GCSPF Newsletter #27 – September 2019

e-GCSPF # 27 - September 2019

Women and Green Economy: Engaging with the New Development Bank       By Govind Kelkar and Sudeshna Sengupta The concept of Green Economy has been operationalized for the last 10 years. Politically, the concept became prevalent from the negotiation in Environmental Summit of 1992. Rio 20 became the platform where the idea of Green Economy started growing more prevalent. In a Green Economy, however, the Rights approach to development and gender equeality has been missing. Growth in income and employment is to be driven by public and private investments that reduce carbon emissions and pollution, enhance energy and resource efficiency, and prevent the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Pointing out the Global South concern on conceptualizing Green Economy in a recent webinar hosted by the BRICS Feminist Watch (BFW), Mariama Williams stated that some South feminists were not happy with this agenda as it might shift the focus from sustainable development, especially if the Green Economy only puts price tags on nature and was not concerned about human rights. Feminists are of the opinion that it is important that Green Economy should engage with political, social and environmental concerns and ensure adequate participation of women and recognize their contributions. Women are not to be looked at only as target beneficiaries impacted by the transition process to Green Economy. This position paper presents the progressive feminist position on incorporating Green Economy within the policy domain of New Development Bank (NDB). Read more           UN General Assembly Week of Summits: Q&A       Over a hundred Heads of State or Government are expected to arrive to New York in the last week of September for a series of back-to-back summit meetings at the opening of the General Assembly of the United Nations. On top of the usual photo opportunities and a myriad of bilateral meetings between leaders, this High-level week provides an opportunity for multilateral action to shift away from ’business as usual’ and address some enormous current challenges. The calendar is certainly crowded: the Climate Action Summit and the High-level Meeting on Universal Health Coverage on 23 September, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) Summit on 24-25 September, the High-level Dialogue on Financing for Development (FfD) on 26 September, and the High-level Midterm Review of the SAMOA Pathway on 27 September. These multiple events enable world leaders to confront policy gaps, address interlinkages among these issues and design policies and actions in an interconnected way. Similar vested interests that resist regulation of the corporate sector to protect the largest greenhouse gas emitters also block increased access to affordable medicines and vaccinations. Further, the conversations on financing the SDGs, particularly on ecological and climate issues cannot be divorced from the programme on Small Island Developing States (SIDS). Read more           AIIB's Roads to Inequality: A Gender Case Study from Gujarat       By Priti Darooka and Sejal Dand Rural roads have enormous economic and social benefits to the poor in terms of increased agricultural production, lower input and transport costs, increased school enrollment, increased access to health and other services. In addition, rural roads construction, maintenance, and rehabilitation are an excellent employment and income-generating opportunity for the local population. Mukhya Mantri Grameen Sadak Yojana (MMGSY) or the Chief Minister's Rural Road Project in Gujarat in India was selected as a case study to critically assess inclusion of, and impact on, women and girls at all stages of the project. MMGSY is an Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) funded stand-alone project in India. The Gujarat Rural Roads Project, financed by the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), seeks to construct and upgrade rural roads to increase connectivity throughout the State. According to the project document, its aim is to provide all-weather rural roads to about 1060 villages in all of the state's 33 districts, benefitting about 8 million people at an estimated cost of USD 1.5 billion. PWESCR and BRICS Feminist Watch are happy to present this gender analysis report of the project which includes observations, findings and recommendations from the field with an overview of relevant Indian and Gujarat State laws and policies and an analysis of the gaps and track record of implementation. Read more           How Informal Workers are Fighting for Healthcare, Child Care and Safety at Work       By Carlin Carr, WIEGO Globally, 2-billion people work in the informal economy. They are some of the most vulnerable workers in the world, and they are the new majority. This means that 61% of workers globally rely on work that offers little pay and few protections, and women are particularly at risk. Public policies and social protection schemes often do not consider these workers, leaving them vulnerable to income losses and struggling to cope after an event or shock. In this new podcast, Informal Economy: Social Protection, Cyrus Afshar hosts WIEGO social-protection experts, as well as external guests, in wide-ranging discussions on some of the most-pressing issues related to social protection from the perspective of informal workers. These include debates around the future of work, demographic changes and the informal economy, as well as social services, like child care and health that can protect informal workers' incomes. Read more           The World Bank and gender equality       BWP's new briefing explores how the World Bank addresses gender equality in Development Policy Financing (DPF), the World Bank instrument that provides credits, loans or guarantees to borrowing countries through fungible budget support, conditioned on policy reforms. It aims to stimulate further discussion around the linkages between gender equality, macroeconomic policy, and the role of the World Bank, ultimately to help create an enabling macroeconomic policy environment for gender equality. The briefing presents the Bank's role in shaping macroeconomic and gender policymaking, examining how DPF is designed and illustrating how gendered impacts are examined in policy and practice. In its overarching policy, the Bank states that staff must determine whether “specific policies supported by the operation are likely to have significant poverty and social consequences, especially on poor people and vulnerable groups.” Yet the recent operations outlined as case studies in BWP's briefing highlight a number of gaps and remaining questions regarding the Bank's approach to analysing the potential gendered impacts of policy reforms introduced through this lending instrument. Without critically and comprehensively reviewing its DPF from a gender perspective, especially in relation to macroeconomic policy reforms, the World Bank is at risk of supporting inconsistent and counterproductive policy reforms, which could undermine its own aims to promote gender equality and contribute to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. Read more           For street vendors, finding water and toilets isn't just a nuisance, it's cutting into earnings       By Carlin Carr, WIEGO The daily grind of street vendors comes with a host of obvious business challenges: sourcing and preparing goods to sell; attracting a steady stream of customers; and generating enough take-home pay to survive. It's a hustle, and one that these roadside entrepreneurs know well. But the hustle only goes so far. Conducting their livelihoods in public spaces, street vendors face difficult challenges extending beyond their everyday business transactions. Woefully inadequate infrastructure, particularly around access to clean water and toilets, often wreaks havoc on their working lives. Multiple costs – including trips to the toilet and water delivery – cut into already meagre earnings. Limited access takes a toll on vendors' mental and physical health, further reducing their earning potential. These are key findings from research by WIEGO and International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) with street vendors in Nakuru (Kenya) and Durban (South Africa). Read more

JOIN US TO ACHIEVE SOCIAL PROTECTION FOR ALL GLOBAL COALITION FOR SOCIAL PROTECTION FLOORS - GCSPF For comments, suggestions, collaborations contact us at: anaclau@item.org.uy To stop receiving this newsletter send a message with the subject "unsubscribe" to: anaclau@item.org.uy

