e-GCSPF # 21 - March 2019 - CSW63 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This side event “Accountability dimension: social protection as a tool for the reduction of inequalities” was organised both to discuss emerging challenges on social protection as a tool for the reduction of inequalities and to look at both conceptual issues and practical solutions. The presenters explored the accountability dimension in designing and delivering social protection schemes; the links between social protection and human rights in reducing inequalities; and the role of civil society in social protection accountability monitoring. This side event was sponsored by the Global Coalition for Social Protection Floors and coorganised by SOSTE, the Finnish Federation for Social Affairs and Health, The International Council on Social Welfare (ICSW), The International Association of the Schools of Social Work (IASSW), The African Platform for Social Protection (APSP), UNESCO-MOST, and The Center for Economic and Economic and Social Rights (CESR). It was held on 14 February 2019, United Nations during the 57th Session of the UN Commission for Social Development.
The focus on accountability was seen as a practical step towards strengthening the issue- based approaches of the Commission on Social Development, taking account of Agenda 2030’s emphasis on universality and human rights and mindful of its call to the global community to assess, monitor, evaluate, share and discuss progress towards the achievement of its goals and targets.
Presentations were made by Vertti Klukas – General Secretary of SOSTE, the Finnish Federation for Social Affairs and Health; Professor Lynne Healy – Representative to the UN of the International Association of Schools of Social Work; Helen Mudora – Programme Manager, Africa Platform for Social Protection; Cecilie Golden – Programme Specialists, Management of Social Transformation (MOST), UNESCO; Kate Donald – Director, Economic and Social Policy Program, Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR) and Sergei Zelenev -Executive Director, International Council on Social Welfare. The event was moderated by Sylvia Beales Gelber, Director Beales Gelber Consult, Strategic Partnerships Advisor to the Africa Platform for Social Protection.
Key conclusions of the session
Presentations, detail of which can be seen in the February newsletter of the ICSW highlighted the following issues:
Human rights, social protection and accountability
The Human Rights Charter establishes the right to social security together with other social and economic rights and social guarantees. ILO Recommendation 202 sets out standards on social protection floors, a key feature of Agenda 2030 goal 1 target 1.3. However, the reality of social protection implementation varies wildly between countries. Without obligations set by national legislation or human rights frameworks, and knowledge of them, accountability is weakened. The work of the Africa Platform for Social Protection demonstrate that monitoring the delivery of social protection services by civil society can help to hold government departments to account with regard to the standards which they have set for themselves. For the Platform, which operates in 27 countries across Africa, accountability is conceived as building capacity and knowledge of rights to social protection of both policy makers as well as communities which they serve. Bringing the voice and experience of the grassroots and the disempowered to policy makers improves performance and supports long term change. The Platform has therefore developed a social protection accountability tool to support communities to assess whether payments are made on time; how far people have to travel to payment points; to monitor transparency; the attitudes of civil servants providing the service and the response to complaints. Results of these assessment are taken into government negotiations about the benefit system that results in improved social protection programmes.
UNESCO adopts an explicit human rights approach to obligations arising from Articles 22 and 25 of the Universal Declaration. It considers social security to be the essential building block for a decent life and supports programmes such as Ministers Forums that bring ministers, researchers and civil society together for the coproduction of knowledge and best practice.
The definition and widespread communication of rights and standards are essential for effective accountability. There has to be commitment on the part of duty bearers (governments) to effective delivery according to entitlements and equity. For this reason there should be effective means of redress when governments fail to deliver services to which they have committed themselves. There are acknowledged difficulties and challenges in linking human rights obligations to the SDGs. However, the SIRF index on social inclusion provides data which are relevant to social protection and can be used to assess rights performance by countries.
Importance of universality
Universal programmes are the way forward for the achievement of human rights because they advance human rights, leave no gaps and do not exclude anyone. They also have lower administration costs than targeted and means tested programmes which seek to establish dividing lines and thresholds between eligible and non-eligible recipients. Conditional cash transfers targeted on women can reinforce traditional gender roles and can prevent women entering the workforce and gaining a measure of autonomy and independence. Targeted programmes are both expensive and inefficient; examples were given of a programme in Egypt which provided benefits for only 49% of the eligible poor population and another in Philippines which worsened stunting of children among the non-targeted population.
Attention also needs to be paid to the impact of fiscal policies on beneficiary populations. In Brazil, for example, research has shown that the flagship Bolsa Familia programme does not compensate poor families for the resources ‘lost’ by them in regressive taxation.
In Finland social protection measures have evolved piecemeal, often in response to lobbying for particular beneficiary groups. These has had the result that programmes can be inconsistent and can be counterproductive. Finland has over 100 benefits which are delivered nationally or through local municipalities and they interact with each other – through means testing or migration from one system to another – which may deprive individuals or families of the benefits which they desperately need. There is a broad consensus that the level of social security is too low and that the current basic system does not ‘accord with what happens in life’. There is agreement that reform to deliver ‘flexible social security’ is needed and requires greater resources. The government has embarked on an open and participatory process of reform involving civil society with the aim of a new system in place by 2030. With transparency a key feature of the reform process, all papers relating to it are published on the government website.
Data and accountability
The 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals avoid human rights language – for example, as Philip Alston1 asks, why does Goal 3 talk about healthy lives instead of asserting the right to health? Data collected by states on human rights could be used to assess progress towards the SDGs. Obligatory reporting on rights commitments could reinforce the voluntary reporting required by Agenda 2030.
