social protection for inclusive development - European Report on ...

Chapter 2
The 2010 <strong>European</strong> <strong>Report</strong> on Development
Such transfers have long been crucial <strong>for</strong> poverty reduction in developed countries, and they are now increasingly seen as an
essential policy instrument <strong>for</strong> poverty reduction in low- and middle-income countries. 149
The earlier narrative of asset poverty traps helps to define how much support is needed. This may well have to be considerable if
minimum asset thresholds are to be reached to get any real prospect of breaking the vicious circles of poverty and risk. And different
groups may need different levels of support, and some disadvantaged groups - such as those physically impaired orphans or the
elderly - may well require higher transfers. Similarly, needs are higher or lower in different time periods, and may also well have to
be linked with <strong>social</strong> insurance, with changing contributions dependent on shocks, events and circumstances. 150
2.2.3 EFFORTS TO IMPROVE ACCESS
The last function of <strong>social</strong> <strong>protection</strong> is linked to the first two, but worth extra emphasis. Poverty is often characterised by processes
of <strong>social</strong> and political marginalisation, resulting in the exclusion of particular groups of the poor. Examples are women, specifi c
ethnic groups, local outsiders such as migrants, and groups stigmatised by livelihoods choices (such as garbage pickers or street
children) or by diseases (such as those diagnosed with HIV-AIDS). Access can also be limited by geographical location or lack of
in<strong>for</strong>mation. Ef<strong>for</strong>ts to expand <strong>social</strong> <strong>protection</strong> through <strong>social</strong> insurance and <strong>social</strong> assistance must pay particular attention to
include these groups, a central tenet of a <strong>social</strong> <strong>protection</strong> framework. 151 Box 2.2 discusses some of these issues <strong>for</strong> migrants, one
potentially excluded group.
Box 2.2: Migration and <strong>social</strong> <strong>protection</strong>: access to portable provision
The need to manage risk and secure livelihoods can drive to migration decisions by families, and remittances provide a key
source of income to many families in the developing world. At the same time, migration calls <strong>for</strong> various <strong>for</strong>ms of <strong>social</strong>
<strong>protection</strong>, <strong>for</strong> the migrant and the migrant’s family that remains at home. Migrants are typically excluded from various <strong>for</strong>ms
of <strong>for</strong>mal <strong>social</strong> <strong>protection</strong>, but as a result, labour markets may become negatively affected. For instance, migrants, knowing
that they will not fully benefit from <strong>social</strong> security contributions or tax contributions, may prefer to avoid contributions
and work in<strong>for</strong>mally or misreport earnings. Furthermore, if, after working <strong>for</strong> many years in a <strong>for</strong>mal labour market where
contributions have been deducted, migrants are not able to ‘repatriate’ this income (such as a <strong>for</strong>egone pension) to their
country of origin, they may choose not to return home.
Some developing countries, in particular some of the main migrant-sending countries to the <strong>European</strong> Union (EU),
have protected a large share of their emigrant population through bilateral portability arrangements. But bilateral <strong>social</strong>
security agreements are typically insufficient <strong>for</strong> developing countries that do not have very well-developed <strong>social</strong> security
systems. The EU, as a regional trading bloc with free movement of labour, has the most sophisticated system of <strong>social</strong>
security portability, but other regional economic blocs of mainly low-income countries have few mechanisms and capacity
to support these arrangements. A policy challenge is to make South-South migration safer <strong>for</strong> migrants in order to maximise
the benefits from this important livelihood strategy.
Source: Avato et al. 2010; Holzmann et al. 2005; Sabates-Wheeler and Koettl 2010.
Social <strong>protection</strong> can be an important mechanism to reverse exclusion and set precedents <strong>for</strong> empowerment and a more systematic
inclusion of these groups in the relationship between citizens and the state. By doing so, <strong>social</strong> inclusion complements and
promotes the institutional effectiveness and political sustainability of <strong>social</strong> insurance and <strong>social</strong> assistance. It also ensures that
<strong>social</strong> <strong>protection</strong> concerns itself with <strong>social</strong> justice while pursuing poverty reduction and growth. 152
Specific actions could take a variety of <strong>for</strong>ms (see box 2.1). Sensitisation and awareness-raising campaigns can trans<strong>for</strong>m public
attitudes and behaviour. And changes to the regulatory framework can protect vulnerable or minority groups from discrimination
and abuse. Other actions include securing legal rights and entitlements, and ef<strong>for</strong>ts to promote access to insurance markets or
community-based systems by the poor and vulnerable.
149
For example: “[T]he Commission <strong>for</strong> Africa identified <strong>social</strong> transfers as a key tool in tackling extreme poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa….The greater use of
<strong>social</strong> transfers in developing countries worldwide is endorsed by the World Bank’s WDR <strong>for</strong> 2006 which recognises their potential impact on poverty and
inequality as well as their contribution to promoting and distributing growth” (DFID 2005, p. 2).
150
De Janvry et al. 2006.
151
They are a central problem in <strong>social</strong> <strong>protection</strong> provision across the world. One example of an access barrier comes from India. Access to the Public Distribution
System is restricted to state-residents. Mobile populations across state boundaries are frequently left without access to this <strong>social</strong> assistance. Similarly, in the
United States, Ku and Matani (2001) found that insured non-citizens and their children have less access to medical care than insured native-born citizens have.
152
For a detailed exposition of a ‘trans<strong>for</strong>mative’ agenda <strong>for</strong> <strong>social</strong> <strong>protection</strong>, see Sabates-Wheeler and Devereux 2008.
35