e-GCSPF # 26 - August 2019 - HLPF

Members of the GCSPF participated at the High-level Political Forum 2019       The High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development met from Tuesday, 9 July, to Thursday, 18 July 2019; including the three-day ministerial meeting of the forum from Tuesday, 16 July, to Thursday, 18 July 2019. The theme was: “Empowering people and ensuring inclusiveness and equality”. The HLPF also reviewed progress towards the SDGs and focus in particular on Goals 4, 8, 10, 13, 16, and 17. During the ministerial meetings 47 countries carried out Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs).           Agenda 2030: What is wrong with Inequality?       Photo: Johnny Miller. Dr. Luise Steinwachs, BftW “What's wrong with inequality? Should all people be the same?” someone asked me once. Maybe this person was confusing inequality with diversity. Diversity does not necessarily imply exclusion or marginalization. Inequality does. Inequality is something that shapes and defines one's life. There are always people behind the numbers and percentages. Read more           Technocratic Fiddling While the Planet Burns: Towards a Higher Level of Ambition for the HLPF       Photo: Sergio Chaparro. By Kate Donald, CESR The 2019 HLPF —the global platform for reviewing progress on the SDGs— took place last week at the UN in New York, and in general terms, it was more of the same. Admirable rhetoric, but not much evidence of serious efforts at comprehensive implementation, and a host of major flaws and limitations to contend with. As CESR has observed at previous HLPFs (see 2017 and 2018), the space given to civil society is far too limited, most of the Voluntary National Reviews feel very disconnected from reality, and one leaves with the feeling that most governments are at best timidly tinkering around the edges, making minor adjustments to business-as-usual while the planet burns. There were, however, three elements that made this year's HLPF somewhat distinct. Read more           Social Watch highlights importance of national civil society reports       Photo: Coordinadora ONGD By Elena Marmo, GPW Every year since the adoption of the 2030 Agenda in 2015, governments are invited to present Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs) on their progress in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) at the High Level Political Forum (HLPF) of the UN. This process is heralded by some as a great opportunity to hold governments accountable to their actions and by others as a beauty contest riddled with misrepresentation and power imbalances. Civil society organizations in many countries produce their own alternative “spotlight reports,” playing with the name of “shadow reports” traditionally given to such independent voices in the Human Rights context. An event titled “National Reports on 2030 Agenda: What do They (Not) Tell Us?,” jointly hosted by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the Committee for Development Policy (CDP), Global Policy Forum (GPF) and Social Watch, explored these tensions and sought to identify opportunities to improve reporting, monitoring, follow-up and accountability in these national review processes. Read more           Reshaping Governance for Sustainability: 2019 “Spotlight” Report Launched at the UN HLPF       Photo: FES By Elena Marmo and Sophia McCarron, GPW “There needs to be an examination of the hardware of the 2030 Agenda, rather than an upgrade of its software” concludes the 2019 Spotlight Report launched on Thursday, 11 July during the High Level Political Forum that reviews the United Nations 2030 Agenda for sustainable development. Under the title of “Reshaping governance for sustainability”, the civil society report explores transforming institutions, shifting power and strengthening rights. The launch event showcased the ideas presented by a variety of the report’s authors. Read more           HLPF Training workshop: “Participatory and Inclusive tools to build capacities in leaving no one behind”       As part of the 2019 edition of the SDGs Learning, Training & Practice – a series of capacity building and knowledge workshops held at the HLPF and co-hosted by the Division for Sustainable Development Goals, UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA/DSDG) and the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) - a group of NGOs and Universities (some of which are members of the Global Coalition on Social Protection Floors) came together to present their “Participatory and Inclusive tools to build capacities in leaving no one behind”, Thursday July 11th, 2019. Through interactive talks, activists, academics and people with a direct experience of disability or poverty powerfully shared their respective work and research aiming at bringing the voices of the most excluded and marginalized segments of society globally. Read more           Notes on the HLPF 2019       By Barry Herman Social Justice in Global Development There is a growing appreciation that the SDGs, if not yet the 2030 Agenda writ large, are less than they are made out to be. Nevertheless, they embody the only international discussion on development and remain politically embraced by international development organizations, governments and much of civil society. The following draws from comments made in different meetings. Read more           Notes on the HLPF 2019       By Sylvia Beales Gelber, APSP The Stakeholder Group on Ageing event ‘Confronting ageism and empowering older people to ensure social, economic and political inclusion of all’ was held on 9th July, the key message was ‘Achieving the SDGs means dismantling ageism’. The event can be watched here and a report is available here. VNR LAB 3: “Leaving no one behind” – Inclusive implementation and reporting was held on 10th July. The Lab focussed on how public and civic institutions can create/strengthen mechanisms to ensure inclusive processes, including decision-making in the implementation of SDGs, and in specific VNR preparatory and reporting processes at the national and local levels. A key conclusion was that LNOB principles need to be mainstreamed into all policies and sectors and should be more effectively used as inclusive mechanisms at the national and local levels. The report is available here and the intervention is here.

JOIN US TO ACHIEVE SOCIAL PROTECTION FOR ALL GLOBAL COALITION FOR SOCIAL PROTECTION FLOORS - GCSPF For comments, suggestions, collaborations contact us at: anaclau@item.org.uy To stop receiving this newsletter send a message with the subject "unsubscribe" to: anaclau@item.org.uy

The article “SDG 1 – Applying human rights standards for the governance of social protection will unleash its transformative potential”, by the Global Coalition for Social Protection Floors is published on the Spotlight on Sustainable Development 2019: Reshaping governance for sustainability. Global Civil Society Report on the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs.

Download this chapter in pdf format here.

This article is also available in Spanish. Download the article “ODS 1. La Aplicación de las normas de derechos humanos a la gobernanza de la protección social permitirá aprovechar su potencial transformador”.

By Sylvia Beales and Nicola Wiebe, Global Coalition for Social Protection Floors (GCSPF)

“Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all, including floors, and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable” (SDG Target 1.3).

The 2030 Agenda and its 17 interrelated goals are grounded in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, international human rights treaties, the Millennium Declaration and the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document. The Agenda recognizes that economic growth alone misses those left furthest behind, and its transformative vision is to reach the furthest first, to leave no one behind, to empower the disadvantaged and to end poverty in all its forms everywhere by 2030.

Social protection is key to accomplishing this vision and is mandated in SDG 1, target 1.3. When properly designed, social protection effectively prevents and reduces poverty and inequality. Guaranteed social protection supports improved nutrition and access to essential services and can therefore interrupt the vicious cycle of poverty and its intergenerational transfer. Universal access rights to social protection means that those at extreme disadvantage can be reached, which contributes to overcoming deeply rooted experiences of discrimination and exclusion, disempowerment and gender inequality. But currently only 29 percent of the global population count on comprehensive social protection over the lifecourse and for the different contingencies that may occur. ¹ Fewer than 16 percent of older people in low-income countries have a pension, with older women less likely than older men to receive one. ²

The human rights framework sets out the moral and humanitarian imperative for social protection for all. Good governance based on this framework is essential to the effective delivery of social protection, necessary to unleash its transformative potential. Adherence to a human rights-based approach necessarily translates into a clear legal framework, transparency and accountability. It requires appropriate institutional capacity and coordination, and bottom-up participation of relevant stakeholders. It also requires global social governance coherent with 2030 Agenda commitments.

Human rights framework and international commitments

Social protection, social security and social and economic guarantees in the event of unemployment, sickness, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood beyond a person’s control, with special attention for mothers and children, are explicitly embedded in the human rights framework articulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR 1948, Art. 22, Art. 25) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR 1966, Art. 9).³ By ratifying the Human Right treaties, states assume the role of principal duty bearer to guarantee these rights, by respecting, protecting and fulfilling. This translates into national and extraterritorial obligations (UDHR 1948, Art. 22).

ILO Recommendation 202 (2012) sets out standards on social protection floors, stipulated in SDG 1, target 1.3. It provides clear guidance on national policy dedicated to social progress, giving a definition of basic social protection as a ‘floor’ that must be available to all and upon which higher levels of security should be built for as many people as possible, as soon as possible. The floor and additional levels of protection together create a comprehensive national social protection system. The interlinkages of the floor to the vision of the 2030 Agenda can be seen in the commitment to end poverty (SDG 1), hunger (SDG 2), ensure healthy lives (SDG 3), quality education (SDG 4), gender equality, including the recognition of unpaid care and domestic work (SDG 5), decent work (SDG 8), reduce inequality (SDG 10) and build effective and accountable institutions (SDG 16).

It is important to understand how the right to social protection for all is critical for breaking the cycle of poverty, marginalization and exclusion over time. Schemes with arbitrary eligibility requirements, time limits on benefits or which lack adequate budget do not take into account dynamic patterns of poverty and consequently do not guarantee the continuous realization of human rights. They can embed rather than overcome endemic poverty and gender inequality, and are antithetical to the human rights approach.

Applying the principles of accountability, equality, non-discrimination and participation to social protection implementation will guarantee access of rights holders to minimum income security, health and education.

Legal framework

A legal framework that is based on the human rights framework defines rights and entitlements in a clear and transparent way, sets out parameters for duty bearers in terms of programme design and monitoring and legal recourses for rights holders to ensure their enforcement.

Legal frameworks are also essential for defining the roles and responsibilities of the different actors involved in designing, implementing, monitoring and enforcing social protection systems. Such frameworks can and should prepare the ground for bottom-up participation of rights holders (citizens and residents) and their organizations.

Transparency and accountability

An established legal framework consistent with human rights, that is clearly defined and widely communicated, is a prerequisite for accountability relationships. There has to be commitment on the part of duty bearers to effective and equitable delivery of entitlements to rights holders. There should be effective means of redress when governments fail to deliver services to which they have committed. There also needs to be active communication about what is available, how to claim and the method of receiving the transfer. Without obligations set by national legislation, transparent grievance mechanisms and public knowledge of them, accountability will remain weak.