Indicators chosen to assess SDG progress have been criticised because they measure effort rather than outcome (for example, numbers of children in school rather than learning outcomes) or because they are simply inadequate – for example, suicide mortality rates do not adequately reflect mental health. Much more work needs to be done to be done on measurement to strengthen SDG accountability. One particular challenge is that it is difficult to distinguish inequality with deprivation.
It is possible to provide summary measures of the rights performance of countries using readily available data, which would be relevant to social protection commitments made in the SDGs. The SIRF Index is one example of how to measure governments progressive realisation of social protection. It should be possible to develop a tool to assess the level of data available in countries according to the resources available.
Design matters
Design which is ‘pro poor’ favours the principle of entitlement based on the human rights framework. A key issue is universal rather than targeted as discussed above. To underpin the rights based approach to social policy it is also important to accept social guarantees as the key driver of rights based policy change. This requires a better and more widespread understanding of rights both within governments and civil society, political will to ensure equitable delivery of rights, and the availability of redress mechanisms.
Note:
Read the programme here the concept note here and the report here.
Source: February newsletter of the ICSW.
The GCSPF submitted a written statement to the sixty-third session of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW63) on March 2019. The Statement is here.
e-GCSPF # 20 - February 2019 - CSocD57 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Members of the Global Coalition for Social Protection Floors will participate in the fifty-seventh session of the Commission for Social Development (CSocD57). The CSocD57 will take place at the United Nations Headquarters in New York from 11 to 21 February 2019.
The Priority Theme for the 2019 Session is Addressing inequalities and challenges to social inclusion through fiscal, wage and social protection policies.
Review of relevant UN plans and programmes of action pertaining to the situation of social groups:
* Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities
* World Programme of Action for Youth
* Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing, 2002
* Family issues, policies and programmes
GCSPF: Informal meeting Members of the GCSPF will hold an informal meeting. In case you are planning to participate, please send an e-mail to Ana (anaclau@item.org.uy).
SIDE EVENTS: Visit here the draft list of side events.
This event will examine homelessness as a direct consequence of social inequalities and inefficient governmental policies through the experiences of advocates, researchers, policy makers and people living on the streets. Speakers will contribute to an open dialogue on the importance of addressing the structural causes of homelessness in order to achieve the 2030 Agenda of ensuring adequate housing for all.
February 11, 1.45 - 2:30 pm, Conference Room A, UN Headquarters. Read more
The side event will highlight inequality and social exclusion as it relates to evictions, land, social injustices and gender inequality. The event will discuss human rights violations related to housing and land, in particular forced evictions, while it will explore the community ownership of land and housing cooperatives as an alternative to the private ownership of land and housing.
February 13, 11.30 - 12:45 pm, Conference Room 12, UN Headquarters. Read more
In the context of the thirtieth anniversary of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the International Movement ATD Fourth World, SOS Children’s Villages, UNICEF, the Global Coalition to End Child Poverty and the Global Coalition for Social Protection Floors are organizing a side event to explore how to strengthen the linkages between child protection and social protection in a way that is more supportive of family-based and community-based responses. It will also address the prevention of violence, including institutional violence.
The panel will comprise grassroots delegates, representatives from member states, non-governmental organizations, and UN agencies.
Thursday, 14 February - Conference Room 12 - Time: 11:30 -12:45 pm. Read the concept note here and the flyer here
The side event will discuss conceptual issues as well as practical solutions pertinent to the priority theme of CSocD57. The event aim is to promote reflection, debate and innovative thinking, including on emerging challenges on social protection as a tool for the reduction of inequalities.
The presenters will focus on the accountability dimension of social protection in designing and delivering accountable social protection schemes, the links between social protection and human rights in reducing inequalities and explore the role of civil society in social protection accountability monitoring.
February 14, 1.15 - 2:45 pm, Conference Room 7, UN Headquarters. Read the programme here and the concept note here
Although SDG10 of the 2030 Agenda asks for action to counter the dramatic increase of inequality, its prescriptions to change the underlying structural dynamics that continue to exacerbate inequalities are limited. Moreover, with multilateral institutions under increasing threat, many Member States recognize that the UN must be significantly strengthened and further revitalized if the SDGs are to be achieved by 2030. This session will consider how international rules and global economic governance arrangements should be changed to counteract the increasing inequalities within countries and to reduce inequalities between countries. Panelists will also be asked to consider how the opportunity of an event commemorating the UN’s 75th anniversary may be used to develop synergies among the major UN reviews occurring in 2020 that would include a process of robust stocktaking and review to advance ambitious and achievable reforms of the Organization, particularly as it relates to SDG10 and macroeconomic policy.
February 14, 1.45 - 2:30 pm, Conference Room A, UN Headquarters. Read more
Organised by youth, this side event brings young people into the conversation of social protection. We, the youth want to explore how we are impacted by lack of social protection in the areas of education, employment, and our capability to respond to environmental challenges. Lack of effective and efficient social protection systems is detrimental to youths’ potential, and drives inequalities within societies. Youth are an indispensable requirement for sustainable development, and their inclusion in society, which begins with social protection, is essential in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals and ensuring no one is left behind.
Tuesday, February 19, 11:30 - 12:45 pm, Conference Room 12, UN Headquarters. Read more
Following the screening of the documentary “Mahila” an interactive discussion will take place to share the positive results and the ongoing challenges of the Economic Justice Project that the Good Shepherd sisters supported by the Good Shepherd International Foundation are running in four different villages focused on empowering 600 Dalit and tribal women.
