text
stringlengths 10
3.29k
| document_url
stringclasses 449
values | source_url
stringclasses 449
values |
|---|---|---|
Non-governmental organizations will be vital to steering, monitoring, and implementing social protection measures, and the private sector can likewise play a crucial role, but national governments and international bodies must lead and regulate efforts, given the high degree of coordination and multi-sectoral collaboration required to 1 International Labour Organization, World Social Protection Report 2017-2019 implement a coherent and consequential system. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755842954.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2018/02/CSDeclaration2018FINAL.pdf |
While not without complications, a state-led, rights-based approach, in many ways derives power from its simplicity.
In the face of the most basic of needs, public social protection floors and other measures offer direct redress, unconditioned by employment or other status, shareholder interests, or fluctuations in charitable- giving. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755842954.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2018/02/CSDeclaration2018FINAL.pdf |
At a deeper level, much of the promise of the public establishment of robust social protection regimes lies in their potential to progressively undo systemic injustices and foster long-term shifts in attitudes, nurturing a societal ethic of reciprocity and a sense of responsibility to one another. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755842954.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2018/02/CSDeclaration2018FINAL.pdf |
A stabilizing force in a world of instability From near-constant transformations in the spheres of employment and communications technologies, to massive waves of international migration and climate change and its impacts, we live in a time of unprecedented upheaval. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755842954.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2018/02/CSDeclaration2018FINAL.pdf |
While the twenty-first century has seen impressive achievements in poverty reduction and improvements in global living standards, the outset of the 2030 Agenda finds the world in a precarious position, with many of the gains of previous decades in jeopardy of being reversed.
Low-, middle-, and high-income countries alike are experiencing more uncertainty and instability in their political, economic, and ecological systems, with our planetary boundaries already being breached. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755842954.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2018/02/CSDeclaration2018FINAL.pdf |
As the notion of “disruption” is increasingly prized as a social good, longstanding institutions and practices are giving way to new and often unpredictable social arrangements, and “risk” is becoming an ever more common feature of contemporary life.
Against this backdrop, the need for adequate social protection systems becomes all the more clear. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755842954.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2018/02/CSDeclaration2018FINAL.pdf |
At present, 71% of the world’s population is not adequately protected, with over 750 million people living in abject poverty and utter insecurity.2 Only about 29% of the world’s working population have effective access to comprehensive social protection. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755842954.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2018/02/CSDeclaration2018FINAL.pdf |
It is patently clear that people cannot make meaningful contributions to societal development if they are sick, malnourished, uneducated, persecuted, without a home, or without a basic degree of income security – that is, if they are fighting simply for basic survival.
Public institutions must resolve to guarantee access to the goods and services necessary for humanity to adapt and flourish amidst the challenges – and opportunities – of this inflection point. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755842954.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2018/02/CSDeclaration2018FINAL.pdf |
A scheme of proven effectiveness Where implemented with rigor, social protection regimes have shown themselves capable of effecting broad-based improvements in social well-being.
Countries in every corner of the globe offer glimpses of their transformative impact.
2 According to the International Labour Organization’s World Social Protection Report 2017-2019, 5.2 billion people are not, or are only partially, protected. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755842954.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2018/02/CSDeclaration2018FINAL.pdf |
According to the World Bank, 767 million people live on less than $1.90 per day as of 2013. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755842954.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2018/02/CSDeclaration2018FINAL.pdf |
Uruguay, for instance, has for many decades benefitted from a solid social protection regime focused on education, health, social security, and housing.3 Spending more on social programs than any other government in Latin America (over 80% of total public spending and about 25% of its GDP)4 has helped the country stand out in the region, in the words of the World Bank, “for being an egalitarian society and for its high per capita income, low level of inequality and poverty and the almost complete absence of extreme poverty.”5 In Ireland, robust public investments in social welfare and development contributed decisively to transforming one of Europe’s poorest nations into a country with one of the highest standards of living in the world in just a matter of decades. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755842954.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2018/02/CSDeclaration2018FINAL.pdf |
Bolstered by international support in the form of Structural and Cohesion Funds from the European Union, Ireland made its citizens a priority and allocated an above-average share of the monies to human capital development – particularly in the area of education.6 Following the dramatic economic reverses precipitated by the Global Financial Crisis of 2008, this investment in people showed its long-term transformative impact, as Ireland was able to begin rebounding by 2014. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755842954.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2018/02/CSDeclaration2018FINAL.pdf |
Furthermore, in Indonesia, faced with a fragmented healthcare system that covered little more than 50% of the country’s quarter of a billion citizens, the government began phasing in the world's largest single-payer health insurance system, with the ambitious goal to provide universal coverage by 2019, just years years after its introduction. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755842954.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2018/02/CSDeclaration2018FINAL.pdf |
A year into its implementation, the program had a membership of 133.4 million, exceeding its target of 121.6 million, and customer satisfaction was reported at 81%.7 In order to build on these success stories, it is important that social protection policies incorporate protection, prevention, promotion and transformation as each of these elements reinforce the other and improve societal outcomes. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755842954.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2018/02/CSDeclaration2018FINAL.pdf |
Notions of social protection should not be limited to what has come before, but should be expanding to encompass the needs of a particular time and place – for example, the impacts of climate change, access to land, protection for refugees and migrants, regardless of status, and support for care and community work.
