SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC                       POLICY WORKING BRIEFS                       AUGUST 2012                       UN...
II. POST-CRISIS RECOVERY IN CEECIS?The countries in the CEECIS region responded tothe 2008/09 crisis in a variety of ways....
imports and foreign investments – experienced a        aimed at reaching children were necessary thenGDP contraction of ov...
Meanwhile, the region is experiencing on-going         the further development of social protectionfuel and food price flu...
countries, the ratios arrived at using the $2 (PPP)      estimated to live in poverty, as compared to theper day poverty l...
and young children into institutions dropped by        In the past decade, the CEECIS region has seen atwo-thirds in three...
It is estimated that in some countries, social cash     the other hand, social assistance (which includestransfers, for ex...
prices, as well as recurring natural disasters and     programmes in order to better reach children andEurozone instabilit...
REFERENCES                                                                 21. UNICEF & University of York, p. 261.       ...
44. Mohapatra, Sanket, Dilip Ratha, and Ani Silwal, ‘Outlook for         56. Ukraine, Armenia, Moldova, Turkey, Romania, A...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5

Preparing for an Uncertain Future: Expanding Social Protection for Children in Eastern Europe and Central Asia


Published on

Preparing for an Uncertain Future:
Expanding Social Protection for Children in Eastern Europe and Central Asia - August 2012

Published in: Business, Technology
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Preparing for an Uncertain Future: Expanding Social Protection for Children in Eastern Europe and Central Asia

  1. 1. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY WORKING BRIEFS AUGUST 2012 UNICEF POLICY AND STRATEGY SOCIAL PROTECTION SERIES Preparing for an Uncertain Future:Expanding Social Protection for Children in Eastern Europe and Central Asia Deolinda Martins and Elena Gaia  Poverty disproportionately I. THE 2008/09 ECONOMIC CRISIS IN CEECIS affects children in all CEECIS AND THE SOCIAL POLICY RESPONSE countries for which data is One year after the global economic crisis of available. 2008/09, Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (hereby  Social protection is needed to referred to as the CEECIS region)1 had been hit the hardest relative to other regions. In the year mitigate the lasting effects of the 2009 alone, real GDP contracted by 5.2% in 2008/09 economic crisis in CEECIS, whereas it only contracted by 2.2% CEECIS, as well as the additional worldwide.2 At the same time, these GDP contractions represented a stark departure from a strains on households due to the decade of strong economic growth and large Eurozone crisis, high capital inflows. Some CEECIS countries registered unemployment, and recurring drops in GDP as high as 7.9% (Russia) or even food/fuel price spikes. 15.1% (Ukraine). In 2009, the real GDP of Ukraine was set back four years, that of Turkey and Armenia was set back three years, and in  Existing social protection systems Romania, Moldova and Bulgaria, the GDP in the region need urgent reform: contraction reversed two years of growth.3 programmes for children need to Moreover, the effects of the 2008/09 crisis were reach more vulnerable families, compounded by a number of other non- economic shocks that hit the region over the provide higher allocations, and period 2007-2011, including drought and poor offer additional support services crop yields in Russia, violent conflict in Kyrgyzstan beyond cash. and Tajikistan, and widespread flooding in 2010.4
  2. 2. II. POST-CRISIS RECOVERY IN CEECIS?The countries in the CEECIS region responded tothe 2008/09 crisis in a variety of ways. During the At the time of writing, in mid-2012, the economicfirst 1-2 years after the crisis, many countries – downturn that began around 2008 appears to besuch as Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Tajikistan more persistent than originally expected. While– made protecting or expanding social there were encouraging signs of economicexpenditure part of their stimulus approach. Even improvement when GDP growth jumped fromin Serbia, where the government implemented -2.03% in 2009 to 4.75% in 2011, the region’sgeneral austerity measures, social expenditure projected growth rate for 2012 is only 3.17%.10remained protected. Meanwhile, Russia and Meanwhile, the priorities of governments shiftedArmenia publicly committed to leaving social away from fiscal stimulus to fiscal consolidation,expenditure levels untouched and to protecting which may threaten vulnerable groups. A reviewvulnerable groups.5 These measures succeeded in of 158 IMF country reports (2010-2012) suggestspreventing many households from falling into that numerous CEECIS countries are consideringpoverty. In