The interventions of the project are aimed at economic, social and political empowerment of Dalit and tribal women, among the most marginalized in Indian society. The women’s lives are transformed from a situation where they have limited power, to a situation where their power is enhanced in knowledge, understanding and skills; economic decision making power, access to and control over assets; and ability to collectivize for economic activity and rights.
Tuesday, February 19, 1:15 - 2:30 pm, Conference Room A, UN Headquarters. Download the flyer - Read more
In 2019, progress in implementing SDG10 will be reviewed for the first time at the High Level Political Forum. This provides a powerful opportunity to remind the international community of the radical promise made in including this goal amongst the SDGs. As part of the prelude to that inquiry, the Baha’i International Community and its partners in collaboration with UN DESA DSDGs, will host a multi-stakeholder breakfast dialogue to carry forward both the optimism and transformative promise of Goal 10.
The meeting will examine latest findings and explore issues around persistent and increasing inequalities in access to even basic services, despite there being enough material resources for the health and well-being of the world’s population, and the role that can be played by SDG10 to set a path towards equitable distribution of opportunity and outcome. A two-page outcome document will summarize key points from the conversation.
20th February 2019: 8:30 until 9:45 AM: Baha’i Offices, 866 United Nations Plaza Read the programme here and the concept note here
Download here the pdf version of this Statement.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute to this conference and to share some thoughts on behalf of the Global Coalition for Social Protection Floors.
The Global Coalition is a network of over 100 civil society organizations, trade unions and think tanks from all continents - all committed to advocate for and support the development and implementation of universal social protection.
The Global Coalition for Social Protection Floors (GCSPF) highly welcomes the global call to action: “TOGETHER TO ACHIEVE UNIVERSAL SOCIAL PROTECTION BY 2030”.
More than half of the world’s population is still denied a life in dignity and the human right to social protection. To deliver on the commitment to universal social protection is a legal, moral, political and economic imperative. Social protection is a key instrument for the successful implementation of Agenda 2030, for eradicating poverty and for reducing inequality. Social protection is a human right, not charity for the poorest.
What we want to take from this conference is the commitment to take concrete steps towards the implementation of universal social protection systems which are rights-based and gender-responsive, providing adequate benefits for all contingencies over the lifecycle.
We highly welcome the focus on a universal approach designed to overcome exclusion, targeting and fragmentation of programs. We want social protection policies that leave no one behind and contribute to solidarity and cohesive societies.
We very much value the commitment of different stakeholders to this joint initiative, marking their collective willingness to deliver universal social protection. We wish to see this initiative flourish with the broad participation of all countries around the world.
It will come as no surprise that we offer and also ask for the effective participation of civil society and trade unions in dialogues on social protection, at national, regional and global level. There are a few good reasons for this specific demand, since civil society and trade unions play an important transformative role in realizing the right to social protection.
CSO’s and trade unions support the organization of women and men and their communities, often being able to successfully include disadvantaged groups. This enables these organisations to understand their perspectives and needs.
Civil Society organisations develop concrete and specific social protection services, demonstrating that it is possible to reach otherwise excluded groups. These experiences can serve as pilots or good practice and should be taken into account and become part of comprehensive public social protection systems.
Civil Society organizations and trade unions also raise awareness and empower people to demand the extension and transformation of social protection systems.
Finally, involving civil society and trade unions structurally and effectively in the effort of realizing universal social protection is a matter of democratic and inclusive governance, generating broad-based support and strengthening the social contract.
We heard today here in the discussion, and we also know from the work of our members in many countries, that capacity building and access to knowledge exchange are a felt need on all levels. Therefore we would like to see joint learning at the core of the initiative.
But we would also like to insist on sustainable financing. Social protection is affordable, everywhere. Not in some distant better future. It is affordable now.
Today we heard inspiring country examples showing innovative ways to extend fiscal space for social protection. Fiscal space has to be created in national budgets.
However, when we talk about “Together to Achieve Universal Social Protection by 2030”, we also have to talk about the international responsibility to support countries to create and protect the fiscal space.
We need international cooperation to reduce tax evasion, and to avoid excessive tax competition.
We also need to protect the budget for social protection in times of crises and disasters – which would include adequately provisioning social protection spending during austerity periods. Further work needs to be done to develop a global solidarity mechanism that can provide that kind of support.
Just 0.23% of global GDP would suffice to provide social protection floors for the entire world’s population. The fact that global society cannot muster the solidarity to finance that level of national and international redistribution is a violation of human rights. We need to act now. There are only 11 years to 2030. We have much work to do.
To summarise what we have heard here today, we can say there is so much experience and expertise and so many good ideas how to work on this together. There is an important momentum for joint global action to reach Universal Social Protection by 2030. We should not let it go, nobody should stay behind.
Thank you very much!
Geneva, 5 February 2019
Download here the pdf version of this Statement.
As member of the Interim Steering Committee for USP2030 the Global Coalition gave a statement during the Conference USP2030 on 5 February 2019 in Geneva, Switzerland. The statement is here.
Members of the Global Coalition for Social Protection Floors will participate in the fifty-seventh session of the Commission for Social Development (CSocD57). The CSocD57 will take place at the United Nations Headquarters in New York from 11 to 21 February 2019.
The Priority Theme for the 2019 Session is Addressing inequalities and challenges to social inclusion through fiscal, wage and social protection policies.
Review of relevant UN plans and programmes of action pertaining to the situation of social groups:
* Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities
* World Programme of Action for Youth
* Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing, 2002
* Family issues, policies and programmes
GCSPF: Informal meeting Members of the GCSPF will hold an informal meeting. In case you are planning to participate, please send an e-mail to Ana (anaclau@item.org.uy).
