Fachbereich Sozialpolitik und Soziale Sicherung
Refine
H-BRS Bibliography
- yes (68)
Departments, institutes and facilities
- Fachbereich Sozialpolitik und Soziale Sicherung (68)
- Fachbereich Wirtschaftswissenschaften (6)
- Internationales Zentrum für Nachhaltige Entwicklung (IZNE) (6)
- Fachbereich Ingenieurwissenschaften und Kommunikation (1)
- Graduierteninstitut (1)
- Institut für Technik, Ressourcenschonung und Energieeffizienz (TREE) (1)
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)
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.
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.
Using a life-cycle approach, we identify key gaps for social reform in Georgia. The reduction of informal work is the most pressing of these, since formal employment is the backbone of any robust and reliable social insurance scheme. At the same time, greater financial resources are required through taxation in order to enable systematic social reform in Georgia. Both interventions are needed in order to fill the gaps in the current social protection system, which include the limited scope of pension and health insurance, as well as the lack of permanent unemployment insurance and universal child benefits.
Against the background of Germany’s long experience with social protection, we outline the main principles of the German welfare state and present the design of three main social insurance branches (pensions, health and unemployment). Based on the mixed experience that has emerged in Germany, in particular due to path dependencies and political deadlock, we derive lessons that inform a clear and coherent vision for social reform in Georgia.
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 policy brief is part of a wider research project entitled ‘Building the Economic Case for Investments in Social Protection’. The research aims at demonstrating the potential impacts of social protection on inclusive growth. The project is a collaborative effort between the Maastricht Graduate School of Governance at the University of Maastricht and United Nations University-MERIT, NL; the Global Development Institute at the University of Manchester, UK; the School of Social Science at the University of Makerere, Uganda; and the Expanding Social Protection Programme of the Ugandan Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development. This project is part of the research agenda of the Knowledge Platform Inclusive Development Policies and funded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands through the NWO-WOTRO programme.
Social protection has been increasingly recognized by experts from different fields as a key instrument for social, economic, political, and environmental development. It is also known for tackling multiple goals related to the reduction of risk, poverty and inequality at once. Yet, its instruments are often seen in isolation, programmes are still managed in silos and the systemic aspect is often overlooked. Engaging in critical discussions about the systemic aspect of social protection and outlining what it really takes to pursue a systemic approach has motivated the two editors, Prof. Dr. Esther Schüring from H-BRS and Dr. Markus Loewe from the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS) to launch the very first Handbook on Social Protection Systems in late 2021.
We analyze short-term effects of free hospitalization insurance for the poorest quintile of the population in the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. First, we exploit that eligibility is based on an exogenous poverty score threshold and apply a regression discontinuity design. Second, we exploit imperfect rollout and compare insured and uninsured households using propensity score matching. With both methods we fail to detect significant effects on the incidence of hospitalization. Whereas the program did not meaningfully increase the quantity of health care consumed, insured households more often choose private hospitals, indicating a shift towards higher perceived quality of care.
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.
Social policy research on the ageing workforce from the perspective of employees and employers
(2024)
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).
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?
Social protection measures require sustainable financing – creating and maintaining adequate fiscal space at the national level. Good governance of social protection at all stages – planning policies, policy reforms, and implementation – requires continuous monitoring of its performance and finances, including long-term projections and simulations of cost and benefits of different social protection programs and overall social protection systems. These projections and simulations should take into account demographic trends, including demographic ageing.
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.
Introduction: As historically verified, countries with comprehensive, well designed social protection systems in place are better prepared to cope with large scale catastrophes of all kinds, always in such situation there is still a need for government interventions other than social protection and larger scale discretionary social protection or related interventions. Objective: The article presents the actions of countries to minimize the negative social effects of the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic. The text is an attempt to answer how social security systems should be adapted to aforementioned crisis? Materials and methods: The text uses research methods such as: literature criticism and statistical analysis of data and revision of implemented state intervention policies based on reports of Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, International Labour Organizaton, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions and International Monetary Fund. Results: 1) For social security institutions of key importance to ensure continuity of operations of all services – of contributory social insurance as well of social assistance - was to ensure continuous payment of all benefits due and quick response to the new entitlement emerging. It is also necessary to ensure that all citizens are fully insured, regardless of the form of contract under which they perform work. 2) In many countries, special emergency measures that extended coverage and increased benefits were taken by governments without clearly identifying the sources of funding and very often burdening social security funds with non-statutory expenses and affecting their long-term financial sustainability. 3) In the longer run, there is a need to ensure universal health care coverage of the adequate quality, there is a need to develop policies which will secure at least minimum income security to all – independently of their labour market status, forms of employment, sex, ethnicity or nationality.
Discarded news
(2022)
When important news fail to reach their recipients, namely, the politically interested, socially open-minded public, we sometimes refer to this process as agenda cutting. This article presents the key theoretical positions on this under-researched phenomenon, presenting important study results as well as our own empirical findings on internal editorial decision-making processes whereby topics are removed from the agenda. Last, we will critically examine the role of the audience as an actor in agenda cutting, which could be described as »news ignorance«.[1]
The top story showcased by Initiative Nachrichtenaufklärung (INA) e.V. in 2022 was the creeping abolition of free textbooks in German schools. In a public radio broadcast, the head of TV news magazine Tagesthemen and deputy editor-in-chief of ARD-Aktuell, Helge Fuhst, conceded that he considered this topic highly relevant, yet it had indeed not been covered in his TV news program. »Leaving out topics is, in fact, the most difficult challenge,« Fuhst said. »Having to drop topics hurts every day. There are only a few days a year when we have absolutely no idea what to put on the air.« (WDR 2022)
The process of news selection is editorial routine, which includes omitting, discarding, or abandoning topics. When this negative process is intentional, it can also be referred to as agenda cutting. This term from the field of communications science describes a distinct form of editorial routine that has been little studied to date and whose mechanisms, with their considerable influence on the formation of public opinion, are in urgent need of media research scrutiny.
This policy brief investigates the costs of child poverty in the Balkans, including deprivation in terms of education, health, and social mobility. It then lays out the potential of social protection, most notably in terms of building resilence and fostering development. Set against recent case studies from around the world, including Cambodia and Uganda, the brief gives policy recommendations on various critical issues including transfer schemes, transformative measures, and (alternative) care for children with disabilities.
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.
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.