Moreover, to view social protection purely through the lens of adversity limits its scope and runs the risk of reinforcing patterns of thought harmful to those receiving such assistance. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755842954.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2018/02/CSDeclaration2018FINAL.pdf |
A responsibility of the government, a right of all people To be secure in one’s person, to be “protected,” is not a privilege but a right that the governments of the world have agreed to uphold. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755842954.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2018/02/CSDeclaration2018FINAL.pdf |
Article 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 3 http://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/4037/1/S1201025_en.pdf 4 http://blogs.worldbank.org/governance/uruguay-s-award-winning-innovations-social-protection 5 Placing great focus on social equity, Uruguay reduced moderate poverty from 32.5% to 9.4% between 2006 and 2016, while reducing extreme poverty from 2.5% to 0.2%. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755842954.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2018/02/CSDeclaration2018FINAL.pdf |
(http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/uruguay/overview) 6 The Irish case, with its relation with the European Union, also speaks to the importance of international solidarity in pursuing comprehensive social protection for all people.
While country-led efforts are indispensable, the greatest gains will come when countries recognize our global interdependence. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755842954.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2018/02/CSDeclaration2018FINAL.pdf |
7 https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/may/15/indonesias-universal- healthcare-insurance-verdict states: “Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international cooperation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.” This right was reaffirmed in the Social Protection Floors Recommendation unanimously adopted by 184 members of the International Labour Conference in 2012. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755842954.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2018/02/CSDeclaration2018FINAL.pdf |
With this, the global community has accepted the commitment to achieve at least a baseline, of social protection for all people of all ages, to live a life of dignity, peace, freedom and justice.8 For most countries, closing the gaps to secure adequate social protection does not require unreasonably large amounts of funding. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755842954.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2018/02/CSDeclaration2018FINAL.pdf |
One recent report[8] on 142 countries found that about half would have to allocate less than 3.5% of their GDP to close their health security and income security gaps, and about a third would only have to allocate an additional 2% of their GDP to close their social protection floor gaps.
However, for other countries the financial challenge would be more significant; 12 African nations would need to direct more than 10% of their GDP to provide adequate protection. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755842954.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2018/02/CSDeclaration2018FINAL.pdf |
As a result, it is clear that the establishment and maintenance of global social protection floors will likely only be achievable as a shared endeavor of the international community.
Moreover, governments should not only consider the costs of such measures in isolation, but with respect to the costs of inaction.
To use market based persuasion, social protection measures could be viewed as investments destined to yield major returns in human, environmental, and financial capital in the future. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755842954.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2018/02/CSDeclaration2018FINAL.pdf |
Translating global promises into social reality at the national and international levels will be largely a question of political will and intent.
By looking at these policies through the lenses of social justice and service to the common well-being, political leaders must take ownership of this issue and find financing solutions – whether through new taxes or shifts in current budget allocations. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755842954.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2018/02/CSDeclaration2018FINAL.pdf |
This may even entail leadership embracing a more decidedly redistributive role for the state.9 However bold the countries of the world strive to be in this regard, in developing policy proposals it will be useful to emphasize that social protection is not a partisan issue - consensus should be the starting point for its implementation.
In the final analysis, social protection is founded on the most basic and universal conceptions of human worth. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755842954.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2018/02/CSDeclaration2018FINAL.pdf |
While the specifics of its implementation and administration must be the subject of rigorous, objective research and deliberation, the underlying premise is not controversial.
It is a question of value, and it speaks to the sort of society which all fair-minded people wish to live in – one in which fears of being unable to even survive would no longer darken any person’s horizons. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755842954.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2018/02/CSDeclaration2018FINAL.pdf |
Moreover, experience has shown that, to the extent that it is universally applied and embraced, social protection ceases to be seen as unsustainable, dependency-fostering hand-outs, and instead helps to reshape long-term relations within a society. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755842954.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2018/02/CSDeclaration2018FINAL.pdf |
Social protection broadens and 8 https://www.merit.unu.edu/civil-society-social-protection-floor-index-five-qas/ 9 In this connection, it is worth noting that actors as diverse as Finland, India, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and prominent tech gurus have all expressed interest in proposals of a universal basic income. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755842954.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2018/02/CSDeclaration2018FINAL.pdf |
deepens the social contract, promoting greater understanding of the fact that the well-being of the individual is ultimately dependent upon, and contributes to, the well-being of the whole.