SIDE EVENTS: Visit here the draft list of side events.
This event will examine homelessness as a direct consequence of social inequalities and inefficient governmental policies through the experiences of advocates, researchers, policy makers and people living on the streets. Speakers will contribute to an open dialogue on the importance of addressing the structural causes of homelessness in order to achieve the 2030 Agenda of ensuring adequate housing for all.
February 11, 1.45 - 2:30 pm, Conference Room A, UN Headquarters. Read more
The side event will highlight inequality and social exclusion as it relates to evictions, land, social injustices and gender inequality. The event will discuss human rights violations related to housing and land, in particular forced evictions, while it will explore the community ownership of land and housing cooperatives as an alternative to the private ownership of land and housing.
February 13, 11.30 - 12:45 pm, Conference Room 12, UN Headquarters. Read more
In the context of the thirtieth anniversary of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the International Movement ATD Fourth World, SOS Children’s Villages, UNICEF, the Global Coalition to End Child Poverty and the Global Coalition for Social Protection Floors are organizing a side event to explore how to strengthen the linkages between child protection and social protection in a way that is more supportive of family-based and community-based responses. It will also address the prevention of violence, including institutional violence.
The panel will comprise grassroots delegates, representatives from member states, non-governmental organizations, and UN agencies.
Thursday, 14 February - Conference Room 12 - Time: 11:30 -12:45 pm. Read the concept note here and the flyer here
The side event will discuss conceptual issues as well as practical solutions pertinent to the priority theme of CSocD57. The event aim is to promote reflection, debate and innovative thinking, including on emerging challenges on social protection as a tool for the reduction of inequalities.
The presenters will focus on the accountability dimension of social protection in designing and delivering accountable social protection schemes, the links between social protection and human rights in reducing inequalities and explore the role of civil society in social protection accountability monitoring.
February 14, 1.15 - 2:45 pm, Conference Room 7, UN Headquarters. Read the programme here and the concept note here
Although SDG10 of the 2030 Agenda asks for action to counter the dramatic increase of inequality, its prescriptions to change the underlying structural dynamics that continue to exacerbate inequalities are limited. Moreover, with multilateral institutions under increasing threat, many Member States recognize that the UN must be significantly strengthened and further revitalized if the SDGs are to be achieved by 2030. This session will consider how international rules and global economic governance arrangements should be changed to counteract the increasing inequalities within countries and to reduce inequalities between countries. Panelists will also be asked to consider how the opportunity of an event commemorating the UN’s 75th anniversary may be used to develop synergies among the major UN reviews occurring in 2020 that would include a process of robust stocktaking and review to advance ambitious and achievable reforms of the Organization, particularly as it relates to SDG10 and macroeconomic policy.
February 14, 1.45 - 2:30 pm, Conference Room A, UN Headquarters. Read more
Organised by youth, this side event brings young people into the conversation of social protection. We, the youth want to explore how we are impacted by lack of social protection in the areas of education, employment, and our capability to respond to environmental challenges. Lack of effective and efficient social protection systems is detrimental to youths’ potential, and drives inequalities within societies. Youth are an indispensable requirement for sustainable development, and their inclusion in society, which begins with social protection, is essential in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals and ensuring no one is left behind.
Tuesday, February 19, 11:30 - 12:45 pm, Conference Room 12, UN Headquarters. Read more
Following the screening of the documentary “Mahila” an interactive discussion will take place to share the positive results and the ongoing challenges of the Economic Justice Project that the Good Shepherd sisters supported by the Good Shepherd International Foundation are running in four different villages focused on empowering 600 Dalit and tribal women.
The interventions of the project are aimed at economic, social and political empowerment of Dalit and tribal women, among the most marginalized in Indian society. The women’s lives are transformed from a situation where they have limited power, to a situation where their power is enhanced in knowledge, understanding and skills; economic decision making power, access to and control over assets; and ability to collectivize for economic activity and rights.
Tuesday, February 19, 1:15 - 2:30 pm, Conference Room A, UN Headquarters. Download the flyer - Read more
In 2019, progress in implementing SDG10 will be reviewed for the first time at the High Level Political Forum. This provides a powerful opportunity to remind the international community of the radical promise made in including this goal amongst the SDGs. As part of the prelude to that inquiry, the Baha’i International Community and its partners in collaboration with UN DESA DSDGs, will host a multi-stakeholder breakfast dialogue to carry forward both the optimism and transformative promise of Goal 10.
The meeting will examine latest findings and explore issues around persistent and increasing inequalities in access to even basic services, despite there being enough material resources for the health and well-being of the world’s population, and the role that can be played by SDG10 to set a path towards equitable distribution of opportunity and outcome. A two-page outcome document will summarize key points from the conversation.
20th February 2019: 8:30 until 9:45 AM: Baha’i Offices, 866 United Nations Plaza Read the programme here and the concept note here
e-GCSPF # 19 - January 2019 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A view from the Global Coalition for Social Protection Floors*
January 2019
Download the pdf version here.
As the International Monetary Fund prepares its new institutional view on how to address social protection in its work with member countries, the Global Coalition for Social Protection Floors (GCSPF) has prepared this note to highlight a number of policy considerations that we believe the Fund should take into account in its deliberations. We first review the failures of IMF policies as seen by its critics and by its own Independent Evaluation Office, which has prompted the Fund’s current re-examination of its approach to social protection. Second, we give our view on what the proper scope of social protection should be in the IMF’s work with member countries. We argue that the Fund needs to base its social protection perspective on the standards of the international community as a whole, in particular, taking guidance from the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted by the United Nations General Assembly and from international agreements forged in the governing body of the International Labour Organization (ILO). We conclude with recommendations that the IMF should adopt to better assist countries to arrive at effective, adequate and fair systems of social protection that are fiscally sustainable in the long run, and that are maintained and can be increased as needed during times of societal stress owing to economic difficulties or natural calamities.
