommends the establishment of a global social protection fund with the purpose of (i) facilitating the adoption,
design, and implementation of effective social assistance
programmes in developing countries; (ii) strengthening
domestic revenue collection within fiscal pacts. The fund
is to be managed by developing countries themselves,
supported by the international community.10
Annex: The Social Protection Floors Initiative
The ILO’s Social Protection Floors Initiative is a
welcomed instrument for raising attention to the need
for social protection among international stakeholders.
It aims to provide benchmarks for the extension of
social protection.
11
The ILO recommendation states the social protection
floors should comprise at least the following basic social
security guarantees:
(a) access to a nationally defined set of goods and services, constituting essential health care, including maternity care, that meets the criteria of availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality;
(b) basic income security for children, at least at a
nationally defined minimum level, providing access to
nutrition, education, care and any other necessary goods
and services;
7
(c) basic income security, at least at a nationally defined
minimum level, for persons in active age who are unable
to earn sufficient income, in particular in cases of sickness, unemployment, maternity and disability; and
(d) basic income security, at least at a nationally defined
minimum level, for older persons.
The proposal for a Commitment within the post-2015
Development Agenda, overlaps with the Social Protection Floors Initiative, but also extends it in several ways:
The SPFs initiative follows the ILO ‘standard setting’
approach to global norms. It has the advantage over the
MDGs that the goals are nationally set, not global. But
the standards are set in terms of access to inputs not
outcomes. The Commitment explicitly acknowledges
the diversity of social protection institutions. It also acknowledges that nationally driven processes are evolutionary and supported by social contracts and fiscal pacts.
The SPFs initiative lacks any reference to the resources
needed to support the recommendations, with the implication that the norms are least effective in the countries
where they are most needed. The SPFs initiative is especially unproductive in the low income countries which
are unable to implement them. Learning from the
MDGs, the Commitment explicitly addresses the
resource dimension.
The SPFs initiative is underpinned by a Northern perspective on poverty and insecurity, with a strong focus
on life course poverty. It is unclear how useful this is in
a developing country context. The Commitment pays
special attention to the need to improve the productive
capacity of groups facing poverty and vulnerability, not
just their income or health care.
POLICY BRIEF
Endnotes
1 The World Bank makes the connections at http://www.ecolabs.org/adams2/IMG/pdf/SPMDGs.pdf.
2 BARRIENTOS, A. 2007. Tax-financed social security. International Social Security Review, 60, 99-117. According to the ILO’s 2010/11 World
Social Security Report, “only one-third of countries globally (inhabited by 28 per cent of the global population) have comprehensive social
protection systems covering all branches of social security as defined in ILO Convention No. 102. Taking into account those who are not
economically active, it is estimated that only about 20 per cent of the world’s working-age population (and their families) have effective access
to comprehensive social protection” (p.1) ILO 2010. World Social Security Survey 2010/11. Geneva: ILO.
3 HANLON, J., HULME, D. & BARRIENTOS, A. 2010. Just give money to the poor: The development revolution from the global south, Kumarian Press.
4 BARRIENTOS, A., NIÑO-ZARAZÚA, M. & MAITROT, M. 2010. Social Assistance in Developing Countries Database Version 5. Manchester:
Brooks World Poverty Institute. Available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1672090.
5 LEVY, S. 2006. Progress against Poverty. Sustaining Mexico’s Progresa-Oportunidades Program, Washington DC, Brookings Institution Press
6 KHERA, R. (ed.) 2011. The Battle for Employment Guarantee, Delhi: Oxford University Press.
7 WANG, M. 2007. Emerging Urban Poverty and Effects of the Dibao Programme on Alleviating Poverty in China. China & World Economy, 15, 74-88.
8 See FISZBEIN, A. & SCHADY, N. 2009. Conditional Cash Transfers. Reducing Present and Future Poverty, Washington DC, The World Bank,
HANLON, J., HULME, D. & BARRIENTOS, A. 2010. Just give money to the poor: The development revolution from the global south,
Kumarian Press.
9 On 27 September 2012 the Human Rights Council adopted the Guiding Principles on extreme poverty and human rights, by consensus, in
resolution 21/11.
10 DE SCHUTTER, O. & SEPÚLVEDA, M. 2012. Underwriting the Poor. A Global Fund for Social Protection.
11 Recommendations at http://www.social-protection.org/gimi/gess/RessShowRessource.do?ressourceId=31088.
8
POLICY BRIEF
church of sweden international department
central church office, se-751 70 uppsala, sweden
phone: +46 (0)18-16 96 00
e-mail: info@svenskakyrkan.se
www.svenskakyrkan.se
www.churchofsweden.org
plusgiro: 90 01 22-3
bankgiro: 900-1223
art.no: sk13139
production: ineko ab
9