3. S
SOCIAL
OCIAL P
PROTECTION
ROTECTION-
- D
DEFINITION
EFINITION
Definition
Definition:
The term social protection (SP) remains unfamiliar to many and carries a range of
definitions, both in development studies literature and among policymakers.
This has resulted in confusion: core components and boundaries of SP are far from
agreed, and different stakeholders perceive social protection in different ways.
For example:
Some see it too narrowly and equate it to the old style social welfare to the poor;
Many policymakers equate SP with social safety nets, or interventions that
cushion the poor against production and consumption shocks;
Others adopt a very broad approach, including education and health subsidies,
job creation and microcredit programmes, as well as safety nets; and
A political view extends SP to arenas such as equity, social, and cultural rights,
rather than confining its scope to targeted income and consumption transfers.
3
4. S
SOCIAL
OCIAL P
PROTECTION
ROTECTION-
- D
DEFINITION
EFINITION
The concept of SP has emerged in early 1990s as a critique to the failure of
safety net programs of late 80s and early 90s.
Safety nets were conceptualised as minimalist social assistance in countries that
were poor and administratively weak to introduce social welfare programmes.
During the 1990s, as thinking on livelihoods, risk and vulnerability, and the
multi-dimensional nature of poverty became more nuanced, safety nets were
increasingly criticised as residualist and paternalistic.
At the same time, the momentum of SP increased.
The following box presents different definition given by different organizations to
SP.
4
6. D
DEFINITION
EFINITION (
(CONTD
CONTD.)
.)
All of them have got some common problems.
1. Problem identification: social protection is required to address narrowly
specified set of economic problems or livelihood shocks.
Social risks such as child labour, domestic violence, armed conflict and ethnic
discrimination are not incorporated;
2. Problem prioritisation: Each definition prioritises a slightly different set of
problems – either low levels of income; or downward fluctuations in incomes;
But SP should address both problems of ‘being poor- for which social assistance is
needed’ and ‘becoming poor- for which social insurance is needed’
6
needed’ and ‘becoming poor- for which social insurance is needed’
3. Social protection providers: assumes that social protection is delivered
mainly through public/ government) agencies.
A broader classification of social protection providers, including formal (“public”
and “private”) as well as informal (“collective” or “community-level”) sources
would do better.
7. D
DEFINITION
EFINITION (
(CONTD
CONTD.)
.)
Within the ILO framework, social protection is differentiated between:
1. protective measures: which have the specific objective of guaranteeing relief from
deprivation;
2. preventive measures: which directly seek to avert deprivation in various ways; and
3. promotional measures: which aim to enhance real incomes and capabilities.
The strength of the ILO framework is its broad conceptualisation: protection
measures in the form of safety nets) to increasingly broader domains
(preventive and even promotional measures). But it lacks the transformative
element.
7
Taking these limitations, Devereux, Stephen and Rachel Sabates-Wheeler. 2004
came up with two definitions: conceptual and working definitions.
8. Conceptual definition: All public and private initiatives that provide income or
consumption transfers to the poor, protect the vulnerable against livelihood
risks, and enhance the social status and rights of the marginalized; with the
overall objective of reducing the economic and social vulnerability of poor,
vulnerable and marginalized groups.
Working definition: The set of all initiatives, both formal and informal, that
provide social assistance to extremely poor individuals and households;
social services to groups who need special care or would otherwise be denied
access to basic services; social insurance to protect people against the risks
and consequences of livelihood shocks; and to protect people
D
DEFINITION
EFINITION (
(CONTD
CONTD.)
.)
and consequences of livelihood shocks; and social equity to protect people
against social risks such as discrimination or abuse.
The key objective of social protection is to reduce the vulnerability of the poor.
The full range of social protection interventions can be categorised under
protective, preventive, promotive and transformative measures.
8
9. D
DEFINITION
EFINITION (
(CONTD
CONTD.)
.)
1. Protective measures: provide relief from deprivation.
They include social assistance for the “chronically poor”, especially those who are
unable to work and earn their livelihood; and social services for a specific
group of community, say abandoned children and refugees.
2. Preventive measures: deal directly with poverty alleviation. They take the
form of social insurance for “economically vulnerable groups”.
Social insurance may be formal [pensions, health insurance, maternity benefit
and unemployment benefits] or informal [eg. funeral societies]
and unemployment benefits] or informal [eg. funeral societies]
3. Promotive measures: aim to enhance real incomes and capabilities.
It is achieved through a range of livelihood-enhancing programmes targeted at
households and individuals, such as microfinance and school feeding.
4. Transformative measures: seek to address social equity exclusion.
It includes collective action for workers’ rights, or upholding human rights for
minority ethnic groups.
It also includes changes to the regulatory framework to protect “socially
vulnerable groups” (e.g. people with disabilities, or victims of domestic
violence).
9
11. C
CONTD
ONTD.
.
The thick dashed lines indicate a less obvious relationship. Eg. microfinance
schemes have weak effects on empowering individuals within their households.
Some social protection instruments, such as minimum wage legislation, can be
both promotive and transformative.
The thin dotted line indicates a weak relationship between the protective and
promotive aspects of social protection.
It highlights the possibility that safety nets may in some cases enable people to
take opportunities that otherwise they would not have taken, to enhance their
economic opportunities.
economic opportunities.
The very thick dashed line indicates that many protective measures can have the
unfortunate effect of reinforcing established power hierarchies and patterns of
exclusion.
Furthermore, they can introduce social polarisation.
Note: Three categories of people in need of social protection:
the chronically poor
the economically vulnerable
the socially marginalised.
11
12. C
CONTD
ONTD.
.
One can challenge SP on three grounds:
1. Affordability: Given binding budget constraints, how can low-income countries
deliver effective SP to their vulnerable citizens at affordable cost?
2. Growth: Can SP policies contribute to the MDG of halving extreme poverty
and hunger, by supporting pro-poor economic growth?
3. Equity: How can existing definitions and frameworks for SP be extended to
incorporate “social” as well as “economic” aspects of risk and vulnerability?
Recent research is starting to provide some encouraging answers.
Recent research is starting to provide some encouraging answers.
Many forms of SP are affordable even in the poorest countries, especially those
that are not based on large or repeated income transfers to beneficiaries.
SP can contribute, both directly and indirectly, to economic growth and poverty
reduction:
Directly: redistributive transfers raise incomes and smooth consumptions of the poor.
Indirectly: through asset creation (building infrastructure, school feeding schemes), and
income or employment multipliers.
“Rights-based approaches” to development focus on social equity concerns, and
propose interventions that modify prejudicial attitudes (minimum wages and
inheritance rights) and behaviours towards socially vulnerable groups.
12
13. Please Read: Transformative social protection, IDS Working Paper 232
By: Stephen Devereux and Rachel Sabates-Wheeler (2004)
13