The damages of a narrow focus on fiscal sustainability
Trade unions, civil society organizations and many outside analysts have been critical of IMF policy recommendations and loan conditionality in the area of social protection. A frequent complaint has been that the Fund, in its determination to see governments reduce or even eliminate fiscal deficits, has urged them to rein in spending for social protection while paying little attention to the social and economic consequences of such action for beneficiaries. In our view, there were and are alternatives.
In July 2017, the IMF’s Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) issued a report on the Fund’s involvement in social protection issues that followed some eighteen months of investigation. The IEO report confirmed many critics’ views of IMF actions in this thematic area, namely that the Fund typically issued recommendations or loan conditions with a focus on the fiscal costs of existing or proposed social protection programmes, not their impact on, for example, reducing poverty or inequality. Thus, as regards old-age pensions, the IEO found that the IMF typically was not concerned with “social issues such as the extent of pension coverage in the population or the adequacy of the pension replacement rate” but rather with issues “such as fiscal sustainability and the short-term expenditure burden”.
The IEO report notes that Fund staff generally had little expertise in social protection issues, as demonstrated by the fact that “IMF staff often underestimated the time and complexities in developing and implementing means-tested benefits” which they advised low-income countries to adopt instead of universal benefits. The report also observes that the IMF’s approach to social protection was frequently at odds with those of other international agencies, notably in its preference for narrowly targeted benefits. It also notes a possible contradiction between the Fund’s preferred options for social protection reform and the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, in spite of the Fund having endorsed these in 2015: “The IMF’s endorsement of the SDGs has raised questions about consistency with its continued support for targeted (means-tested) social protection schemes.”
Before the IEO made public its report on social protection, in 2015 the ILO, the South Centre and the Initiative for Policy Dialogue at Columbia University published an analysis of 616 IMF country reports covering 183 countries from 2010 to 2015 with the aim of identifying the main adjustment measures under consideration. The period studied coincided with the widespread promotion by the IMF of austerity policies, which started in 2010 after a brief spell, 2008-2009, during which the Fund encouraged many countries to engage in stimulus polices to counteract the Great Recession.
As the report documents, in early 2010 the IMF’s executive board approved two papers prepared by Fund staff which encouraged governments to unwind stimulus policies that several had applied during the recession, and instead engage in fiscal consolidation. With regards specifically to social protection, the Fund encouraged reform of pension entitlements so as to reduce the State’s obligations, decrease spending on items such as subsidies, and reform safety nets to focus on “the poorest”. The report prepared by the ILO and partners examined austerity-related measures in both developing and high-income countries, but found IMF surveillance to be a “main contributing factor” to subsequent cuts in public spending in developing countries.
The analysis of IMF country reports showed that 132 governments (out of 183) considered reducing subsidies, mostly for fuel but also electricity, food and agricultural inputs; 107 considered rationalizing spending on safety nets and welfare benefits with the effect of reducing coverage, “often by revising eligibility criteria and targeting to the poorest”; and 105 discussed changes to pension systems such as raising contribution rates, eligibility periods and retirement ages or lowering benefits.
The report provides several examples of IMF staff encouraging governments to adopt such expenditure-reducing measures. It states that targeting of social programmes was discussed in 107 countries with apparent support from the IMF, even though some of the Fund’s country reports acknowledge a lack of capacity to target those in poverty, particularly in lower-income countries. The report lists the major problems associated with the means testing techniques used for targeting the “poorest”, including high cost, substantial under- coverage and political unsustainability.
The concerns raised by targeted rather than universal social benefits in developing countries are also discussed in a report on the IMF’s involvement in social protection issued in May 2018 by the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights. The report cites research showing that in sub-Saharan Africa the proxy means tests frequently favoured by the IMF as a targeting mechanism resulted in 80 per cent of poor households, on average, being declared non-poor and thus ineligible for targeted assistance.
Noting the IMF’s preference for targeted measures in replacement of price subsidies, the Special Rapporteur underlines the “tension between the short-term focus of IMF [on achieving fiscal savings] and the significant time it takes to … build up a proper social protection system.” The report also comments on the shortcomings of policies to create or expand social spending floors included in IMF lending programmes for most low-income countries in the past decade. It observes that their aims have generally not been met in sub- Saharan Africa, perhaps because the floors are included in the programmes as non-binding indicative targets, not full-fledged loan conditions.
Failures of the Fund’s past approach
Several recent examples of IMF loan conditionality and policy advice, notably in staff reports on country missions, indicate that the problems with the IMF’s approach on social protection highlighted in the three reports cited above are of continuing concern. In two Asian borrowing countries, Mongolia and Kyrgyzstan, the IMF obliged the governments in late 2017 and early 2018 to introduce targeting of what had previously been universal child cash allowances in both countries, despite the success the universal programmes had had in reducing poverty, especially in rural areas.