In order to ensure accountability, monitoring and evaluation must be institutionalized elements of social protection programmes. Government should bear primary responsibility for monitoring policy compliance and evaluating impact on human rights. But transparency also means providing public access to accurate data. Without data, governments cannot be held to account, either on national level or regarding international commitments.⁴

Tools exist to measure rights performance of countries and fulfilment of the right to social protection, and human rights arguments can be used effectively to encourage governments to improve their policies, including the linkages between human rights and the SDGs. A useful resource is the training package of the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights.⁵ Data collected through National Human Rights Institutes (NHRIs) can be used also to assess progress towards the SDGs.⁶ Obligatory reporting on rights commitments could reinforce the voluntary reporting required by the 2030 Agenda.

Institutional capacity and coordination

Social protection programmes in many countries remain fragmented and uncoordinated. Coverage and adequacy remains low. Targeting systems are fraught with exclusion errors and the means of targeting are in many cases themselves associated with creating intolerable stigma.⁷ Large population groups are still excluded from access to services and benefits; among the excluded often are children, women, older persons, persons with disabilities, those living in extreme poverty and geographically and culturally marginalized groups. As a result social protection programmes do not comply with human rights standards and cannot advance society-wide solidarity and social cohesion.

If staff and institutional capacity are not secured, and the budget for social protection not created and guaranteed in the long run, the principles of a rights-based approach cannot be honoured. Ensuring effective cooperation between relevant ministries and implementing agencies is essential to coordinate programmes and create coherent systems. The political sustainability of social protection systems will be undermined if public administrations are not capable of delivering benefits reliably, swiftly and fairly.

Coordination also means taking into account the combined effects of social protection and its financing side on poverty and inequality. Fiscal policies, specifically the impact of fiscal policies on the beneficiary population, have to be analysed. Universal benefits, along with any benefit system included in the government budget must be funded through effective and progressive tax systems.⁸

Bottom-up participation of relevant actors

Involving rights holders and their organizations, such as civil society organizations and trade unions, structurally and effectively in establishing universal social protection is a matter of human-rights-based, democratic and inclusive governance. This is especially important, as poverty is often related to peoples’ exclusion from economic, social and political participation. Providing space for bottom-up participation has the potential to improve design and delivery, generate broader support for the social protection system and reaffirm the social contract, contributing to its transformative effect and long-term sustainability.

Civil society has an important role to play in this regard, helping to make the voice of otherwise powerless population groups heard in the public debate. Civil society brings extensive experience, often being able to include disadvantaged groups more successfully than government programmes.

Some civil society organizations, including faith-based organizations, have historically been in the forefront of providing social programmes including social protection benefits. Their experience and legitimacy can be an important input towards universal social protection. In some cases, they may serve as implementing agencies within public social protection programmes; in other contexts, they may implement complementary programmes that can help to tackle complex poverty situations and thereby enhance the overall impact of public policy through subsidiarity. Their engagement can also strengthen institutional capacity, albeit with the final responsibility resting with the government to guarantee that every resident enjoys social protection.

Experience shows that even in universal programmes the most disadvantaged groups remain excluded unless they are actively identified and invited. Civil society organizations inform excluded and disadvantaged groups on their rights and promote their empowerment to claim them. They interact with the State as a critical observer, monitoring government action, raising public awareness and advocating for policy changes; they channel feedback from rights holders and bring in their technical expertise into budget tracking or policy impact analysis.

Box 1.1: The work of the Africa Platform for Social Protection (http://africapsp.org/) demonstrates 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. The Platform, which operates in 27 countries across Africa, regards accountability as building capacity and knowledge of rights to social protection of both policy makers as well as communities which they serve. Most government cash transfer programmes in Africa have used a top-down approach, lacking any input from beneficiaries and communities. These programmes begin to be implemented with very little awareness on what the programme is about, who it targets, what are the benefits and how beneficiaries can access the service. 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. A strong decentralized complaints and grievance mechanism has been found to be essential. Information is collected and analysed in order to generate evidence for informed change. Results of these assessments are taken into government negotiations about the benefit system that is resulting in improved social protection programmes.

Coherent global social governance

Global governance coherent with the commitment to the 2030 Agenda and human rights standards requires stronger institutions and mechanisms capable of addressing the social dimension of globalization. A more systematic approach for global social regulation, global protection of social rights and global redistribution is indispensable.⁹

Bottom-up social governance not only refers to the direction of influence from local to national and from national to global, it also calls for more governance space and implementation to be retained at local, sub-national and national level. Social protection needs to be owned and governed by sub-national and national governments with fiscal space created in national budgets.¹⁰

However, current regulatory gaps at the international level can prevent national government from creating and protecting the fiscal space needed to finance social protection. In a globalized world national governments lack the range of influence to control global economic actors.¹¹ Global governance is required, to reduce tax evasion by international private players, but also to avoid tax competition between governments to attract investors to locate in their countries. Enhancing progressive taxation and tackling tax evasion would contribute significantly to overcome budget shortfalls, as would expanding contributory revenues for social security coverage, along with policies to increase formal employment.¹² The establishment of an intergovernmental tax body under the auspices of the UN would close an institutional and regulatory gap at the global level and thereby allow for more governance space at the national level.

Social protection, being a human right, needs to be guaranteed in the long run and protected and extended in times of crises. Social spending needs to be prioritized before debt servicing and protected from austerity measures. An important step towards global social governance could be the creation of a debt workout institution and procedures to facilitate debt restructuring processes within the UN system. Another instrument should be the creation of new rules and debt instruments with a fairer risk-sharing.

Global governance also needs to question the extreme level of global inequality, demand systemic change and create redistributive mechanisms. The dramatic rise of national and global inequality is not an inevitable result of economic policy. It is a result of policy choices.

Political will is a necessary starting point for change. Coherence with 2030 Agenda commitments and aligning policies and programmes with human rights standards requires an international financing mechanism to guarantee social protection floors in all countries - including the most vulnerable and those in crisis situations.¹³

Conclusions

No country will be able to end poverty and inequalities, including gender inequality, if it does not invest in the income security, health, and education of all of its population across the life course.¹⁴ States have a legal obligation to guarantee universal social protection as defined in internationally agreed standards and instruments.

The 2030 Agenda and human rights standards offer a powerful, universal and comprehensive normative framework in which to ground claims for inclusive social protection systems and their sustainable and assured public financing as well as coherent international social governance.

Using human rights standards to shape the governance of social protection systems will orientate them towards the realization of economic, social and cultural human rights, the empowerment of rights holders, and the creation of equal opportunities for economic, social and political participation. These elements –rights, empowerment, participation and the reduction of extreme inequality - are critical for breaking the cycle of poverty and exclusion.

Adherence to human rights will start to address the structural flaws and institutional gaps of governance at national and at international level and will both unleash the transformative potential of social protection and contribute effectively towards a world free of poverty.

Sylvia Beales is an independent inclusive social development consultant and strategic advisor to the Africa Platform for Social Protection. Nicola Wiebe is Social Protection Advisor for Bread for the World, Germany. The Global Coalition for Social Protection Floors (GCSPF)  (https://www.socialprotectionfloorscoalition.org) is a network of over 100 NGOs, Trade Unions and Think Tanks promoting the right of all people residing in a country to social protection, regardless of documentation. It promotes social protection floors as key instruments to achieve the overarching social goal of the global development agenda.

Literature

Adams, Barbara/Judd, Karen (2019): Social Protection: Hot Topic but Contested Agenda. New York: Global Policy Watch (Briefing #28).
www.globalpolicywatch.org/blog/2019/02/26/social-protection/

Deacon, Bob (2007): Global Social Policy and Governance, London: Sage Publishing.

Kidd, Stephen/Gelders, Bjorn/Bailey-Athias, Diloá (2017): Exclusion by design: An assessment of the effectiveness of the proxy means test poverty targeting mechanism. Geneva: International Labour Office, Social Protection Department. 
www.developmentpathways.co.uk/publications/exclusion-by-design-the-effectiveness-of-the-proxy-means-test/

De Schutter, Olivier/Sepúlveda, Magdalena (2012): A Global Fund for Social Protection (GFSP), Executive Summary. Geneva: United Nations.
www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Food/20121009_GFSP_execsummary_en.pdf

Goldblatt, Beth (2016): Developing the Right to Social Security - A Gender Perspective. London: Routledge.

