Fachbereich Sozialpolitik und Soziale Sicherung
Refine
H-BRS Bibliography
- yes (275)
Departments, institutes and facilities
- Fachbereich Sozialpolitik und Soziale Sicherung (275)
- Fachbereich Wirtschaftswissenschaften (9)
- Internationales Zentrum für Nachhaltige Entwicklung (IZNE) (7)
- Graduierteninstitut (2)
- Fachbereich Angewandte Naturwissenschaften (1)
- Fachbereich Elektrotechnik, Maschinenbau, Technikjournalismus (1)
- Fachbereich Informatik (1)
Document Type
- Article (121)
- Part of a Book (76)
- Conference Object (34)
- Book (monograph, edited volume) (16)
- Working Paper (15)
- Contribution to a Periodical (6)
- Conference Proceedings (2)
- Doctoral Thesis (2)
- Report (2)
- Other (1)
Year of publication
Keywords
- Rehabilitation (9)
- Qualitätssicherung (8)
- Kenya (5)
- Qualitätsmanagement (5)
- Sozialversicherung (5)
- Africa (4)
- Arbeitswelt (4)
- Katamnese (4)
- Sozialversicherungswissenschaft (4)
- Case Management (3)
Version
- publishedVersion (20)
- submittedVersion (1)
What does the right to social security mean if the majority of the world’s population still lives in overwhelming insecurity? What is the significance and role of international social security standards, developed by the International Labour Organization (ILO2) over decades? What are the economic, labour market and political factors determining differences between countries with respect to population coverage by social security schemes and systems? How can past and recent experiences of countries in the Global North and in the Global South be used to expand social security coverage, and what role can be played by the new standard in this area – the ILO Social Protection Floors Recommendation 202, adopted in 2012?
The future of work
(2021)
Driven by the exponential increase in the computational power of machines, data digitalization and scientific advancement in robotics and automation, the current wave of technological change is seemingly unprecedented in speed and scale. It transforms manufacturing and businesses making them more flexible, decentralized and efficient (Lasi et al. 2014). Even though technological change is nothing new, some argue that it is different this time. The new technologies have not only the potential to substitute labor (Nomaler and Verspagen 2018), they also change the way people work. The trend towards new forms of employment is no longer a marginal phenomenon.
The changing world poses many challenges to public policies, including social policies – among them social protection policies, which are the main focus of this handbook. Here, in this part of the handbook, we take on a number of these challenges: demographic changes and their interaction with social protection policies; roles of social protection in coping with the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic (both topics discussed in Chapter 39 and 43 by Woodall); the challenges of globalisation (discussed in Chapter 40 by Betz) and the limitations it imposes on state sovereignty and its ability to decide on the size of publicly funded programmes, in particular social protection; challenges to labour markets and social effective protection coverage posed by automation and digitalisation of businesses (discussed in Chapter 41 by Gassmann) and, last but not least, potential roles of social protection in facilitating population’s adjustments to climate change (discussed in Chapter 42 by Malerba).
Policy analysis is the cornerstone of evidence-based policy making.1 It identifies the problems, informs programme design, supports the monitoring of policy implementation and is needed to evaluate programme impacts (Scott 2005). Rigorous and credible policy evidence is necessary to ensure the transparency and accountability of policy decisions, to secure political and public support and, hence, the allocation of financial resources. Sound policy analysis helps design effective and efficient programmes, thereby maximizing programme impact.
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.
Designing a social protection system is of course not only a technical exercise but a very political affair. A systems approach to social protection is shaped by the political elites and the respective coalitions of change, the political institutions as well as the political system of a country. This explains why also seemingly similar countries in terms of their risk profile, poverty situation and economic situation can adopt very different social protection systems or make very different progress with respect to social protection expansion. Not only are the established welfare states of the Global North but also the nascent social protection systems in the Global South a testimony of this variety.
While there is a standard set of instruments that can be used in social protection systems, this needs to be adapted and combined in different ways in order to serve different groups in society best. The needs of a young person who is just starting life and should not be trapped from birth in unfavourable socio-economic conditions are different from the social protection requirements of a retired person who has finished the active part of life and requires income and care security for an indefinite time period.
