This document summarizes a presentation on social protection policy given by Ilcheong Yi from UNRISD. It discusses the sequencing of social protection measures in Nordic countries, highlighting universal coverage and generosity over time. It also addresses debates around targeting versus universalism, arguing universal social protection is more efficient, effective and sustainable. The document outlines the concept of a social protection floor promoted by the UN to guarantee minimum social security and services. However, it raises several questions about how the social protection floor framework can ensure adequate income security, health access, and be financed sustainably within a broad social policy approach.

1. Productivity, Sequence and Fiscal Sustainability of
Social Policy
Seoul Policy Dialogue
1 - 2 November 2012
UNDP Seoul Policy Centre and KDI
ILCHEONG YI
Research Coordinator
Social Policy and Development Programme
UNRISD
Geneva, Switzerland
www.unrisd.org

2. Transformative Social Policy: norms, function, instruments and outcomes
2
Source: Jimi Adésínà

3. 2. Sequence of Social Protection Measures
Scandinavian model (or Nordic welfare
states): Stateness, universalism, and
equality

4. Figure 1. WA: Work Accident, SI : Sickness Insurance, PI: Pension, and UI:
Unemployment Insurance , Source: Kangas and Palme (2005)

5. Figure 1. WA:
Work Accident,
SI : Sickness
Insurance, PI:
Pension, and UI:
Unemployment
Insurance
Source: author’s
modification of
Kangas and
Palme (2005)
Since 1870,
Nordic countries
became the fast
growing
economies in
Europe.
(Emerging
economies in
the 19th century)

6. Figure 3. Coverage and
generosity of social
insurance, Nordic countries
and selected OECD
countries (Source: Kangas
and Palme (2005))
In terms of coverage,
Finland, and in terms of
generosity, Norway was a
laggard.

7. Figure 4. Unemployment
Compul. insurance coverage among
employees under voluntary,
compulsory and all (non-
targeted) legislation for 18
Non- OECD countries, Source:
targeted Carroll 2005)
Volun.

8. Targeting vs. Universalism
• Targeted social policy is target-efficient and poverty-
reduction-effective?|: Where poverty is widespread,
targeting is unnecessary and administratively costly. Such
problems as information asymmetries, incentive
distortion, moral hazard, arbitrariness, stigmatization,
invasive process prevent targeted social policy inefficient
and ineffective. It is not politically sustainable either.

9. Universal Social Protection System
 Social protection system is a major element of social
policy. Social policy addresses issues of production,
distribution, redistribution, protection, and reproduction
and social protection is placed at the centre of social
policy addressing the issues in these areas. Universal
social protection is a system guaranteeing universal
access to social transfers and services which meets the
social need in solidaristic and democratic manner.
United Nations
Research Institute for

10. Historical lessons about universal social protection
system
1. You can implement a universal social protection scheme even with little
resources. Universal social protection is not just the matter of resource.
2. No universal social protection programme started with a complete universal
coverage from the beginning. It started with either nominal universal
programme or occupationally-based scheme and then extended to cover
entire population. Universalisation should involve a process towards
universal social protection, i.e. transformation.
3. The source of political will for universalism is often not from politicians but
from civil society which creates a pressure on politicians and a window of
opportunity for policy introduction. Civil society often fills the
representational gaps (Recent process of ILO’s convention on domestic
workers)
United Nations
Research Institute for

11. 4. In general, targeting social protection is much more costly,
ineffective, and unstable than universalism.
5. However, there are two types of targeting approaches; exclusive
and isolated targeting which tends to exclude people (targeting
towards residualism or targeting without universalism) and inclusive
and incorporated targeting which tends to integrate people into
political, economic and social life (targeting towards universalism or
targeting within universalism).
6. Universalism cannot be realised with sector-specific and one-
dimension-focused silo approach.
United Nations
Research Institute for

12. Origins of Social Protection Floor
The World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalisation’s
report “A Fair Globalisation: Creating Opportunities for All (2004)
“A minimum level of social protection for individuals and families
needs to be accepted and undisputed as part of the socio-
economic ‘floor’ of the global economy, including adjustment
assistance to displaced workers. Donors and financial institutions
should contribute to the strengthening of social protection systems
in developing countries”.
-reduction-effective?|: Where poverty is widespread, targeting is
unnecessary and administratively costly. Such problems as
information asymmetries, incentive distortion, moral hazard,
arbitrariness, stigmatization, invasive process prevent targeted social
policy inefficient and ineffective. It is not politically sustainable either.