Herman, Barry (2018): Sustainably Financing Social Protection Floors: Toward a Permanent Role in National Development Planning and Taxation. Berlin: Bread for the World (Analysis 81).
https://shop.brot-fuer-die-welt.de/images/Analyse81-en-v07-Web.pdf

ILO (2017): World Social Protection Report 2017-2019. Universal social protection to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Geneva. 
www.ilo.org/global/publications/books/WCMS_604882/lang--en/index.htm

Lustig, Nora et al. (2018): Commitment to Equity Handbook. Estimating the Impact of Fiscal Policy on Inequality and Poverty. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

Ortiz, Isabel et al. (2017): Universal Social Protection Floors Costing Estimates and Affordability in 57 Lower Income Countries. Geneva: ILO. 
www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_protect/---soc_sec/documents/publication/wcms_614407.pdf

Ortiz, Isabel/Cummins, Matthew/Karunanethy, Kalaivani (2017): Fiscal Space for Social Protection and the SDGs: Options to expand social investments in 187 countries. Geneva/New York: ILO, UNICEF and UN Women.
www.social-protection.org/gimi/RessourcePDF.action?ressource.ressourceId=51537

Staab, Silke (2015): Protecting women’s income security in old age. New York: UN Women. 
www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2015/12/women-income-security-in-old-age

Notes:

The article “SDG 1 – Applying human rights standards for the governance of social protection will unleash its transformative potential”, by the Global Coalition for Social Protection Floors is published on the Spotlight on Sustainable Development 2019: Reshaping governance for sustainability. Global Civil Society Report on the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs.

Download this chapter in pdf format here.

e-GCSPF # 25 - July 2019 - HLPF

Members of the GCSPF participate at the High-level Political Forum 2019       The High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development will meet from Tuesday, 9 July, to Thursday, 18 July 2019; including the three-day ministerial meeting of the forum from Tuesday, 16 July, to Thursday, 18 July 2019. The theme is: "Empowering people and ensuring inclusiveness and equality". The HLPF will also review progress towards the SDGs and focus in particular on Goals 4, 8, 10, 13, 16, and 17. During the ministerial meetings 47 countries will carry out Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs). The programme is here. Members of the GCSPF will organize and/or participate in several events, see below the information. Members of the GCSPF will hold an INFORMAL MEETING on Tuesday 16th at 9 am at Guillermo Campuzano’s office which is located at 246 E 46th street between 2nd and 3rd, New York.               Social Protection: an essential building block to reduce inequality       The Global Coalition for Social Protection Floors realeased the Policy Brief “Social Protection: an essential building block to reduce inequality” Reducing inequalities is important for development because the adverse impacts of high inequality undermine efforts to overcome poverty. Inequality endangers social cohesion and peace, it negatively affects economic, social and political participation and undermines trust in institutions. Social protection and its progressive financing are essential pillars for achieving the SDGs, and in particular SDG 10 that aims to reduce inequality within and between countries. Building them requires concerted efforts.           Applying human rights standards for the governance of social protection will unleash its transformative potential       The 2030 Agenda and its 17 interrelated goals are grounded in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, international human rights treaties, the Millennium Declaration and the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document. The Agenda recognizes that economic growth alone misses those left furthest behind, and its transformative vision is to reach the furthest first, to leave no one behind, to empower the disadvantaged and to end poverty in all its forms everywhere by 2030. Read the chapter on SDG 1 by the GCSPF published at the Spotlight Report 2019.           Confronting ageism and empowering older people to ensure social, economic and political inclusion of all       This event will bring together a range of experts to examine how ageism and discrimination contribute to growing inequality, and how legal and policy frameworks are necessary for addressing older people’s exclusion. It will explore the potential for positive impact for individuals, societies and economies if older people are empowered, ageism is combatted, and a new understanding of ageing is embedded across all generations. Download the invitation 9 July 2019, 1:15 - 2:45 pm ConferenceRoom 1, UNHQ           Unleashing the Transformative Potential of the Agenda 2030 Through Participatory Approaches       The event will look at how participation can be a transformative tool for people not only to become active agents of their own lives but also to build a truly inclusive society where all can reach their full potential by sharing their experience and knowledge, helping to better inform public policies and transform institutions. Presenting inspiring speakers - from activists with a direct experience of poverty to academics and practitioners - this interactive event aims at starting a conversation around how innovative participatory tools and processes can help break the vicious circle of poverty and social exclusion and simultaneously effectively inform policy and accountability mechanisms. Download the invitation Tuesday, July 9, 2019 - 6:00 PM – 8:00 PM EDT United Nations Church Center, 2nd floor           Women's and Feminist's perspective       Come learn the feminists' position on systematic barriers, interlinkages with human rights, and the HLPF/VNR reform. Download the invitation Tuesday, July 9 - 6:30 to 8 PM Conference Room 1           VNR Lab “Leaving no one behind: Inclusive implementation and reporting”       “Leaving no one behind (LNOB)” is the central, transformative promise of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It represents the unequivocal commitment of all UN Member States to eradicate poverty in all its forms, end discrimination and exclusion, and reduce inequalities and address vulnerabilities, so that all people, regardless of their background, can fulfil their potential in life, and lead decent lives with dignity. This underscores the need for its 17 Sustainable Development Goals to be met for all nations and peoples and for all segments of society. The 2018 VNR Lab on LNOB examined who are left behind in selected countries, identified good policies/measures taken to address specific needs of those who are left behind, as well as existing gaps, including lack of knowledge on how to identify and/or reach those furthest behind, and lack of national/local mechanisms for vulnerable groups to meaningfully participate in the VNR process. Download the invitation Wednesday 10 July, 2019 - 1:15 to 2:45 pm in Conf 11       Conversation with authors of the global Civil Society Report: Spotlight on Sustainable Development 2019       Four years after the adoption of the 2030 Agenda the world is off-track to achieve the SDGs. Most governments have failed to turn the transformational vision of the 2030 Agenda into real policies for change. Even worse, xenophobia and authoritarianism are on the rise in a growing number of countries. But there are signs of change. The implementation of the 2030 Agenda requires more holistic and more sweeping shifts in how and where power is vested, including through institutional, legal, social, economic and political commitments to realizing human rights and ecological justice. The Spotlight Report 2019 has as main topic “reshaping governance for sustainability”, and offers analysis and recommendations on the global governance that sustainability requires, as well as on how to strengthen inclusive and participatory governance to overcome structural obstacles and institutional gaps. At the roundtable event on July 11th in New York authors of the Spotlight Report 2019 will present key findings and recommendations to participants for discussion. Download the invitation. 11 JULY 2019, 9:30-11:30 AM BAHA'I INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY, CONFERENCE ROOM, 866 UN PLAZA           Participatory and Inclusive Tools to build capacities in Leaving No One Behind       Bringing the voices and experiences of those who have been left behind – through empowerment and participation – goes beyond enabling agency and towards developing a more inclusive and democratic society. Come to listen to and discuss about recent tested methodological approaches and tools used in participatory research and programmes aiming to contribute to the ‘whole of society’ approach to follow up and review, ensuring broad inclusion of traditionally excluded groups to deliver the pledge to ‘leave no one behind’. Download the invitation Thursday 11 July - 10:00 AM – 1:00 PM Conference Room 5, United Nations Headquarters           National Reports on 2030 Agenda - What do they (not) tell us?       The side event will present and discuss the importance of national reporting on the 2030 Agenda, both by governments (VNRs) and civil society (“spotlight” or “shadow” reports). The Committee for Development Policy (CDP) will present key findings of its analysis of 2018 VNRs. Voluntary national reviews (VNRs) are an important innovation as a United Nations process for follow-up to the adoption of development agendas, in particular the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In the 2030 Agenda governments promised “accountability to our citizens”. Civil societies responded by multiplying their own national and regional “spotlight” reports and engaging with governments in a variety of ways about their findings. Social Watch helps to link those processes with the global follow-up and review. Download the invitation 11 JULY, 2019 AT 6 PM UN FF BUILDING 304 EAST 45TH STREET, 11TH FLOOR           Power to People: Civic space for climate justice and equality       Who are the people who are making our world more sustainable, just and inclusive and how can we ensure that they are protected and empowered by the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development? Download the invitation Friday 12 July, 1 PM to 3 PM Ford Foundation Center for Social Justice           #SDG8 at the heart of Agenda 2030: How to make it happen?       Integrating several topics among those related to growth, employment, productivity as well as social dimension, SDG8 is per se a multidimensional goal, which plays a pivotal role within the general framework of the 2030 Agenda. Given the centrality of SDG8, reaching its targets is functional to guarantee a full and holistic accomplishment of the 2030 ambitions. Monitoring and measuring SDGs is crucial to guarantee accountability of policy makers vis-à-vis stakeholders. Trade unions are heavily involved in the SDG process at global, regional and national level. Download the invitation 12 July 2019, 6:30 - 8 PM Conference Room F - UN Conference Building           Spotlight Report Sustainablity in Europe: Who is paying the Bill? (Negative) impacts of EU policies and practices in the World       The EU is still lacking a comprehensive strategy on the implementation of the 2030 Agenda and its ambitious commitments to action. On average, the EU has one of the world’s worst environmental footprint per capita, with our unsustainable lifestyles based on resource and labour exploitation in other parts of the world. The economy of the future needs to take into account the environmental and social impact beyond our borders rather than living in the illusion of a low-carbon, resource efficient Europe that exports resource-intensive production to other parts of the world. At the launching event on July 15th in New York authors of the Spotlight Report Sustainability in Europe will present in some important policy areas where there is an urgent need for action, because the external effects of European policies are not sufficiently taken into account. Download the invitation Launch Spotlight Report Sustainability in Europe Who is paying the Bill ? (Negative) impacts of EU policies and practices in the World CHURCH CENTER - 10TH FLOOR, NEW YORK MONDAY 15TH OF JULY - 16.30-18.00H           Side Event on Reduced Inequalities (SDG 10)       Reducing inequalities (SDG10) is essential for overcoming extreme poverty (SDG 1) and a successful implementation of the 2030 Agenda as a whole. Many countries experience high and increasing inequalities. A reversal of this trend is not in sight. Therefore, it is paramount to take political action towards reaching this central goal of the 2030 Agenda. Strong social protection and redistributive policies significantly reduce inequality within countries. Therefore, it is essential to develop overarching strategies, build universal social protection systems as well as assess and increase redistributive capacities. These measures have to ensure that no one is left behind and equitable access to protection against risks and against poverty for all people is guaranteed. The panel will discuss the most persistent barriers to a sustained reduction of inequalities and the contribution of fiscal and social protection policies to overcome inequalities worldwide. Download the invitation July 15, 2019, 7 p.m. – 8:30 p.m. Permanent Mission of Germany to the United Nations | Auditorium           The UN tackles inequality in the 21st century       DESA, UN-Habitat and UNDP will present their approaches to inequality in the 21st Century and discuss what can be done to address them in a new and dynamic context. The event will include a presentation of some of the emerging messages of the forthcoming flagship publications of these entities (including DESA’s World Social Report and UNDP’s Human Development Report). The interactive debate and Q&A that will follow should allow for a forward-looking discussion on the new opportunities and challenges in the debate on inequality and policy action to address it.  Download the invitation 16 July - 1 to 2:30 PM United Nations S-2724