In Iran, the IMF similarly urged the government during its annual Article IV consultation in April 2017 to shift a universal cash transfer programme, originally introduced to replace fuel subsidies, to a programme targeted on the poor in order to create fiscal space for other expenditures such as bank recapitalization. The IMF made this recommendation even though it had earlier touted the success of the universal transfer in reducing income inequality and admitted that “administrative difficulties” would make it very challenging to determine who should be eligible for the targeted benefit. The Iranian government announced the end of the universal benefit in late 2017, an action that was praised by the IMF but set off several days of protests throughout the country in late 2017 and early 2018.
As already mentioned, so-called social spending floors were included in several low- income country programmes in the past several years. However, these have been non- binding indicative targets and typically covered so broad an array of social spending, including education, as to be close to meaningless. One middle-income country that had such a floor in its IMF loan programme, Tunisia, spent 14 per cent less than its targeted floor over the 30-month period of its IMF loan ending in 2015. A Fund report on the Tunisian loan attributed the under-spending to “issues” in the delivery mechanism of transfers to vulnerable households.
The largest loan in IMF history, the current US$57 billion loan to Argentina, broke new ground by including a social assistance spending floor as a “performance criterion”. This has the same status as the primary fiscal balance, currently in deficit, which the government committed to eliminate in 2019. The spending floor is thus a full loan condition, which could lead to suspension of loan disbursements if not met – although in practice the IMF’s executive board frequently grants waivers to countries that do not meet certain conditions. However, it is important to note that the floor applies to a very limited array of social programmes, collectively called ‘Asignaciones familiares’ (family allowances) that represent about 1.3 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP). While the programme would allow for breaching of agreed deficit limits for one of four categories of allowances, covering some conditional child benefits and a pregnancy allowance, they could together not exceed a maximum additional borrowing of 0.2 per cent of GDP, a very small amount.
Most ‘big-ticket’ social protection programmes in Argentina are not covered by the IMF loan’s social assistance spending floor. On the contrary, one can fear increased pressure from the Fund to reduce spending for those types of social programmes, such as old-age pensions, if the government fails to meet its stated objective of eliminating the primary fiscal deficit in 2019. A December 2018 IMF press release alluded to such reductions when it urged the government to take action for “putting the pension system on a sustainable financial footing”. Among the deficit-cutting measures already announced by the Argentine government is the decrease of federal government transfers to the provinces, which devote a significant portion of their spending to health care.
Reduced benefits, increased pension eligibility ages and more stringent eligibility criteria for public pension systems were the most important austerity measures carried out by Greece during the period starting with its first ‘troika’ (European Central Bank-European Commission-IMF) loan in 2010 until the expiration of its last programme in 2018. While the IMF and other creditors were critical of the high level of spending for pensions compared to other jurisdictions, the high costs of the system relative to the size of the economy were due in large part to the drastic austerity package imposed on Greece from 2010, which led to the country’s GDP shrinking by about one quarter, the unemployment rate climbing to 28 per cent by late 2013 and the departure of many working-age Greeks to seek employment elsewhere. It was estimated in 2017 that, due to a series of restrictions and benefit cutbacks applied since 2010, slightly more than half of Greek pensioners – 1.5 million out of 2.9 million – received income below the poverty level. After the IMF’s role as monitor of a European Stability Mechanism loan ended in August 2018, the Greek parliament voted in December to cancel an additional round of pension cuts that the IMF had asked be implemented in 2019.
Reform of Ukr aine’s pub lic pension s ystem was identified by the IMF as a key component of the fiscal consolidation efforts the government needed to undertake when a new loan was announced in March 2015. With apparent reluctance, the Ukrainian government only followed through on its commitment to the IMF two and a half years later. The parliament approved a reform in October 2017 consisting of measures that would reduce expenditures for the pension system including cutbacks in early retirement options and restricted eligibility to pensions in terms of the number of years of work required to qualify. It also approved an increase of pension levels: in early 2018 two-thirds of Ukraine’s retirees were receiving the minimum pension of about US$50 per month, well below the poverty threshold. However, the government did not enact a statutory increase of the retirement age demanded by the IMF, and this failure is among the reasons that the Fund ceased loan disbursements after April 2017. (A new IMF loan to Ukraine for a considerably reduced amount compared to the 2015 agreement was approved in December 2018.)
In some countries, IMF loan conditionality or policy advice to cut back on pension spending in order to address fiscal challenges has been just as controversial as the Fund’s recommendations to do away with universal allowances or consumer subsidies. In February 2018, an IMF mission to Nicaragua, a country that is not currently a borrower but has had three loans in the past two decades, recommended that the government enact “a comprehensive reform of the Social Security” system. The government proceeded with a pension reform two months later. The announced cutbacks in pension benefits were accompanied by increased contributions and followed a termination of reduced electricity tariffs for retirees, also supported by the IMF. The actions set off mass protests throughout the country in April 2018. The government cancelled the pension reform shortly after the protests began, but they continued for several weeks after other grievances came to the fore.
In the examples cited here, it seems clear that the IMF formulated its conditions or policy advice on the basis of achieving fiscal consolidation objectives first and foremost. Strong resistance against the Fund’s proposals, leading to their failure in many instances, reflect perceptions that the reforms did not balance equity and financial sustainability and undermined the primary objective of pension systems to provide income security for older persons. Likewise, the elimination of popular universal entitlements and their replacement by means-tested benefits that are costly to administer and exclude most of those who should be eligible, indicates the need for the IMF to develop a new approach towards social protection.
