Open Access

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.

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 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).

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.

For reforms to be acceptable and sustainable in the long run, they should be aligned with public preferences. ‘Preferences’ is a technical term used in social sciences or humanities including for example disciplines such as economics, philosophy or psychology. Broadly speaking, preferences refer to an individual’s judgements on liking one alternative more than others. More specifically, preferences are ‘subjective comparative evaluations, in the form of “Agent prefers X to Y”’ (Hansson and Grüne-Yanoff 2018). Here, we are particularly interested in people’s policy preferences concerning social protection, an area which deserves more attention in policy debates and research.

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 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.

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.

The article contributes to understanding the political economy of implementation of social protection programmes at local level. Current debates are dominated by technocratic arguments, emphasizing the lack of financial resources, technology or skills as major barriers for effective implementation. Describing how chiefs, assistant-chiefs and community elders are routinely at the centre stage of core implementation processes, including targeting, enrolment, delivery, monitoring, awareness and information, data collection or grievance and redress, this study on Kenya argues for the need to look more closely into the local political economy as an important mediating arena for implementing social policies. Implementation is heavily contingent upon the local social, political and institutional context that influences and shapes its outcomes. These processes are ambivalent involving multiple forms of interactions between ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ institutional structures, which may support initial policy objectives or induce policy outcomes substantially diverging from intended policy objectives.

In Textilfabriken Südostasiens herrschen teils lebensgefährliche Arbeitsbedingungen, wie zwei Katastrophen in den Jahren 2012 und 2013 in Bangladesch zeigten. Seitdem hat sich einiges verbessert, aber vieles bleibt noch zu tun.

Social protection refers to the entire system of protective measures that assist individuals, households, and communities to better manage risks and economic shocks and that provide support to the critically vulnerable. Among the major risks covered are illness, accident, death, unemployment, or old age. Social protection includes public as well as private approaches.