A key dimension of vulnerability, especially for
the poorest households, is food and nutrition inse- curity. Te threat can be direct, where agricultural shocks threaten households that grow their own food for consumption. It can also be indirect, where loss of income due to a range of negative shocks threatens the capacity to purchase an adequate amount of food and nutrition in the marketplace. Added to the short-term downturn is the fact that poor nutritional intake during lean times can lead to worsening health and, especially for children, long- term developmental consequences. With this background, it is surprising that in the
discussion surrounding the Millennium Develop- ment Goals (MDGs) of 2000 so litle atention was paid to vulnerability and thus to protection from risks. Reducing vulnerability was not introduced as an explicit goal among the list of the eight goals or even as a target or indicator. One could argue, per- haps, that it was present implicitly in the first goal of eradicating extreme poverty and hunger. Among the targets and indicators under this goal were the halving of a range of indicators: (1) the proportion of population trapped in “dollar a day” poverty, (2) the prevalence of underweight children under five years of age, and (3) the proportion of the popu- lation below the minimum level of dietary energy consumption. While these indicators are suggestive, they do not directly address the issue of risk and vul- nerability. Measuring vulnerability is of course more difficult than just tracking such levels, which raises the unfortunate complication that outcomes that are not measured are oſten underappreciated in the poli- cymaking context. Te global community is currently discussing
the “post-2015” agenda, seeking to define the goals and targets that will succeed the MDGs. Te Open Working Group tackling Sustainable Develop- ment Goals (SDGs) has submited a proposal to the United Nations General Assembly for one year of discussion and negotiation before it will be adopted at the 2015 General Assembly.1 While we are still early in the process of this new round of goal seting, it does seem that risk and vulnerability—and thus building resilience toward risk and vulnerability— are more present in this proposal for SDGs than they were in the MDGs.
34 SOCIAL PROTECTION AND THE RURAL POOR
Given the enhanced interest in vulnerability and
social protection, this chapter considers the topic by focusing on concrete targets and policy actions needed to achieve them. First, it highlights why vulnerability and social protection are back on the agenda. It then discusses some possible targets for social protection based on global paterns of spend- ing and their effectiveness. Next it addresses the challenges faced by policy interventions to meet targets for social protection. Te chapter ends with a summary of the main policy conclusions.
VULNERABILITY AND ITS CONSEQUENCES
Tere is growing evidence that national-level vulner- ability has increased as a result of both economic and noneconomic factors. On the economic front, global integration has brought not only opportunities for economic growth but also greater economic volatil- ity. Tus some researchers found a strong association between greater trade openness and aggregate vola- tility, with the effect being much more pronounced for developing countries.2 Te economic risks have been compounded by
greater climate volatility. Tus the latest Intergovern- mental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment concludes with “very high confidence” that “impacts from recent climate-related extremes, such as heat waves, droughts, floods, cyclones, and wildfires, reveal significant vulnerability and exposure of some eco- systems and many human systems to current climate variability.”3 Te spread of infectious diseases in a world of greater labor mobility has added further to national-level risks, as shown by the experience of the spread of Ebola in Liberia and its neighbors. Trough their impact on the economy, agricul-
ture, and health, these risks at the national level have consequences at the individual level.4 National-level shocks have gained atention in recent years, but they are merely additions to the risks of weak har- vests that poor individuals have always faced due to climate, pests, and a variety of health and employ- ment shocks. Together, the macro- and micro-level vulnerabilities can have significant impact on short- term poverty and medium-term development. At the most basic level, sharp negative downturns in income, food intake, and nutrition all increase
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139