JOIN US TO ACHIEVE SOCIAL PROTECTION FOR ALL GLOBAL COALITION FOR SOCIAL PROTECTION FLOORS - GCSPF For comments, suggestions, collaborations contact us at: anaclau@item.org.uy To stop receiving this newsletter send a message with the subject "unsubscribe" to: anaclau@item.org.uy

Download (pdf version).

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) place a key focus on the pivotal role that the reduction of inequalities plays for ending poverty. SDG 10 explicitly aims to Reduce Inequality within and among Countries, recognizing that development requires sharing progress more widely with everyone, including the most disadvantaged groups in society. However, inequality has been rising in many countries, a trend that has benefitted especially those at the very top. And even where it has not risen in recent years – such as in many Latin American countries that strengthened their social protection systems – disparities remain vast. In some of the most unequal countries, the richest 1 percent hold more than 15 percent of national income. In South Africa for example, the income share of the top 1 percent has almost doubled since 1990 and currently lies just under 20 percent (World Bank, 2016). Excessive concentration of income and wealth at the top – which is even underestimated since much of it is not observed in official accounts or surveys – lies at the root cause of high inequality. Income and wealth inequality often go hand-in-hand with inequalities along other dimensions such as opportunities, access to services and resources, and political representation.

Reducing inequalities is important for development because the adverse impacts of high inequality undermine efforts to overcome poverty. Inequality endangers social cohesion and peace, it negatively affects economic, social and political participation and undermines trust in institutions. High levels of inequality also have adverse socioeconomic effects such as lowering social mobility and undermining progress in health and education outcomes (OECD, 2018; Easterly, 2007; Wilkinson & Pickett, 2010). As such, reducing inequality also contributes to the achievement of other SDGs such as SDG 1 (No Poverty), 3 (Good Health and Well-Being), 5 (Gender Equality) and 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth). Similarly, global inequality remains intolerably high and exacerbates stubbornly high rates of extreme poverty (World Bank, 2018).

Reducing inequality requires redistribution

Strong social protection systems – alongside fair taxation and labour market policies that strengthen rights of workers for example through minimum wages and collective bargaining – are key instruments to address rising inequalities. In countries such as Sweden, Denmark and Brazil, the tax and transfer system reduces income inequality by up to 15 Gini points. This represents a reduction of 40 percent in Scandinavia and 25 percent in Brazil (Lustig, 2016; OECD, 2015.). The provision of public services further reduces inequalities for example in health and education. Upholding the right to social protection is all the more relevant in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and fragile settings where shocks occur more frequently and poor households are hit hardest by it. The objective, thereby, is to promote a shared idea of social justice: Article 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights establishes the right to social security for everyone as “indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality” (UN General Assembly, 1948).

Social protection and inequality have a reciprocal relationship. While redistribution through social protection has the potential to reduce inequality in income, opportunities and access to public services, a high level of inequality can at the same time erode public support for it because inequality divides societies. When comparing systems of social protection across countries, it becomes evident that they differ strongly in the degree of redistribution they achieve. Equally important as the level of public spending is the specific design of fiscal policy including social protection. As such, two countries with the same level of government revenues and social expenditure can achieve vastly different degrees of redistribution. The degree to which benefits reach the poor and excluded people in society, the mode of financing and the design of tax systems all play a central role. Surely, redistributing resources from the top of the distribution to the bottom is not the only objective of social protection systems. They also serve to smooth consumption over the life cycle and in times of income loss due to risks such as unemployment or sickness. Vertical redistribution deserves, however, particular emphasis when it comes to achieving SDG 10.

Social protection reduces risk and vulnerability

Broadly speaking, social protection schemes can be classified into three different types. As a risk pooling mechanism, social insurance is typically confined to members who pay contribution to a common fund and thus gain entitlement to contingent benefits. The primary objective of social insurance is to smooth consumption over the life course and in times of risk through income replacement. The most common schemes include pension, health and unemployment insurance. Often, the benefits an individual receives are linked to his or her previous contributions. For this reason and due to the confined membership, the degree of redistribution social insurance achieves is limited but, depending on the design, can be considerable. As such, even though high income earners may receive higher benefits upon retirement for example, contributions are often still levied progressively and function like an income tax. In health insurance, benefits respond to specific health needs, facilitating redistribution between the healthy and the sick. Similarly, in the absence of insurance, individuals may be thrown into poverty when a shock hits them so that the presence of insurance prevents inequality from widening. Further, many schemes require employers to contribute, thereby increasing fiscal space for redistribution.

Types of social protection schemes Social insurance: is a mechanism to smooth consumption and protect members from risks such as unemployment, sickness or retirement. Typically, individual members receive benefits on the basis of previous contributions in the event that a risk occurs. Membership is often mandatory for a specified group such as formal sector employees. Social assistance: are benefits that are granted to individuals or households without the need of prior contribution. Usually, eligibility is based on means-testing of need and funding comes from the general government budget. They are typically designed to cover a basic minimum and withdrawn as income rises. Universal transfers: are given to anyone that fits certain criteria (such as citizenship, having children, a certain age or a disability) regardless of income or wealth. They are usually also paid out of general government revenue.