Armenia, for example, the poverty cuts in social spending. Eight among them,rate increased by only three percentage points including Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia (whichduring the crisis, as opposed to the eight that had all expanded social spending during thewere expected.6 crisis), are considering further targeting social protection programmes as a cost-cuttingBy contrast, other countries that experienced the strategy.11crisis’ triple threat to revenues – lower growth,contributions, and tax revenues – left social Reducing social protection measures, however,spending, including on social protection benefits, could exacerbate the region’s high and persistentat its current level or even scaled it back. This is all level of childhood vulnerability, as manifested bythe more worrisome given that following the an under-five child mortality rate of 23 (out ofonset of a crisis social spending should actually 1,000 live births) – significantly higher than thehave increased automatically, as more individuals rate for industrialized countries (6/1,000).12 Thebecame eligible for support. Bosnia and extent to which the fragile economic recovery isHerzegovina, Bulgaria, Montenegro and Romania felt varies widely from country to country andare some of the countries whose austerity depends on a number of factors, including: ameasures involved cutting social spending as a country’s dependence on remittances; whether itwhole.7 In Bulgaria, for example, the funds is an importer of food or other basic items andallocated to social protection were over 13% the type of food security policies it adopts; thelower in 2010 than they had been in 2009, leading extent to which it is open to global economic andto a deficit in the social protection budget.8 In financial markets; and whether it is a net energygeneral, increased fiscal pressures have been felt exporter or importer.13 Kazakhstan, for example,in the form of higher user-fees and co-payments, as a net exporter of wheat, has benefitted fromreduced benefit packages, and more stringent food price hikes. On the other hand, foodeligibility or administrative requirements – insecurity in Tajikistan is likely to increase.14measures that households already challenged by Meanwhile, Kosovo did not experience the globalhigher prices and loss of employment wages crisis very strongly because it is a closedcannot cope with.9 economy.15 On the other hand, Armenia – a country heavily dependent on both energy2 UNICEF
  3. 3. imports and foreign investments – experienced a aimed at reaching children were necessary thenGDP contraction of over 14% in 2009 and and continue to be necessary today. Finally, thecontinues to display sluggish recovery. social protection systems of most CEECIS countries were already in dire need of reformBeyond the intra-regional differences in the prior to the crisis. Scaling back coverage or theextent to which countries have witnessed size of benefits is, in most cases, precisely theeconomic recovery since 2009, one should also inverse strategy from that which would makenot assume recovery prematurely or that overall systems better at reaching the most vulnerable.improvements in GDP growth since 2009 for theregion as a whole are actually translating into A. THE 2008/09 ECONOMIC CRISIS HADconcrete improvements in children’s wellbeing LASTING EFFECTS AND HAS BEEN FOLLOWEDand creating an enabling environment for the BY ADDITIONAL THREATS TO STABILITYfulfilment of child rights. Vulnerability persists, The sudden deterioration of the public finances ofparticularly in countries such as Bulgaria, Croatia several CEECIS countries during the crisis led themand Romania, where domestic demand has to make real cuts in public expenditure as high asremained weak, or in countries that are net 10 to 20% – the case of Moldova in the earlyimporters of food or fuel, like Tajikistan.16 Social stages of the crisis, for example.17 Someprotection spending and programmes that benefit countries, such as Turkey, Montenegro,families and children must therefore be sustained Kyrgyzstan and Romania, have even cut employerand expanded. This would help households care social security contributions, compensating forfor their children and build the resilience lost revenues by raising employee contributions.18necessary to withstand future socio-economic These types of approaches are likely todifficulties, such as the continuing Eurozone debt exacerbate families’ vulnerability, particularlycrisis. Specifically, social protection can prevent since challenges such as unemployment and foodhouseholds from having to resort to negative and fuel price volatility are expected to continue.coping strategies with lasting impacts on welfare,such as cutting back on education, health or Recovery in labour markets lagged far behindnutrition, institutionalizing children, and economic recovery, as indicated by the region’semigrating. 