13. UN’s response to the current economic
crisis
- In April 2009, the UN Chief Executives Board (CEB) launched
a social protection floor as one of its 9 initiatives to cope with the
global crisis.
- a core obligation of ensuring the realization of minimum essential
levels of rights embodied in human right treaties.
- The term Social Protection Floor is a global and coherent social
policy concept that promotes nationally defined strategies that
protect a minimum level of access to essential services and income
security for all in the present economic and financial crisis and
beyond.

14. The social security components of the
SPF(2010 version)
1. All residents have access to a nationally defined set of essential
health care services
2. All children have income security, at least at the level of the
nationally defined poverty line level, through family/child
benefits aimed at facilitating access to nutrition, education and
care
3. All those in active age groups who are unable to earn sufficient
income on the labour markets should enjoy minimum income
security through social assistance
4. All residents in old age and with disabilities have income security at
least at the level of the nationally defined poverty line through
pensions for old age and disability

15. Social Protection Floors (2012 version)
• The Social Protection Floor approach promotes access to essential
social security transfers and social services in the areas of health,
water and sanitation, education, food, housing, life and asset-
savings information. It emphasizes the need to implement
comprehensive, coherent and coordinated social protection and
employment policies to guarantee services and social transfers
across the life cycle, paying particular attention to the vulnerable
groups.

16. Safety Nets vs. Social Protection Floor

17. Seven questions the SPFI do not answer
 1. Does “nationally defined set of essential health care services for
all ” sufficiently guarantee “health” for all?
-- Low quality of essential health service reduces uptake rate and it
is wrong to assume that a universal service provided by law is
equitable in practice. Guaranteeing essential service should be
accompanied with active promotion of policies in the health sector
to enhance access to and control quality of care.
-- Benefit package and coverage of nationally defined set of
essential health care service are getting smaller because of the
shrink of public health care provision.

18. Seven questions the SPFI do not answer
 2. Is “income security at the level of the nationally defined
poverty line level” sufficient enough to reduce poverty?
-- Indonesian case

19. • A large proportion of population live only
Log Annual Pe r Capita Expe nditure , 2008
slightly above the poverty line
100
90
5,9% = below
1USDPPP (2008)
80
Population Density
15,4% = below
70
Nat’l Poverty Line (2008)
60
42,6% = below
50 2USDPPP (2008)
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Log Per Capita Expenditure
Pergeseran X
GK NPL
GK USD1
GK USD2
Indonesian Case (A. Suryahadi, 2010)

20.  3. What if “family/child benefits aimed at facilitating
access to nutrition, education and care” mean a “means
tested targeted CCT”?
-- Problems of targeted approach (ineffective, costly and
inhumane approach). (see the numerous works by
UNIRSD)

21.  4. Can social assistance guarantee “minimum income
security”?
-- Social assistance schemes cannot guarantee
“minimum income” without addressing the informal,
underemployed and working poor. (LA cases)
 5. What kind of social assistance is going to be used for
“minimum income security” ?
-- universal or targeting? (for instance universal social
pension vs. means tested social assistance for the
elderly)

22.  6. How is social protection floor financed? – ILO
emphasise the domestic resource mobilisation. It has
been emphasised since the establishment of the first UN
Resolutions on Financing Development in 1950. How
can developing countries have a bigger policy space for
mobilising and spending resources for social
protection?
 7. How is social protection floor situated within broad
framework of social policy?
Social policy approach in development studies is
emphasising the productive aspect as well as protection.
How is SPF related to production?

23. Net financial transfers to developing countries
(Source: World Economic Situation and Prospects, each year)

24. Questioning Conventional Wisdoms
Suggesting Alternatives
With UNRISD
WWW.UNRISD.ORG
Palais des Nations
1211 Geneva 10
Switzerland