A challenge in the Global South is that social insurance schemes tend to be tied to participation in formal employment. This is why their scope and coverage are often limited – particularly for workers in non-standard and precarious forms of employment and workers in the informal economy. Social insurance schemes in LMICs thus tend to support the middle class. Increasing their redistributive capacities requires broadening their reach to include poorer people either through subsidizing them for those who are unable to contribute, providing higher replacement rates for low income earners and linking them more strongly with non-contributory schemes.

In contrast to insurance, receipt of social assistance is not tied to membership but is rather aimed at those in need because they fall under some income or poverty threshold. As such, their objective is to secure a minimum income and/or access to services rather than to maintain consumption close to previous levels as in the case of social insurance. They are typically financed out of the general budget. This is why social assistance tends to have a greater redistributive impact than insurance: it relies to a greater extent on the principle of solidarity, which states that everyone in society should pay according to their ability while receiving benefits according to their need.

The receipt of social assistance is sometimes tied to certain behavioural conditions such as sending one’s child to school and making use of primary health care services as in the case of conditional cash transfers (CCTs) or proving one’s job-seeking efforts as in the case of many unemployment assistance schemes. These conditionalities and the implications of means-testing bear the risk of excluding some of the most marginalized people, often women, who find it difficult to comply with conditionalities and administrative requirements – thereby undermining the very idea of providing a basic minimum. Targeting happens with exclusion and inclusion errors, administrative costs and may create stigma while furthermore promoting dependency if efforts to exit poverty are undermined by prospects of losing the transfer.

Universal schemes do not encounter such difficulties since they are not confined to narrow target groups but rather granted to all individuals that meet certain criteria regardless of own means, such as having children or being disabled. In principle, universal benefits are rights-based and reduce inequality by design: if everyone in an unequal society gets the same transfer, the spread in incomes will be reduced. In practice, their impact depends on the size of the transfer and will likely be smaller than that of targeted assistance since the latter ideally facilitates redistribution from the top to the bottom and, given the same budget, can be larger in size. For this reason, proponents of targeting argue that fiscal space – especially in countries with a tight budget constraint where high income earners often do not pay a fair share of taxes – is limited. In this sense, targeting provides means of channeling resources to those most in need and maximizing redistributive impact at lower costs. However, according to political economy arguments, universal transfers should receive higher budget allocations and be sustained by social consensus in the long run, thereby potentially yielding stronger redistributive results. Where poverty is widespread, universal transfers may further be more effective since the costs of targeting become disproportional. Which effect ultimately prevails is a country-specific empirical question.

Of course, social protection integrates a much wider set of policies than cash transfers and subsidies. Public services particularly in the field of health and education have huge redistributive impacts and allow disadvantaged people to improve their own starting position and break cycles of poverty that often persist across generations. Investing in social services that benefit the lower part of the distribution not only contributes to reducing inequalities in income but also those that run along other dimensions, such as gender, age and disability. Women and girls are not only at higher risk of being poor, in many countries they also suffer from lower access to education, receive less health care and are more likely to be found in unpaid care or low-paid precarious work environments. Social cash and in-kind benefits hence carry great potential for reducing gender inequality.

Social protection and domestic resource mobilization are inextricably linked

A key factor that determines the redistributive impact of a government’s fiscal policy is the way in which revenues are generated to finance social protection and the provision of public services. Raising revenues is often treated separately from expenditure policies although when it comes to reducing inequality, the two are inextricably linked. Tax-to-GDP ratios are much lower in LMICs than in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) region for example, which illustrates the overall lesser role of the state. Thus, apart from re-allocating public expenditures and restructuring debt, increasing fiscal space for social protection requires raising more revenues. This must entail a range of strategies including raising tax rates, reducing tax evasion and illicit financial flows and increasing foreign aid.

Strengthening capacities for domestic resource mobilization carries potential to foster sustainability and accountability of the government towards its own citizens. Tax systems differ widely in their redistributive capacity due to differences in tax composition and their individual design. Personal income taxes (PIT) have the largest redistributive capacity when rates rise progressively with income so that high earners shoulder a larger part of the burden. Social security contributions can be tied to PIT so that they, too, adhere to the principle of solidarity financing. Taxes on capital incomes, wealth or financial transactions could in principle have a highly progressive impact. In practice, however, rates are far lower than PIT in many countries which undermines principles of social justice.

As in the case of social insurance, the difficulty in LMICs is that economic structures tend to be highly informal. This is one reason for why tax systems in the Global South often depend to a much larger extent on indirect taxes such as Value Added Tax (VAT) that cannot take due account of the equity principle whereby richer individuals should not only pay larger absolute amounts into the common pool but also higher relative shares of their income and wealth. VAT taxes consumption and since the poor consume a much larger share of their income, it hurts them most – even if these resources are then used to finance progressive benefits.

Overall, the challenge of designing more progressive tax systems that align with social protection schemes in a common effort to reduce inequality and eliminate poverty is hence threefold. In the first place, more resources are needed to put in place comprehensive social protection systems. This means taxing corporations and high wealth individuals sufficiently. In the past decades, the tax burden on so-called high-net-worth individuals – and the corporations they own – has diminished continuously, not only because top marginal tax rates have decreased but also because the relevance of taxes on wealth, capital incomes and business profits are dwindling down. Secondly, there must be an end to elaborate schemes for shifting profits between jurisdictions that enable companies to avoid paying their fair share and instead shift the tax burden on labour. This global trend is one reason for why the rise in inequality has been accompanied by a decreasing share of labour in national income over the last decade – alongside declining levels of unionization and collective bargaining as well as stagnating wage levels. Thirdly, there should be recognition that it is an international responsibility to regulate international taxation and support countries to collect their fair share of taxes. Tax systems need to be more progressive in nature so that raising these extra resources contributes to reducing inequality rather than worsening it. Lastly, enforcement and compliance need to be strengthened to ensure a fair sharing of burden.

The need to strengthen tax systems in LMICs should also not divert attention away from the responsibility of the international community, where new financing mechanisms may be needed to ensure the realization of the global responsibility for social protection floors worldwide, especially in times of crises and disasters, and in countries that cannot yet finance social protection floors by their own means.

The way forward

Social protection and its progressive financing are essential pillars for achieving the SDGs, and in particular SDG 10 that aims to reduce inequality within and between countries. Building them requires concerted efforts. Certainly, there is no ‘right’ system that any one country should adopt. Nonetheless, the objective is clear: establishing social protection floors through equitable financing strategies is a priority in countries where these are not yet in place. Social protection needs to follow a rights-based approach. Countries that already have appropriate floors in place should aim for extending these towards building comprehensive social protection systems that not only alleviate poverty but protect against risks across the life course and provide equitable access to high quality public services.

Strategies for building such systems need to broaden contributory schemes to include people that cannot contribute (sufficiently) through own means, and integrate these with non-contributory schemes. Ideally, non-contributory schemes should aim for universality. In the light of constrained budgets and the pressing need to reduce inequality, however, targeted assistance to those in need may be an important step on the road towards achieving universality. Ultimately, social protection needs to be recognized as a human right for all not only in principle, but in implementation. In order to increase the redistributive capacity of social protection systems, financing strategies need to build and promote progressive taxation and equitable resource mobilization. This entails taxing the upper part of the distribution more both in relative and absolute terms. This especially holds for those at the very top and for ensuring that corporations pay their fair share of the burden.

Exploring international financing mechanisms beyond aid can greatly contribute to the common goal of reducing inequality within and between countries. Reducing tax evasion and avoiding excessive tax competition should be top priority on the global agenda since it requires international cooperation. Social protection budgets need to be protected in times of crises and disasters, which means that social protection spending must be adequate even during austerity periods. Further dialogue and cooperation are needed to develop global solidarity mechanisms.

References

Easterly, W. (2007). Inequality does cause underdevelopment: Insights from a new instrument. Journal of Development Economics, 84(2), 755–776. Retrieved from https://econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:deveco:v:84:y:2007:i:2:p:755-776

Lustig, N. (2016). Inequality and Fiscal Redistribution in Middle Income Countries: Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Indonesia, Mexico, Peru and South Africa. In Journal of Globalization and Development (Vol. 7). https://doi.org/10.1515/jgd-2016-0015

OECD. (n.d.). In it together : why less inequality benefits all. Paris: OECD Publishing.

OECD. (2018). A Broken Social Elevator? How to Promote Social Mobility. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264301085-en

Wilkinson, R. G., & Pickett, K. (2010). The spirit level : why equality is better for everyone. Penguin Books.

