Resource

Unveiling Social Safety Nets

  • English
Gentilini, U. ; Were Omamo, S.
World Food Programme
2009
28
Download - 827 Kb
Resource cover

Summary (English)

Interest in safety nets and social protection is growing exponentially. Ways of strengthening them are called for in high-level statements, researched in academic articles, and implemented by practitioners. Such developments are encouraging and may help to shed light on some long-standing humanitarian and development challenges. The concept remains controversial, however, and several issues must be clarified. This paper delineates core areas of tension, and lays out key issues underpinning them at the analytical, policy, institutional and implementation level. It conveys the following five messages:

1. Social protection is a broader concept than safety nets. Although there is no universally agreed definition of social protection, there is growing consensus that it includes safety nets, mostly in the form of cash or food transfers; social services, such as health clinics; and insurance options. Safety nets are therefore only one of the many components of a social protection system.

2. All countries have some form of social protection, but models differ greatly. Social protection is largely about public action, and all countries deploy some form of public measures against hunger. However, countries’ different capacities and objectives lead to diverse models of social protection. These include contexts where social protection systems are limited, such as in Bangladesh; emerging, as in Brazil; and consolidated, as in Sweden. Such diversity must be recognized, and interventions tailored to meet context-specific challenges.

3. Social protection policy cannot be formulated in isolation. Longstanding debates should be included more explicitly in the formulation of social protection policies. These include the debates on public versus market interventions to address hunger, the effectiveness of foreign aid, and the growth effects of social protection.

4. Social protection raises important institutional, financial and administrative challenges. Most developing countries face critical institutional and financial challenges that can only be met gradually and progressively. However, some actors advocate for an immediate institutionalization of social protection. Inadequate attention is often paid to competing priorities and trade-offs, bringing the risk of misinforming or misguiding decision-makers.

5. Specific implementation issues inspire lively debate. Social protection programming typically evokes debate over traditional programming areas, including the appropriateness and design of conditionalities – whether or not to link transfers to certain activities; the type of transfers – cash, food or vouchers; or targeting mechanisms. It is not unusual to find dogmatic positions in these areas.

The paper’s conclusions can be summarized in the following three interlinked remarks:

i) Approaches need to be fully compatible with prevailing cultural, social and economic factors. Countries have followed different pathways to introduce and expand social protection systems. Context-specific factors should be fully recognized, and approaches tailored accordingly. There is scope for learning from each other, but it is not appropriate to simply replicate models developed in other contexts.

ii) In developing countries, the debate tends to overemphasize conceptual issues and underplay administrative and implementation constraints. Decision-makers face difficult tradeoffs, some of which can be minimized while others are more difficult to reconcile. Introducing and expanding social protection systems do not allow for shortcuts or easy choices. Ignoring possible trade-offs makes debates naïve at best, and misguided at worst.

iii) Rhetoric has often prevailed over evidence. There is a need to inform decision-makers more fully, and not merely to convince them. This is true for both the advocates and the critics of social protection. A more balanced and pragmatic approach is required – based on technical partnerships, free from pre-packaged agendas, and genuinely owned and demanded by national governments and actors.

 

Studies 2509
31.03.2011