2010 adult (aged 25 and above) unemployment rate of 9.6%.19 As of 2012, unemployment hasIII. THE CASE FOR SUSTAINING AND dropped to 8.6% but this figure is still high for aEXPANDING SOCIAL PROTECTION region lacking widespread effective socialProtecting and expanding social expenditure in protection programmes.20 Not surprisingly, thethe current environment is necessary for several ailing labour market has had significant negativereasons. First, the vulnerability caused by the impacts on children and youth, particularly in2008/09 economic crisis and surrounding fuel and countries that were already experiencing growingfood crises will last well beyond 2012 and is being child poverty rates, such as Croatia, Serbia andintensified by Eurozone instability. Second, in Tajikistan.21 The impact on youth, however,most cases, there were underlying contexts of deserves special attention, given that this agevulnerability that were exacerbated, rather than cohort (years 15-24), is directly affected by ancaused, by the economic crisis of 2008/09 as well especially high unemployment rate of 17.7%as the food and fuel crises that hit between 2007 (2011 regional average).22and 2011. Specific social protection measures Preparing for an Uncertain Future: Expanding Social Protection for Children in CEECIS 3
  4. 4. Meanwhile, the region is experiencing on-going the further development of social protectionfuel and food price fluctuations. Given that many systems would serve as a buffer to the effects ofcountries in the CEECIS region are dependent on continued instability in the Eurozone crisis byfuel imports for their energy needs, spikes in the protecting and supporting vulnerable market prices for fuel are likely to createsignificant imbalances in current accounts, B. INDIVIDUALS AND CHILDREN, INdepress government revenues, and make PARTICULAR, FACED UNDERLYINGproviding essential public services (such as VULNERABILITY PRIOR TO THE 2008/09 CRISISheating in hospitals and schools) more expensive. Social protection should not only be seen as aLocal food prices, in turn, significantly increased response to the recent crisis but as a way tobetween 2009 and 2010: by 10% in Belarus, tackle deeper sources of exclusion that haveRussia and Turkey and by as much as 15% in existed for years. The transition from centrallyGeorgia.23 And, as recently as July 2012, the FAO planned to market economies that most CEECISglobal food price index had risen to 213 points – countries underwent in the early 1990s wasjust 25 points below its historic peak of 238 points accompanied by reforms that reduced both thein February 2011 – raising concerns that local coverage and the size of social protectionprice hikes will soon follow.24 These spikes tend to benefits. The economic growth that the regionhave a disproportionately negative impact on the has experienced since the late 1990s has not beenpoor, for whom spending on food constitutes a synonymous with significant improvements ingreater proportion of general household quality of life among the poorest. Even prior toexpenditure. In many countries, such as the global crisis of 2008/09, a backdrop ofKyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, the poor are also more structural inequalities had consistently left largeaffected because they are net consumers, having groups socially and economically excluded, aslimited access to agricultural assets and land on evidenced by the fact that the bottom 20 percentwhich to cultivate their own food.25 In short, fuel of the population have held a steady 7 to 8% ofand food price fluctuations affect vulnerable national income since 1998. Inequality, ashouseholds in complex ways, whose net impact measured by the GINI index, has remained veryvaries widely. What is common across countries is high in several CEECIS countries: 45.3 in Bulgaria;the lesser ability of poorer and excluded groups to 44.2 in Macedonia; 41.3 in Georgia; and (perhapsdeal with these fluctuations in the absence of most significantly, given the country’s populationeffective and widespread social protection. of 143 million) 42.3 in Russia.27 At the same time, despite countries’ steady pre-crisis growth rates,Lastly, the sovereign debt crisis in the Eurozone poverty rates were already on the rise in Armenia,represents yet another threat to the full recovery Bulgaria, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro,of the CEECIS region. The region’s initial pace of Serbia, and Turkey.28recovery in the first quarters of 2011 has sinceslowed and projections for growth in 2012 are As a whole, the region’s poverty headcount ratiomuch lower than expected (less so for Central at the $2 (PPP) per day poverty line is 6.3%.29 ThisAsia) as a result of the Eurozone crisis. is a low number relative to other regions but oneSpecifically, CEECIS is already being affected by that nonetheless masks a very high concentrationmarket instability and constrained credit. Major of poverty in specific countries: Georgia (32.2%),disinvestment from CEECIS, reduced exports (the Kyrgyzstan (21.7%), and Tajikistan (27.7%).30EU is the region’s major importer), and lower Furthermore, while facilitating comparison acrossremittances are imminent risks.26 In this context,4 UNICEF