World Bank. (2016). Poverty and shared prosperity 2016 : taking on inequality. World Bank.

World Bank. (2018). Piecing Together the Poverty Puzzle. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1330-6

Universal Declaration of human rights, Paris, 1948.

e-GCSPF # 24 - June 2019

Monitor new IMF commitments in your country       On June 14, 2019 the International Monetary Fund launched a new policy on the IMF and social spending two years after a critical assessment by its Independent Evaluation Office of the impact of IMF on social protection in member countries. The Managing Director of IMF, Christine Lagarde, launched the new policy in a speech during the International Labor Organization’s centenary conference in Geneva. This step can be good opportunity for advocates of social protection floors, a key element of the social spending that IMF now says it seeks to see countries provide in “ways that are adequate, yet also efficient and financed sustainably” (the policy paper and staff background papers are posted on the IMF web page). However, the degree to which decisions by Management and the Executive Board get implemented depend on how IMF now adapts its operations in individual countries. That is something in which GCSPF has a profound interest. Read more           Egypt Social Progress Indicators Reveal How Austerity Feeds Gross Inequalities       IMF-mandated austerity policies in Egypt are amplifying already severe inequalities and undermining the rights to health, education, housing and decent work for millions of Egyptians. These are the findings of the Egypt Social Progress Indicators (ESPI) project that has published the first independent, systematic review of socioeconomic development in Egypt. The indicators point toward the erosion of the economic and social rights of the majority of Egyptians. They also show that, despite the official narrative of macroeconomic success encouraged by the government, the IMF and other international organizations, Egypt is not on track to achieve equitable and sustainable development by 2030. The report finds that ordinary people are experiencing significant rights deprivations pertaining to decent work, quality accessible healthcare and education, adequate housing, economic empowerment and secure livelihoods. Reed more           The New Strategic Agenda is timid but not hopeless       The New Strategic Agenda 2019-2024 approved last 20 June, by the European Council fails to put social justice first and keeps the defence-based approach to borders and thus migration. The protection of citizens, the top priority for the next five years, is outlined by the Council in the same way that you would expect to see it in any of the far-right parties’ manifestos. It is interpreted primarily as the defence of the integrity of the territory and praises the militarisation of borders. The social agenda is finally included among the priorities to be pursued, but it is described as a premise for enhancing the competitiveness of the single market rather than an urgent reaction to overcome the existential social and societal crisis. However, a few improvements to the leaked draft of the document have been made. Although the underlying vision is still driven by the obsession with economic growth, the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights is finally at least mentioned and attention to social issues is considered essential. Read more           Malaysia: We want absolute right for every worker, even migrants, to join a union       The Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC) has denied the government’s accusation that it was against the ratification of the International Labour Organisation Convention 87 (C87). Describing the human resources ministry as “stooping very low,” MTUC secretary-general J Solomon said the foundation of the United Nations convention was to give the absolute right to each and every worker to join a union, irrespective of whether he was a local or a migrant worker. Read more

JOIN US TO ACHIEVE SOCIAL PROTECTION FOR ALL GLOBAL COALITION FOR SOCIAL PROTECTION FLOORS - GCSPF For comments, suggestions, collaborations contact us at: anaclau@item.org.uy To stop receiving this newsletter send a message with the subject "unsubscribe" to: anaclau@item.org.uy

On June 14, 2019 the International Monetary Fund launched a new policy on the IMF and social spending two years after a critical assessment by its Independent Evaluation Office of the impact of IMF on social protection in member countries. The Managing Director of IMF, Christine Lagarde, launched the new policy in a speech during the International Labor Organization's centenary conference in Geneva. This step can be good opportunity for advocates of social protection floors, a key element of the social spending that IMF now says it seeks to see countries provide in "ways that are adequate, yet also efficient and financed sustainably" (the policy paper and staff background papers are posted on the IMF web page). However, the degree to which decisions by Management and the Executive Board get implemented depend on how IMF now adapts its operations in individual countries. That is something in which GCSPF has a profound interest.

IMF regularly monitors all countries through what  it calls "surveillance", which is meant to encourage governments to follow sustainable economic and financial policies so as not to leave the country vulnerable to a domestic or international economic crisis. When crises do occur and governments lose access to external credit, IMF negotiates an "adjustment" program as a quid pro quo for new loans. Historically, social expenditures have suffered during these programs. Will social protection floors and other essential social services now be provided in adequate, sustainable and efficient ways in normal times and protected from cutbacks during crisis periods?  Only if there is political pressure to do so.

There are many tax and expenditure policies through which governments can seek to have sustainable budgets and to fix unsustainable ones, IMF interfaces with the domestic political economy of its member countries and works out deals that are politically acceptable in the country. Members of the Global Coalition for Social Protection Floors can help pressure IMF as well as their governments to give proper priority to social protection and other social expenditures in their countries. The new IMF policy can help us in this regard. 

GCSPF members should thus consider taking up the following suggestions:

• In countries with resident IMF missions, we suggest seeking to visit with IMF staff to discuss how they plan to put the new social services policy into practice and then follow up with subsequent meetings.
• As all IMF member countries receive annual "surveillance" visits from IMF, GCSPF members should seek to meet with visiting IMF staff to influence their assessments as regards social protection and other social services.
• .When countries seek IMF financial assistance, IMF visits the country for negotiations with domestic authorities. It should now also engage in deeper consultations with relevant stakeholders, which should include GCSPF members, on the impact of the draft program

GCSPF would welcome information from members on experiences in this regard, which could be circulated to the membership if contributing members so wished. If several members take up the suggestions, GCSPF could prepare periodic consolidated reports to our membership.

GCSPF members that engage with IMF staff and members of the Executive Board during the fund's Spring and Annual Meetings could also encourage IMF receptiveness to GCSPF advocacy at country level and full implementation of the new policy at headquarters level.

e-GCSPF # 23 - May 2019

Data Protection is Social Protection       Social-protection programs are supposed to do just what the name implies: protect those segments of society that are most in need. Demanding that beneficiaries effectively renounce their rights to personal privacy and data protection, as many governments are doing, amounts to just the opposite. In recent decades, social assistance programs around the world have been strengthened to the point that they now benefit more than 2.5 billion people, usually the poorest and most vulnerable. But rising pressure to apply biometric technology to verify beneficiaries’ identities, and to integrate information systems ranging from civil registries to law-enforcement databases, means that social programs could create new risks for those who depend on them. Private companies, donor agencies, and the World Bank argue that the application of biometric tools like iris and fingerprint scanning or facial and voice recognition, together with the integration of databases, will boost efficiency, combat fraud, and cut costs. And many governments seem convinced. Read the article here and the working paper here           Adequacy and sustainability of pension systems in the context of demographic ageing       While many governments and international institutions have framed pension reforms as an inescapable trade-off between adequacy and sustainability, unions insist that addressing the challenges of demographic ageing requires adopting a new overarching narrative, combining greater efforts to support labour market participation of excluded groups, enhanced revenue through progressive and innovative forms of taxation, and the guarantee of a decent income in retirement at the centre of this agenda. The paper, published by ITUC, reviews several of the measures that States have taken with the intention of improving the sustainability of pension systems and evaluates their effectiveness. The paper highlights that many of the measures taken have had negative distributional impacts and have significantly compromised the primary function of pension systems: to provide a secure replacement income for people in old age and prevent their ability to fall into poverty. Read more           Distress or Destitution – why South Africa’s social grants ignore the masses of unemployed       It is remarkable that South Africa’s social security laws are still based on the pre-1994 Social Assistance Act, with tweaks. These laws were aimed at the well-being of white South Africans in the context of virtual full employment for white men. They do not accommodate the lifelong income poverty of millions marginalised from decent work. The catch is that destitution or poverty, while it may be distressing, is not distress, as defined in the act. If you are poor, you are not distressed, but destitute. And for that state of being, there is no income support. The allocation of social security, the right to social income is guaranteed to all by the Constitution, as entrenched as the right to healthcare, housing, water — and food. But there is no legislated provision for access to social income for poor working-age people, given the fact that the legislation was based on the assumption that apartheid policies virtually guaranteed full employment for the white male breadwinner (with short spells of possible unemployment funded by the Unemployment Insurance Fund). Read more           Webinar: Financing gender-responsive social protection       Why do the levels of resources spent on social protection matter to gender equality? How does the social protection financing “mix” (e.g. type of tax, other revenue etc.) matter to women’s outcomes? What are the main challenges, opportunities and initiatives underway on financing gender-responsive social protection? The webinar will also discuss revenue-expenditure links and the role of gender budgeting initiatives in gender-responsive social protection financing. Date: 6 June Register here           Franciscans International is recruiting UN representative in New York       Franciscans International is looking for a new colleague who will represent them at the United Nations in New York and support their work toward wider respect for human rights, peace, and environmental justice. If this feels like you, please send them an application by 23 June 2019. Read more

Social-protection programs are supposed to do just what the name implies: protect those segments of society that are most in need. Demanding that beneficiaries effectively renounce their rights to personal privacy and data protection, as many governments are doing, amounts to just the opposite.