Social budgeting
(2021)
At the beginning of 2020 with the globally spreading pandemic of COVID-19 and all its social and economic consequences, the importance of having comprehensive, universal and effective social protection systems became once again – like during all the major economic and social crises before – very clear (Gentilini et al. 2020; Chapter 43 of this volume). Countries with strong social protection systems, although needing to enhance many benefit provisions and extend coverage to reach those in non-standard forms of employment, still were coping better with the pandemic and had better chances of cushioning the resulting economic downturn. However, we know from past experience that after the crisis is over, austerity measures may focus again on limiting social expenditure under all kinds of excuses.
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.
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.
Social transfers
(2021)
Social transfers are on the rise in the Global South but they have also been in the centre of discussion in the Global North as an attractive instrument to buffer new risks and uncertainties in a changing world. They have experienced a dramatic change since the beginning of the new century, starting off as a revolutionary programmatic intervention in countries such as Mexico and Brazil or as a fledgling pilot programme in countries such as Zambia, Kenya and Malawi. They have now become a standard intervention across the globe, a truly global social policy as Hickey and Seekings (2019, 249) coined it. This global trend has been facilitated by donors’ strive to move away from ever recurring humanitarian actions, by increased pressure on donors to show aid effectiveness with the money finally reaching the most vulnerable as well as by international concerted actions such as the United Nations initiative of a global social protection floor.
While social protection has become an important policy field in many low- and middle-income countries (LICs and MICs), 55 per cent of the world’s population are still not even covered by one social protection benefit, with 87 per cent of people uncovered in Sub-Saharan Africa and 61 per cent in Asia and the Pacific (ILO 2017). Next to undercoverage, there are other factors that lower the efficiency, effectiveness and social justice of social protection in many countries, such as the lack of a joint vision and policy strategy, fragmented social protection programmes, duplication of administrative systems and efforts and irrational prioritisation in spending. These all call for a stronger systems approach to social protection. This handbook is therefore dedicated to social protection systems, highlighting the relevance but also the challenges that are related to a harmonised and coordinated approach across different social protection instruments, institutions, actors and delivery mechanisms. It takes the reader through all possible aspects of social protection systems.
This exciting and innovative Handbook provides readers with a comprehensive and globally relevant overview of the instruments, actors and design features of social protection systems, as well as their application and impacts in practice. It is the first book that centres around system building globally, a theme that has gained political importance yet has received relatively little attention in academia.
Hektor Haarkötter und Filiz Kalmuk, zwei Kommunikationswissenschaftler*innen der Hochschule Bonn-Rhein-Sieg, haben die Medienseiten der überregionalen Printausgaben der SZ, FAZ und taz sowie der Regionalzeitungen WAZ, Tagesspiegel und Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger analysiert. Insgesamt wurden über 2000 Medienartikel untersucht. In Interviews mit verantwortlichen Medienredakteur*innen wichtiger Printorgane wurden Objektivität, Ausgewogenheit und Themenvielfalt der aktuellen Medienberichterstattung diskutiert.
Der Medienjournalismus deutscher Tageszeitungen zeichnet sich durch eine überwiegend sachliche Berichterstattung aus. Festgestellt wurde ein ausgeglichener Mix von ,harten‘ medienpolitischen Themen einerseits und ,weichen‘ Unterhaltungsthemen andererseits. Politische Parteien werden im Medienjournalismus nicht verzerrt dargestellt; über die „Systemkonkurrenz“ der öffentlich-rechtlichen Medien berichten die privatwirtschaftlich organisierten Zeitungen fair und ausgewogen.
Die Studie über „Medienjournalismus in Deutschland“ identifiziert aber auch Schwachstellen. Die dringend gebotene Reflexion über die gesellschaftlichen Folgen der Medienumwälzungen kommt zu kurz. Veränderungen durch die Digitalisierung und die Europäisierung der Medien-Landschaft spielen eine untergeordnete Rolle, für Belange des Hörfunks zeigt er zu wenig Interesse.