  5. 5. countries, the ratios arrived at using the $2 (PPP) estimated to live in poverty, as compared to theper day poverty line grossly underestimate the national child poverty average of 26.2%.38additional costs of living in CEECIS such as heating Relatedly, while the prevalence of stunting in theand increased caloric intake; the rates relative to Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia was 24%national poverty lines are substantially higher. among Roma children, the national average was less than half, at 10.3%.39What is more, regardless of the general rates ofpoverty in the region, children in all CEECIS A particular manifestation of the socio-economiccountries for which disaggregated data is constraints experienced by families in the CEECISavailable, are disproportionately affected. Indeed, region is the relatively large proportion ofthe child poverty rates are higher than those of children that are placed in formal/institutionaladults in all countries by several percentage care: an estimated 42% of all children inpoints and households with children are more institutional care worldwide live in CEECIS.likely to be poor.31 For example, in Turkey the Financial hardship – and sometimes the relatedproportion of under-fifteens in “food and non- outcome, migration – as well as the lack of dayfood poverty” in 2009 was 25.77%, or 7.69% care facilities that would allow parents toabove the general population’s poverty rate.32 In reconcile their professional life with family are theMontenegro, the official national poverty rate in main drivers behind the high proportion of2010 was 6.6%, rising to 9.5% for households with children living away from their parents. Anone child and to 41.2% for those with three estimated 859 children out of every 100,000 werechildren.33 In Ukraine, the rate of childless families living in residential care in 2007 – about the sameliving in poverty in 2010 was 15.7% compared to as in 2000; the most recent data for 2008 and31.3% of families with children. Families with four 2009 confirms this regional trend. 40or more children had the highest poverty rate, at71%.34 Not only did the rate of children living in residential care stay at the same level for sevenIn addition to monetary poverty, certain socio- years but the average for the region hidescultural characteristics have been shown to important differences between countries. A closerincrease the likelihood that a child will be poor look reveals that, between 2000 and 2007, thecompared to a child in otherwise similar rate of children in institutional care actuallycircumstances. Having three or more siblings, increased in twelve out of twenty CEECIScoming from a rural area, having a disability or countries for which data was available.41 Throughbelonging to a certain ethnic group are instruments such as cash transfers and homecompounding characteristics that intensify a based care (particularly relevant for householdsgroup’s experience of poverty, thus making with disabled children), social protection can playchildren in that group vulnerable in more ways a crucial role in giving families the capacity to carethan one.35 In Moldova, whereas the child poverty for their children in their own homes. Indeed,rate at the national level was 24% in 2010, over evidence from Ukraine, for example, shows that40% of children living in households with three or following the dramatic increase in the budgetmore children were poor.36 In Kyrgyzstan, 58% of allocations for child and family benefits (includingchildren living in the rural province of Naryn were the child birth grant and the 0-3 year childpoor in 2010, versus 9.7% of children in the benefit) from 1.3% of GDP in 2005 to around 2%capital city of Bishkek.37 Approximately 80% of in 2007-08, the rate of relinquishments of infantsRoma children in Bosnia and Herzegovina are Preparing for an Uncertain Future: Expanding Social Protection for Children in CEECIS 5