Rethinking the IMF’s approach
The Fund should take into account the human cost of its policy advice and conditionality, the impact on poverty and inequality and the impact on economic growth, as well as ‘fiscal sustainability’. IMF operations staff tend to interpret fiscal sustainability in a very narrow fashion, attaching little importance to the macroeconomic effect of adjustment measures and ignoring the Fund’s own research showing the negative impact of increased inequality on economic growth and stability as well the recessionary impact of fiscal consolidation measures, particularly in slow-growth contexts. Both of these impacts can make it near impossible for countries to reach short-term fiscal consolidation targets.
The IMF has acknowledged that it lacks adequate expertise in social protection and has relied heavily on the World Bank for advice on reforms of social protection, as well as health and education, but the Bank’s approach to social protection is controversial and often exacerbates inequality by eroding social protection coverage. In past years, the IMF deferred to the Bank’s expertise when it actively promoted partial or total privatization of public pension systems in Eastern Europe and Latin America. As described in a report published in 2018, governments subsequently reversed most of these privatizations because of stagnant or declining coverage, inadequate benefits, lower pensions paid to women than men and unforeseen increases in the State’s fiscal costs.
The World Bank often supports poverty-targeted social protection schemes that offer low- value transfers under the guise of being ‘pro-poor’, and the Bank’s interventions in areas such as low-fee for-profit education have proved highly controversial. Moreover, senior Bank staff responsible for social protection have backed the notion of “progressive universalism”, meaning targeted approaches with the aim of eventual expansion. The IMF should be wary of proposals that do not challenge the introduction or continuance of the expensive and inefficient infrastructure of poverty targeting, including its reliance on proxy means tests that exclude a large proportion of poor households.
Developing a new policy framework on the Fund’s involvement in social protection initiatives and reforms, which calls on regular collaboration with agencies and experts that have a full understanding of social protection systems, their role and their impacts, must be seen as an urgent necessity. The ILO, UNICEF and other UN agencies have recognized knowledge and expertise on social protection. We ask that the IMF seek active collaboration with these agencies on the matter of social protection and establish clear boundaries on its own role. The following pages offer some proposals on what should be included in the new framework.
A desirable shape of social protection in the IMF’s new institutional view
The IMF’s forthcoming institutional view on social protection will need to specify the scope and shape of the government social spending programmes to which it will apply. While discussion remains as to what social protection encompasses, internationally agreed definitions exist and should be adhered to. Social protection or social security is a human right whose implementation is defined as “the set of policies and programmes designed to reduce and prevent poverty and vulnerability throughout the life cycle. Social protection includes benefits for children and families, maternity, unemployment, employment injury, sickness, old age, disability, survivors, as well as health protection. Social protection systems address all these policy areas by a mix of contributory schemes (social insurance) and non-contributory tax-financed benefits, including social assistance.”
This is the concept of social protection that the GCSPF embraces, while focusing attention on the social protection floor. The latter is understood to be a nationally-defined set of basic social security guarantees that should ensure, at a minimum, that over the life cycle all in need have access to essential health care and to basic income security, as per ILO recommendation No. 202 on social protection floors adopted in 2012.
Social protection, including floors, is an important component of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, including SDG target 1.3, which reflects the collective pledge to “implement nationally appropriate social protection systems for all, including floors” for reducing and preventing poverty. Moreover, target 1.3 commits all UN Member States to “achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable” by 2030.
The UN Secretary-General’s 2018 report on the progress in implementing the SDGs states that, “while extreme poverty has eased considerably since 1990, pockets of the worst forms of poverty persist. Ending poverty requires universal social protection systems aimed at safeguarding all individuals throughout the life cycle. It also requires targeted measures to reduce vulnerability to disasters and to address specific underserved geographic areas within each country,” noting further that based on 2016 estimates, only 45 per cent of the world’s population was effectively covered by at least one social protection cash benefit.
Social protection inescapably belongs in the public sector and as a part of public finance, since governments are uniquely qualified to oversee and enforce it. The outcomes of privatized social protection systems have been deeply flawed. For example, an ILO report cited above on the experience with privatized pension systems in Eastern Europe and Latin America concludes: “With sixty per cent of countries that had privatized public mandatory pensions having reversed the privatization, and with the accumulated evidence of negative social and economic impacts, it can be affirmed that the privatization experiment has failed.”
Targeted versus universal social protection schemes
While universal social protection schemes may only reach specific groups, this is not determined by income or wealth. For example, a universal child benefit is only given to children, an entitlement determined by age, not economic status. One of the most well cited illustrations of a universal social protection system is that of the National Health Service in the United Kingdom, which for that reason boasts the slogan ‘from the cradle to the grave’ in that it is there for anyone and everyone whenever they should need it.
Universalism is based on a commitment to a redistributive economic framework where taxation is used as a means to rebalance economies and reduce levels of inequality while reducing the economic anxiety often experienced by people in precarious or vulnerable situations. Well-designed social protection will redistribute income from those with higher lifetime earnings to those with lower lifetime earnings, and from the healthy and abled to those sick, disabled or unable to work, in order that they may live a life of dignity and to safeguard their human rights.
In refusing to differentiate eligibility between rich and poor, the stigmatization of class barriers is alleviated by avoiding policies that separate social protection recipients from others. For this reason, renowned sociologist Peter Townsend argued in 1976 that a poverty-targeted social protection system “fosters hierarchical relationships of superiority and inferiority in society, diminishes rather than enhances the status of the poor, and has the effect of widening rather than reducing social inequalities ... It lumps the unemployed, sick, widowed, aged and others into one undifferentiated and inevitably stigmatised category.”
Research by Development Pathways shows that poverty-targeted schemes have low budgets and, as a result, the demands on those at higher incomes to finance them from taxes are much less than when universal schemes are implemented. In addition, high rates of exclusion accompany means-tested programmes, thereby actively hurting the social contract and hindering social mobility.