In recent decades, social assistance programs around the world have been strengthened to the point that they now benefit more than 2.5 billion people, usually the poorest and most vulnerable. But rising pressure to apply biometric technology to verify beneficiaries’ identities, and to integrate information systems ranging from civil registries to law-enforcement databases, means that social programs could create new risks for those who depend on them.

Private companies, donor agencies, and the World Bank argue that the application of biometric tools like iris and fingerprint scanning or facial and voice recognition, together with the integration of databases, will boost efficiency, combat fraud, and cut costs. And many governments seem convinced.

While there is no systematic information available on the use of biometric technology in social-assistance schemes, a look at certain flagship programs suggests that it is already on the rise. In South Africa, 17.2 million beneficiaries of social grants receive biometric smart cards. In Mexico, the 55.6 million beneficiaries of Seguro Popular (public health insurance for the poorest citizens) must provide theirbiometric data to the authorities.

The world’s largest biometric database – Aadhaar – is in India. Because inclusion in Aadhaar is a prerequisite for access to several social programs, 95% of the country’s 1.25 billion inhabitants are already recorded. The provision of biometric data is also required to receive benefits in Botswana, Gabon, Kenya, Namibia, Pakistan, Paraguay, and Peru.

Biometric data stored in one social-protection program database can easily be linked to other systems using a common identifier, even those unrelated to social protection, such as for law enforcement or commercial marketing. In most European countries, however, such database integration is prohibited, owing to the threat it poses to privacy and data protection. After all, social-assistance programs require the processing of significant amounts of data, including sensitive information like household assets, health status, and disabilities.

In many of the developing countries that are expanding their social-protection and biometric-identification programs, the frameworks for protecting personal data are underdeveloped. Yet donors and government authorities often advocate the widest possible integration of databases, among public and private entities alike. For example, Nigeria, which aims to issue 100 million biometric e-ID cards, has a National Identity Database connected to various other databases, including those maintained by law enforcement agencies.

Pressure to share sensitive social-protection data, including biometric identifiers, with law enforcement – domestically, as well as internationally – is compounded by concerns about terrorism and migration. This pressure threatens not only basic privacy, but also civil liberties. Add the risk of negligent data disclosure or unauthorized third-party access – including by cybercriminals and hackers – and social-protection beneficiaries could also be exposed to stigmatization, extortion, or blackmail.

Then there is the possibility that access to sensitive social-protection data, including biometric information, will be given or sold to private companies. Social-protection authorities and private companies, such as MasterCard or Visa, frequently enter into commercial agreements to create smart cards for social-assistance programs or to arrange for businesses to accept those cards. For example, South Africa’s social-assistance biometric card is a MasterCard.

Worse still, such agreements – which often are not publicly disclosed – tend not to include mechanisms for redress in cases of abuse and misuse of information. Yet recent media reports suggest that these risks are considerable. For example, in Chile, millions of patients’ medical records – including those of HIV patients and women who had been sexually abused – were publicly exposed for almost a year.

Moreover, in South Africa, private companies used the information of millions of social-protection beneficiaries to increase corporate profits to the detriment of beneficiary interests. In India, a newspaper claimed that its reporters had gained unrestricted access to the Aadhaar database. Another report documented how Aadhaar numbers, with sensitive financial information, had been made publicly available on government websites.

The threat to social-protection beneficiaries is not eliminated even when data are accessible only to government. As the political scientist Virginia Eubanks recounts, in the United States, automated decision-making in social-welfare provision enables the government to “profile, police, and punish poor people.”

As technology continues to advance, these threats will only grow. For example, facial-recognition technology may enable governments to identify protesters who receive social assistance using the digital photographs they have provided in exchange for access to benefits. Malta, for example, is already considering using CCTV cameras with facial-recognition software to prevent “antisocial behavior.”

The lack of regard for privacy and data protection in social-assistance programs should not come as a surprise. These programs serve the most vulnerable groups – people who are already at a disadvantage in defending their rights. Entrenched stigma and anti-poor prejudices often prevent other, more privileged members of society from recognizing those risks, much less advocating on behalf of social-protection recipients. Many seem to believe that if you are receiving “free” benefits, you cannot also demand privacy.

Social-protection programs are supposed to do just what the name implies: protect those segments of society that are most in need. Demanding that these people effectively renounce their rights to personal privacy and data protection amounts to just the opposite.

That alone should be enough reason to lobby for the adoption of adequate legal frameworks, well-resourced data protection authorities, and, as a last line of defense, an independent judiciary and media. But if people need a stronger incentive, there is always self-interest, because the risks faced by the most vulnerable and disadvantaged today may well become reality for a much broader cross-section of society tomorrow.

By Magdalena Sepúlveda. Magdalena Sepúlveda is a senior research associate at the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development and a member of the Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation (ICRICT). Previously, she was the United Nations special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights. Magdalena Sepúlveda is member of the Global Coalition for Social Protection Floors (GCSPF).

More information: Is biometric technology in social protection programmes illegal or arbitrary? An analysis of privacy and data protection, Working Paper - ESS 59, 5 June 2018, Magdalena Sepúlveda Carmona; Extension of Social Security; International Labour Office, Geneva. Download the pdf version here.

Source: Project Syndicate.

e-GCSPF # 22 - April 2019

The legal, political, economic and moral imperatives to finance social protection for all       The GCSPF launches a statement of its position on financing Social Protection on Thursday, 11 April, 2019, on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the International Labour Organization (ILO).  Read more           100 Years of ILO: Interview with Ebenezer Durojaye       The ILO established the right to social security and today recommends Social Protection Floors. That move is crucial, says Ebenezer Durojaye. To celebrate 100 years of the International Labour Organization (ILO), the GCSPF launched a statement outlining the path towards universal social protection for all. We talked to Ebenezer Durojaye of the GCSPF about why social security remains one of the most important issues of our time, and about the ILO’s role in advancing the right to social security in the past and present. Read more           Accountability Dimension: social protection as a tool for the reduction of inequalities       The side event 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. The 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). 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. Read more           Labor Protests in Jordan 2018       Phenix Center for Economic and Informatics Studies issued a Report on the Labor Protests in Jordan 2018. The continuing decline of labor protests over the years 2014-2018 can be attributed to a number of factors, most importantly the fact that the government and most employers were not serious in meeting worker demands. There was often direct and indirect pressure from senior management within business establishments or from the government and its various institutions. In addition, most wage workers in Jordan are still deprived of the right to form unions to defend their interests. This issue has two main causes. The first is labor legislation, which deprives broad segments of workers from the right to organize a union. Jordan’s regulations for professional categorization specify which professions are allowed to form unions, sets the number of trade unions at 17 and has not allowed any new labor unions to be established for more than four decades. Read more           Webinar: Financing gender-responsive social protection       Why do the levels of resources spent on social protection matter to gender equality? How does the social protection financing “mix” (e.g. type of tax, other revenue etc.) matter to women’s outcomes? What are the main challenges, opportunities and initiatives underway on financing gender-responsive social protection? The webinar will also discuss revenue-expenditure links and the role of gender budgeting initiatives in gender-responsive social protection financing. Date and time: 6 June - 1 PM GMT+1 Register here

JOIN US TO ACHIEVE SOCIAL PROTECTION FOR ALL GLOBAL COALITION FOR SOCIAL PROTECTION FLOORS - GCSPF For comments, suggestions, collaborations contact us at: anaclau@item.org.uy To stop receiving this newsletter send a message with the subject "unsubscribe" to: anaclau@item.org.uy