  6. 6. and young children into institutions dropped by In the past decade, the CEECIS region has seen atwo-thirds in three years.42 major shift toward benefits targeted exclusively to people falling below a certain level of incomeLevels of economic exclusion in the region are or consumption, also referred to as means-testedalso reflected in the massive number of benefits. While this is a development that UNICEFindividuals that emigrate in search of better encourages in specific instances – namely as aeconomic opportunities. Many countries in the means to reduce regressive categorical privilegesCEECIS region are heavily dependent on that outlasted the socialist period – in manyremittances. Indeed, as of 2009, six of the world’s countries, means-tested targeting seems to havetop 20 remittance-receiving countries (as a gone too far. In an effort to minimize the chancespercentage of GDP) were in CEECIS, including the that wealthier households might be reached bycountry with the world’s highest proportion of mistake, governments have failed to consider aremittances: Tajikistan, where remittances more consequential problem: the exclusion of theconstituted 35% of GDP.43 In 2009, remittance most vulnerable – precisely the segment of theflows declined by 23% due to recession in typical population that they intended to reach.46 InCEECIS-migrant destinations such Russia and the Kyrgyzstan, for example, the only programmeEurozone. They have now recovered their pre- specifically targeted at poor families withcrisis levels and display a positive growth level of children, the “monthly benefit,” reaches only 18%3.7%, reaching about $37 billion in 2010.44 Yet, of those in the poorest consumption quintile.47while this means that workers are once again able Similarly large exclusion errors have beento support the income of their families, it should observed in Armenia, where only one in everybe noted that heavy reliance on work abroad four poor families receives family benefits, andtakes a huge toll on workers and their children, only 58% of extremely poor families arewho are left behind in large numbers and who live reached.48 In Moldova, 45% of households withwithout one or more of their primary children from the poorest quintile receive nocaretakers.45 social transfer of any kind.49C. REFORM OF SOCIAL PROTECTION SYSTEMS Beyond targeting errors, too little attention hasIN CEECIS HAS BEEN LONG OVERDUE been paid to whether vulnerable individuals and families actually receive the benefits to whichDespite the region’s many documented they are entitled.50 Several barriers may blockvulnerabilities pre-crisis, most CEECIS countries access to social protection programmes. Thesenever achieved effective and efficient social include: physical distance to the location whereprotection systems. Given the region’s relatively eligibility requirements are confirmed, migrantrecent transition from a planned to a capitalist status, land ownership status (regardless ofeconomy, during which the government’s role in effective access to said land), child caresocial policy was drastically reduced and new obligations, conflicts with other benefits that putmarket and non-market vulnerabilities emerged, the recipient above the poverty line, etc.51countries are still in the process of determiningthe form their social protection systems will take. Additionally, benefits may have a limited impactIn this context, UNICEF has been playing an active on recipients’ living standards because they arerole in advising governments on how to too small. In many cases, reforms of socialimplement social protection systems in a more protection programmes have made benefit levelsequitable and evidence-based manner. so low that programmes have become ineffective.6 UNICEF
  7. 7. It is estimated that in some countries, social cash the other hand, social assistance (which includestransfers, for example, make up only 10% of the child benefits) is typically allocated less than 1%consumption of poor recipient households.52 of GDP.58 In this vein, many of the strategiesMoreover, despite the region’s high poverty rates, implemented in response to the crisis involvedsocial assistance spending is equivalent to a simply “topping up” pension benefits but notmeagre 1.6% of GDP.53 significantly expanding social protection for children.59 While the already modest pensions inAlso of relevance is the fact that the low poverty these countries should by no means be reduced, athresholds of many existing programmes make set of child-sensitive social protection programsthe region’s social protection systems largely ill for addressing children’s specific vulnerabilities isequipped to protect populations – and especially necessary. Comparative analyses of modelchildren – from economic crises and their effects. families demonstrate that there is an extremelyBecause families are required to already be in a large discrepancy between the child-relateddeep state of destitution before qualifying for expenses (formal and informal) families withbenefits, this type of narrow income targeting children have in terms of health, education andkeeps programmes from serving social childcare services, and the government benefitsprotection’s preventive and counter-cyclical these families receive. This helps explains thefunctions. With a view to protecting standards of persistently greater poverty levels householdsliving and human capital, governments may want with children face and provides a case forto consider making programmes more responsive significantly reducing the effective cost of servicesto punctual and slight increases in vulnerability, and providing more adequate child