In calling for universal social protection systems, the GCSPF is not calling for a “universal basic income”. Much of the discussion in recent years around UBI – sometimes referred to as citizens’ income – has conflated universal social protection with UBI. The distinction is well made in a 2018 report published by the ILO that defines UBI as a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all citizens/residents, without exclusion, means test or work requirement. The impact of UBI depends on funding and its ability to suit the needs of the people that it seeks to cover. Regressive budget-neutral UBI proposals, for example, are not in line with ILO standards and will lead to further inequalities.
The IMF should eschew making recommendations to slash employers’ social insurance contributions – so-called labour taxes – as they would severely undermine social insurance systems by constraining their resources and making them unsustainable. Those recommendations have been made with a view to stimulating enterprise, as in the IMF Paper on fiscal policy and long-term growth, 2015 and World Economic Outlook, April 2016. There are other ways to promote entrepreneurship.
How the IMF should approach social protection issues
Governments have mandated the IMF to oversee the macroeconomic policies of its member countries in the interest of global financial and economic stability. At the same time, every national government has a fundamental responsibility based on human rights and – in most cases – its political constitution to provide a basic level of social protection to its people. The IMF needs to respect the social responsibilities of governments while carrying out its macroeconomic mandate, which exists at both country-focused and systemic levels.
The development by the IMF of an institutional view on social protection should involve a comprehensive evaluation of the Fund’s current approach and take into account the points raised in this note and by others. Critically, this process should not be viewed as an opportunity for the IMF to increase loan conditionality. Instead, the Fund should support the efforts of governments to develop an adequate, effective and fair social protection system that is fiscally sustainable. When working on the country level, the appropriate focus of the IMF in the realm of social protection is in protecting its financing. We call for strengthening the Fund’s effectiveness in helping countries to identify and mobilize adequate resources for their social protection floors and in protecting these floors as inviolable.
As noted earlier, the IMF should cooperate intensively with the specialized agencies of the United Nations that do have deep expertise in social protection, including the ILO, UNICEF, Food and Agricultural Organization and with other international centres of expertise. This process should involve a clear understanding – both within the IMF and between institutions – of where the IMF’s boundaries are with regards to involvement in social protection in line with its institutional mandate.
To deepen ongoing linkages in this regard, IMF should inform the ILO and other UN agencies when social protection is expected to be a significant factor in new country programmes or policy advice, notably during Article IV missions. Relevant staff from these agencies should be invited to join the country missions when they request it. To bolster the prospects of deeper staff interaction with fellow international agencies at country level, the IMF should actively participate in the Social Protection Inter-Agency Cooperation Board (SPIAC-B), as recommended by the IEO report discussed earlier.
It is also important that the IMF engage intensively with local civil society, trade unions and academic experts when undertaking country missions, as well with line ministries and relevant legislators, including at the sub-national level when appropriate. The point is not to check off consultation boxes on a mission report form, but rather to deepen IMF staff understanding of the domestic economic, social and political situation than might be formed from discussions exclusively with finance ministry and central bank interlocutors.
The GCSPF’s insistence on adequate social protection systems is grounded in the human right to social protection, but it is also important to underline its positive developmental impacts. Child and maternity benefits increase productivity and help to incorporate women into the labour market; disability and old-age pensions support household income; unemployment support assists those without jobs and has a counter-cyclical function during economic downturns. Adequate social protection benefit levels reduce poverty and inequality, are critical for sustainable economic growth, promote human development, social cohesion and political stability.
IMF staff should be aware that, when advising governments on policies for sustainable social protection systems, they must take account of the net impact on the livelihoods of all parts of the population not only resulting directly from the envisaged social protection policies but also from tax policy and related policy changes taken to assure fiscal sustainability.
In addition to helping countries plan sustainable financing for adequate, effective and financially sustainable social protection systems, including floors, the IMF needs to focus on helping member governments protect their ability to maintain and as needed increase their social protection programmes during times of economic difficulty or natural disaster. Undertaking austerity or rolling back emergency support of vulnerable populations in the early stages of recovery should never be recommended, not only for humanitarian reasons but also to avoid undermining the recovery itself. In the past, IMF has often been excessively optimistic about the economic resiliency of some of its member countries after an economic crisis.
As shown in this note, past IMF practice of involving itself in national social protection systems primarily in order to meet short-term fiscal consolidation goals has led to highly problematic policy advice and loan conditionality. The traditional approach has led to the adoption of adjustment measures that have weakened social protection systems, increased inequality and heightened social polarization, not to mention imposing immense human and economic costs. In its new framework on social protection policy, the IMF should adopt an approach that is consistent with and supportive of the scope and objectives of social protection as defined by the international community, notably in the SDGs. The key role the IMF should play is in protecting social protection systems as part of its mandate to prevent crises and assist countries recovering from crises.
16 January 2019
Note:
* This note was prepared by the following authors at the request of the GCSPF: Peter Bakvis (International Trade Union Confederation), Miriam Brett (Bretton Woods Project), Barry Herman (Social Justice in Global Development).
Over 200 civil society organizations and trade unions unite to call for a Global Fund for Social Protection to protect the most vulnerable during COVID-19 and beyond.
The programme Improving Synergies Between Social Protection and Public Finance Management provides medium-term support to multiple countries aiming to strengthen their social protection systems at a national level and ensure sustainable financing. The programme aims to support countries in their efforts towards achieving universal social protection coverage.