public-sector workers are of this type—they redis- tribute toward the beneficiary group on average. Te estimation of the insurance versus the redistri- bution component of such schemes represents an analytical hurdle. A third challenge in the discourse on social pro-
tection is that of conditional cash transfers.20 Tere are two parts to the challenge—payment in cash and conditioning of the transfer. Tere is a vig- orous debate between those who favor transfers in cash versus those who favor transfers in kind. Transfers in cash are argued to be administratively easier—with recent advances in mobile banking and electronic transfers, which do not require the government to manage vast food stocks, being one example. Tey are also argued to be economi- cally efficient because they allow the individual to make the choice of what the cash is spent on. How- ever, the counter argument is that payment in kind makes it more likely that the benefits will flow to the household and to the vulnerable members of the household. Te jury is still out on this debate. Pre- liminary research results by scholars at the Interna- tional Food Policy Research Institute suggest that the relative effectiveness of different modalities may depend heavily on contextual factors, such as the severity of food insecurity and the prevalence of markets for grains and other foods.21 On conditioning of the transfer, there is some evi-
dence that this strategy works. For example, the goal of keeping children in school usually improves when conditional cash transfers are used. But condition- ing is not useful everywhere; it can also discriminate against households that need support but cannot meet the conditions, and also adds administrative and monitoring burdens.22 Despite its problems, however, conditioning can be more politically viable because it draws the support of the middle class and the decisionmaking authorities. Tis is related to a fourth challenge, that of sus-
tainability. Finance ministers in particular are con- cerned about what might become an open-ended commitment to transfers without an “exit.” Condi- tioning on human capital accumulation could aid this exit for individuals and households. A fiſth and final challenge in the social protec- tion discourse is developing social protection in
38 SOCIAL PROTECTION AND THE RURAL POOR
low income countries (LICs). Although not easy to establish quantitatively, not least because of the diffi- culties of cross-country comparability in what comes under the umbrella of social protection, there seems to be a consensus that social protection programs are more widespread in middle income countries (MICs). We have already noted that coverage in Africa south of the Sahara is much lower than in the world as a whole and that the budgetary allocations to social protection are much lower in LICs. Another indirect indicator is that taking World Bank lend- ing as a whole, 13 percent of World Bank projects in MICs were devoted to social safety nets, while the figure for LICs was 6 percent.23 Te challenge lies in the argument that this is
the “natural” order of things. In fact, LICs can- not “afford” social protection. Countries have to first grow and then develop social protection. Te counter-argument is that it is precisely in these coun- tries that the need for social protection is greatest, and that without social protection negative shocks can trap both the poor into a cycle of poverty and their countries into a path of low growth. Tere is also further evidence that social protection inter- ventions do not fare any worse in LICs than in MICs. Te World Bank’s Independent Evaluation Group finds that in terms of the performance of social safety net projects, LICs performed no worse. In fact, according to the World Bank’s well-estab- lished evaluation scale, 88 percent of projects scored
“moderately satisfactory” or beter in LICs, while the number was 85 percent for MICs.24
POLICY CONCLUSION
Social protection was largely missing from the MDG discourse, which was shaped in the 1990s. Te expe- rience of the last two decades has emphasized the importance of social protection, especially in the face of growing economic and noneconomic risks at both the individual and the national levels that exacerbate poverty, hunger, and undernutrition. Te United Nations Open Working Group on Sustain- able Development Goals has proposed 17 goals and a more detailed set of targets under each goal; the first three goals encompass social protection explicitly (Table 1).25
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