benefitparticularly in the current context of labour packages.60 Programmes like child benefits, birthmarket flexibility and widespread grants, home-based care, school feeding, and 54unemployment. Unemployment assistance, for scholarships can ensure that children’s specificexample, is severely lacking, as the proportion of needs are met and that children who do not liveregistered unemployed individuals who are in multigenerational households are still beingreceiving benefits is very low. This is, in part, due the cumbersome administrative barriersimposed as a means to reduce programme IV. CONCLUSIONexpenditure (through subtle bureaucratic ratherthan political means).55 Furthermore, despite the As demonstrated above, a number of factorsregion’s growing informal sector, unemployment point to the conclusion that countries in CEECISbenefits are usually tied to formal employment. would benefit from the expansion of socialThis is problematic given that, according to protection programmes: (a) lasting effects fromestimates for 11 Eastern European and Central the 2008/09 crisis as well as new sources ofAsian countries,56 between 32% and 65% of the instability; (b) an underlying context oflabour force works in the informal sector.57 vulnerability that predated the crisis; and (c) social protection systems in need of reform. ThisAnother characteristic of most social protection is especially true for children. The benefit levels ofsystems in CEECIS is that they constitute an programmes for children have been largelyinsufficient response to the region’s high rates of inadequate given a number of enduring andpoverty among children, in particular. Among the persisting sources of vulnerability, both directlyCommonwealth of Independent States (CIS), 5- related to the 2008/09 crisis (lagging labour19% of GDP is spent on pensions, for example. On markets) and parallel to it (high food and fuel Preparing for an Uncertain Future: Expanding Social Protection for Children in CEECIS 7
  8. 8. prices, as well as recurring natural disasters and programmes in order to better reach children andEurozone instability). Moreover, even prior to the protect them from a potential second economiconset of the global crisis in 2008, the population crisis caused by instability in the the region already suffered from underlyingvulnerabilities to poverty and social exclusion – To be effective at reducing poverty andand these circumstances affected children promoting social inclusion, benefits shoulddisproportionately. Indeed, since countries generally: have good coverage (avoid exclusiontransitioned to market economies in the early errors); be predictable and of an adequate size1990s, there has been a gross mismatch between (sufficient to make a difference in livingthe population’s needs and the size and type of standards); be accessible (no hidden barriers tosocial protection programmes governments have access, whether formal or informal, proactiveimplemented to address them. outreach to the most marginalized); and be easy to administer.62 Given the region’s high childWhen considered alongside ample evidence that poverty rate and very high rates of childsocial protection programmes of an adequate size institutionalization, it is also necessary to focushave reduced vulnerability in CEECIS countries,61 attention on social protection programmesthe arguments above lead us to conclude that the designed specifically for children. These canregion’s on-going economic recovery should be operate in conjunction with other social services,accompanied by renewed efforts to expand and such as child protection, social support, andimprove the effectiveness and efficiency of social healthcare, to address multiple social andprotection. Rather than prompting the belief that economic vulnerabilities.there is now less of a need for expanded socialprotection programmes, the recovery following Concrete immediate reforms in CEECIS mightthe 2008/09 crisis actually provides an include using existing fiscal space to raise benefitopportunity for expanding much-needed social levels, launch outreach campaigns, and issueprotection systems and for ensuring that they moratoriums on fees for supportingfunction in an efficient and equitable manner. documentation required by benefit applications – an underestimated barrier to access. BeyondThe increased need for social protection brought these immediate measures, systemic reforms inon by the 2008/09 economic crisis had the effect social protection and other sectors of social policyof quickly mobilizing international partners and will need to take place. These reforms maygovernments to join forces in combatting include: creating child-focused cash benefits,vulnerability. Since the dissolution of the Soviet strengthening internal monitoring andUnion, UNICEF has played a crucial role in accountability mechanisms, ensuring thesupporting the efforts of CEECIS countries in data coordination of policies