Refine
H-BRS Bibliography
- yes (68) (remove)
Departments, institutes and facilities
- Fachbereich Sozialpolitik und Soziale Sicherung (68) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (26)
- Part of a Book (18)
- Working Paper (14)
- Conference Object (4)
- Book review (2)
- Book (monograph, edited volume) (1)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
- Preprint (1)
- Report (1)
Year of publication
Language
- English (68) (remove)
Keywords
- Social Protection (6)
- Kenya (5)
- social protection (5)
- Africa (4)
- cash transfers (3)
- Gender-based violence (2)
- Ghana (2)
- Risk factors (2)
- Rural women (2)
- Sexual violence (2)
In recent years, the basic income grant (BIG) discourse has gained attention worldwide as a potential policy option in social protection as testified by recent public debates, ongoing pilot projects, campaigning efforts,1 policy measures during Covid-19 and the surge in academic research. A BIG refers to regular cash transfers paid to all members of society irrespective of their socio-economic status, their capacity or willingness to participate in the labour market or having to meet pre-determined conditions (Offe 2008; Van Parijs 1995, 2003; Wright 2004, 2006). Despite the recent hype around BIG, Iran is the only country worldwide with a scaled-up BIG (Tabatabai 2011, 2012). Other programmes have never gone beyond pilot programmes. This raises the question why this is the case.
The idea of a basic income grant (BIG) is not new and there are ongoing debates internationally as well as nationally in low- and middle-income countries just like in high-income countries of a BIG as a social protection policy option. The challenge is that there are different conceptualisations, which conflates and muddles the understanding. In the context of social assistance provision, a universal basic income grant (UBIG) is often compared and contrasted against targeted cash transfers (CTs). This case study systematically presents the arguments for targeted CTs and UBIGs. The value of the case study is that it systematically brings together these arguments, highlighting the variations in UBIG applications, including the evidence and actual impact of UBIG experiments. The structure of the case study is as follows: Section 2 simultaneously contrasts and compares the arguments for targeted CTs and UBIG. Section 3 discusses UBIG experiments, as well as presenting the evidence on the application of the UBIG idea, and Section 4 concludes.
Blended Learning Set up of the Master Programme "Analysis and Design of Social Protection Systems"
(2017)
The master's programme "Analysis and Design of Social Protection Systems" is a newly designed programme. The international Master’s programme is aimed at students who wish to deal with social security systems and who are also interested in intercultural exchange. The on-campus and online phases provide students with the opportunity to develop an international network, while facilitating the combination of studies and professional engagement.
Introduction: The paper analyses – basing itself on reports and other documents created by different parts of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) – the process which led to the adoption of Social Protection Floor Recommendation No. 202 and the shift in focus of social policy advice towards basic protection and to the Global South countries. We look at the actions of different actors which shape the standard setting and policy stand of the organisation. Objective: To provide a comprehensive analysis of the historical trajectory of ILO social security standards, examining the evolution of principles, conventions, and the global dynamics that have shaped the organization's approach to social protection over time. Materials and methods: The methods include examining ILO documents, relevant subject literature, and the author's participant observations from over twenty-years of service in the ILO's Social Security Department, aiming to provide insights into the decision-making processes within the organization. Conclusion: We conclude that change was brought by: 1) shift in the membership of the ILO and of its decision-making bodies towards the increased presence and powers of representatives from countries of the Global South, 2) the shift in the global development community policy priorities towards poverty reduction, 3) emergence of experimental social assistance schemes in Global South countries, with designs often ignoring principles embedded in the ILO standards. The Social Protection Floor Recommendation complements previous standards in response to the challenges of widespread poverty and informality and spreading atypical forms of employment. It provides two directions of policy responses: 1) formalizing informal employment relationships and 2) expanding universal or targeted rights-based social assistance schemes. Assistance provided by ILO to member states focuses now more on building the non-contributory schemes and on identifying the fiscal space necessary to close the coverage gaps. Nowadays, the ILO must collaborate more than before with other development partners and the main challenge is to build among them awareness and acceptance of the principles of the ILO social security standards.
Actors
(2021)
Social protection is for many international organizations a state’s affair.1 While the state definitely plays an important role, the state is by far not the only actor and there is no predefined institutional arrangement of how social protection should be implemented. An exclusive focus on the state would therefore be short-sighted when assessing and comparing the performance of social protection systems. It is hence important to understand the mix of actors involved, the type of contribution they can make to social protection and their modes of cooperation. This contribution will therefore first sketch out the role and interplay of the main actors in social protection and then challenge some of the common assumptions made around how roles are best allocated in the social protection system concerning the providers of informal social protection, the private sector, civil society organizations (CSO) as well as international actors.