across ministries, buildingcollection/analysis around child wellbeing and in effective linkages between programmes,advocating for children’s rights at the legal level. distributing resources among regions equitably,However, since 2008, UNICEF and other partners and implementing progressive tax and spendinghave come together more actively to generate policies. Countries in CEECIS must considerincreased knowledge of child poverty and the maximizing the effectiveness of social protectioneffectiveness of existing social protection interventions in these ways if they are to achieveschemes, as well as to advocate for wider policy not only sustained GDP growth but also inclusivereforms. UNICEF proposes that governments and equitable economic and social developmentenact concrete changes to existing schemes and in the long run.638 UNICEF
  9. 9. REFERENCES 21. UNICEF & University of York, p. 261. 22. ILO, Global Employment Trends 2012, p. 53.1. The CEECIS UNICEF region includes the following countries: 23. UNICEF & University of York, p. 21.Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 24. FAO Food Price Index, Food and Agriculture Organization of theBulgaria, Croatia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kosovo (territory under UN United Nations, available atSecurity Council Resolution 1244), Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, <, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Romania, home/foodpricesindex/en/>, accessed 23 August 2012.Russian Federation, Serbia, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, 25. The World Bank, The Crisis Hits Home: Stress-Testing HouseholdsUkraine, and Uzbekistan. in Europe and Central Asia, The World Bank, Washington, D.C., 2010,2. Please note that this average pertains to the 30 countries p. xvii.considered to be in Eastern Europe or Central Asia by the World 26. European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, ‘RegionalBank. They include the Baltic States (which were particularly hard- Economic Prospects in EBRD Countries of Operations: October 2011’,hit) and Central European countries in addition to the countries October 2011.under UNICEF’s CEECIS designation (see above). 27. UNDP, Human Development Report 2011: Sustainability and3. The World Bank, The Jobs Crisis: Household and Government Equity: A Better Future for All, UNDP, New York, 2011.Responses to the Great Recession in Eastern Europe and Central Asia,Directions in Development: Human Development, The World Bank, 28. UNICEF & University of York, p. 84.Washington, D.C.: The World Bank, 2011, p. 4. 29. Authors’ calculations based on latest available data; World Bank,4. UNICEF & University of York, Child Poverty and Wellbeing in CEE Databank, available at <>, accessed 8 Mayand the CIS during the Financial Crisis: Report on a UNICEF Survey: 2012.One Year Later, April 2011, p. 4. 30. Latest available data (years 2008, 2009 and 2009, respectively);5. Hoelscher, Petra, and Gordon Alexander, ‘Social protection in World Bank Databank.times of crisis: experiences in Eastern Europe and Central Asia’, 31. UNICEF & University of York, p. 99.Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, vol. 18, no. 3, 2010. 32. UNICEF Turkey, Country Office Annual Report 2011.6. UNICEF & University of York, p. 189. 33. UNICEF Montenegro, Country Office Annual Report 2011.7. Recent figures on social protection spending specifically are not 34. UNICEF Ukraine, Country Office Annual Report 2011.available. 35. UNICEF, Child Poverty in Kosovo: Policy Options Paper & Synthesis8. UNICEF & University of York, p. 170. Report, May 2010, p. 23; Institute of Strategic Analysis and9. Hoelscher and Alexander, p. 265. Evaluation under the President of the Kyrgyz Republic & UNICEF,10. Authors’ own calculations based on IMF, World Economic Global Study on Child Poverty and Disparities: Kyrgyzstan, 2009, p.Outlook: Growth Resuming, Dangers Remaining, April 2012. 30-32; Institute for Demography and Social Studies of NAS of Ukraine & UNICEF & Ukrainian Centre for Social Reforms, Child Poverty and11. UNICEF, A Recovery for All: Rethinking Socio-Economic Policies for Disparities in Ukraine, 2009; UNICEF Uzbekistan, Global Study onChildren and Poor Households, Eds. Isabel Ortiz and Matthew Child Poverty and Disparities in Uzbekistan, 2009, pp. 12-14.Cummins, New York, 2012, p. 196. 36. UNICEF Moldova, Country Office Annual Report 2011.12. United Nations Inter-agency Group for Child MortalityEstimation, ‘Levels & Trends in Child Mortality: Report 2011’, 37. UNICEF Kyrgyzstan, Country Office Annual Report 2011.UNICEF, 2011. 38. UNICEF Bosnia and Herzegovina, Country Office Annual Report13. Gassmann, Franziska, ‘Protecting Vulnerable Families in Central 2011.Asia: Poverty, Vulnerability and the Impact of the Economic Crisis’, 39. UNICEF Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia, CountryUNICEF, Innocenti Working Papers 2011-05, July 2011, p. 4. Office Annual Report 2011.14. UNICEF Regional Office for Central and Eastern Europe and 40. UNICEF Regional Office for CEECIS Geneva, TransMonEE 2011Commonwealth of Independent States (CEECIS), Regional Analysis Database, available atReport 2010, Geneva, February 2011, p. 1. <>, accessed 315. Hoelscher and Alexander, p. 255. March 2012.16. UNICEF Regional Office for CEECIS, Regional Analysis Report 41. UNICEF Regional Office for CEECIS, At home or in a home? Formal2010, p.1; WFP, Emergency Food Security Assessment in Urban Areas care and adoption of children in Eastern Europe and Central Asia,of Tajikistan, Rome, 2008. September 2010, p. 20.17. Hoelscher and Alexander, p. 264. 42. Oxford Policy Management, Thematic Study on the Capacity of Child Care and Social Protection Systems to Provide Adequate18. UNICEF & University of York, p. 200. Support to the Most Vulnerable Children and Their Families and19. Please note that this figure is for the region defined by the ILO as Prevent Family Separation in Three Countries of CEECIS, Ukraine“Central and South-Eastern Europe (non-EU) and CIS. The confidence Country Report, November 2011, pp. 37, 52.interval for the ILO’s 2010 unemployment estimate lies between 9.1 43. The World Bank, Migration and Remittances Factbook 2011, 2ndand 10.1 percent. edition, The World Bank, Washington, D.C., 2011, p. 14.20. ILO, Global Employment Trends 2012: Preventing a deeper jobscrisis, International Labour Office, Geneva, 2011, p. 53. Preparing for an Uncertain Future: Expanding Social Protection for Children in CEECIS 9
  10. 10. 44. Mohapatra, Sanket, Dilip Ratha, and Ani Silwal, ‘Outlook for 56. Ukraine, Armenia, Moldova, Turkey, Romania, Albania,Remittance Flows’, Migration and Development Brief 13, Migration Macedonia, Serbia, Kyrgyz Republic, Azerbaijan, and Bosnia andand Remittances Unit, The World Bank, Washington, D.C., 2010. Herzegovina.45. UNICEF Tajikistan & Oxford Policy Management, Impact of 57. Kuddo, Arvo in The World Bank, The Jobs Crisis: Household andLabour Migration on “Children Left Behind” in Tajikistan, November Government Responses to the Great Recession in Eastern Europe and2011. Central Asia, 2009, p. 61.46. Hoelscher and Alexander, p. 257. 58. Hoelscher and Alexander, p. 266.47. Gassmann, p. 17. 59. The World Bank, The Jobs Crisis: Household and Government48. National Statistical Service of RA, Social Snapshot and Poverty in Responses to the Great Recession in Eastern Europe and Central Asia,Armenia. Statistical Analytical Report, Based on the Results of 2009 p. 70.Integrated Living Conditions Survey of Households, Yerevan, 2010, p. 60. Hoelscher and Alexander, p. 263; Bradshaw, Jonathan, Emese144, in Huby, Meg, and Jonathan Bradshaw, ‘Reducing Child Poverty Mayhew and Gordon Alexander, ‘Minimum Social Protection forin Armenia: The Universal Child Benefit Model’, Report for UNICEF, Families with Children in the CEE/CIS Countries in 2009: A Report forSeptember 2011. UNICEF’, University of York, September 2011.49. UNICEF Moldova. 61. Oxford Policy Management.50. Hoelscher and Alexander, p. 259. 62. Hoelscher and Alexander, p. 265.51. Oxford Policy Management, p. 32. 63. Nurshayeva, Raushan, ‘Kazakh MPs bow to president, boost52. Gassmann, p. 20. social spending’, Written by Dmitry Solovyov and edited by Ruth Pitchford, Reuteurs, 23 February 2011, available at53. The World Bank, The Jobs Crisis: Household and Government < to the Great Recession in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. idINLDE71M12X20110223>, accessed 2 December 2011; ‘Parliament54. Hoelscher and Alexander, p. 261. passes state budget 2011’, ForUm, 24 December 2010, available at55. The World Bank, The Jobs Crisis: Household and Government <>, accessed 2Responses to the Great Recession in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, December 2011.p. 59. ABOUT THE WORKING BRIEF SERIES This Working Brief was submitted by Deolinda Martins and Elena Gaia. Ms. Martins is Social Policy Consultant at the Division of Policy and Strategy (DPS), UNICEF Headquarters, and Ms. Gaia is Policy Analysis Specialist at UNICEF’s Regional Office for CEECIS. The authors wish to thank the following individuals for their helpful comments and suggestions: David Anthony, Jingqing Chai, Isabel Ortiz, Nicholas Rees, Sonia Ruiz-Brunschwig, and Jennifer Yablonski. UNICEF DPS Working Papers and Briefs are prepared to facilitate greater exchange of knowledge and stimulate analytical discussion on social policy issues. Their findings, interpretations and conclusions do not necessarily reflect the policies or view of UNICEF. The designations in this publication do not imply an opinion on legal status of any country or territory, or of its authorities, or the delimitation of frontiers. The editors of the series are Isabel Ortiz and Jingqing Chai of the Policy Analysis Section. For more information on the series, or to submit a Working Brief, please contact or UNICEF