In light of the above, and in accordance with with the provisions of the International Labour Organization’s Social Protection Floors Recommendation, 2012 (No.
202),10 we urge Member States introduce language into the Commission’s resolutions related to Social Protection. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755842954.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2018/02/CSDeclaration2018FINAL.pdf |
In addition to building on the substantive policy recommendations found in numerous UN documents, we would encourage language that ensures social protection policies and processes include civil society input in the design, implementation, and evaluation of the programs – including those who are meant to benefit from the programs.
Social protection and poverty eradication also cannot be divorced from people’s access to knowledge and their ability to make informed decisions. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755842954.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2018/02/CSDeclaration2018FINAL.pdf |
For this reason all should be guaranteed access to compulsory and innovative educational systems, by which, among other things, they would gain understanding regarding their rights, as well as their obligations to the rest of the community. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755842954.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2018/02/CSDeclaration2018FINAL.pdf |
Moreover, an emphasis should be placed on research on the sort of transformative actions and practices that will foster greater levels of participation and inclusion, devolving resources to the grassroots and ensuring that those that are currently unprotected have a voice.
Only in this way will the international community achieve the dual objectives of reaching the furthest behind first and leaving no one behind. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755842954.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2018/02/CSDeclaration2018FINAL.pdf |
10 The recommendations articulated there are as follows: 1) Provide effective access to a nationally defined set of essential health care goods and services, including maternity care, that meets the criteria of availability, accessibility, acceptability, and quality; 2) Ensure basic income security for children, assuring access to nutrition, education and care; 3) Arrange for basic income security for persons in active age, with particular attention to sickness, unemployment, maternity and disability; and 4) Guarantee basic income security for older persons. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755842954.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2018/02/CSDeclaration2018FINAL.pdf |
Global research on governance and social protection Global Overview Acknowledgements i Acknowledgements This report was prepared by Development Pathways for the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA), Division for Inclusive Social Development, within the framework of the project “Global research on the governance of social protection systems.” The project is jointly funded and overseen by UNDESA and the International Labour Organization (ILO). | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
The lead author of the report is Shea McClanahan (Senior Social Policy Specialist, Development Pathways) with valuable inputs from Richard Chirchir (Senior Management Information System (MIS) Specialist, Development Pathways), Stephen Kidd (Senior Social Policy Specialist, Development Pathways), Alexandra Barrantes (Senior Social Policy Specialist, Development Pathways), Sarina Kidd (Social Policy Specialist, Development Pathways), and David Hillson (Social Policy Specialist, Development Pathways). | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
The authors are grateful for overall guidance provided by Robert Venne (UNDESA), Oleg Serezhin (UNDESA) and Wenyan Yang (UNDESA), as well as constructive technical feedback from UNDESA and the ILO, Wenyan Yang (UNDESA), Kroum Markov (ILO), Veronika Wodsak (ILO), Maya Stern-Plaza (ILO), as well as various others in the Social Protection Department at the ILO. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
Table of contents Table of Contents Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................ i Table of Figures, Boxes and Tables ........................................................................................ iv Acronyms ............................................................................................................................ vii 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Social protection system governance at the service of universal social protection –working definition and framework for analysis. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
.............................................................................................. 2 1.1.1 Defining the core principles of good governance of social protection systems ............................... 4 1.1.2 Governance across the social protection policy process .................................................................. 5 2 High level governance .................................................................................................... 8 2.1 A common definition of social protection at the national level ............................................. 8 2.2 A strong legislative and regulatory framework .................................................................... 14 2.3 Mechanisms for national coordination in social protection (vertical and horizontal) ......... 16 2.3.1 Horizontal coordination ................................................................................................................. 17 2.3.2 Vertical coordination ...................................................................................................................... 24 2.4 Institutional structures and policy designs for effective social protection expansion and delivery ............................................................................................................................................. 27 2.4.1 Institutional frameworks for social protection delivery ................................................................. 27 2.4.2 Policy design and governance | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
27 2.4.2 Policy design and governance ........................................................................................................ 32 3 Mid-level governance ................................................................................................... 38 3.1 Programme-level MIS – Simpler designs for low-capacity contexts ..................................... 40 3.1.1 Contributory schemes .................................................................................................................... 40 3.1.2 Tax-financed (non-contributory) schemes ..................................................................................... 42 3.2 MIS for an integrated sector—high-stakes choices, with implications for governance ...... 44 3.2.1 Digital and integrated social protection information systems – components and pre-conditions 44 3.2.2 Models for integrated information management – social registries and single registries (integrated beneficiary registries) .............................................................................................................. 46 3.3 Risks and additional considerations ..................................................................................... 50 3.4 Emerging international frameworks for ICT in social protection ......................................... 52 4 Frontline ‘street level’ governance ............................................................................... 57 4.1 Securing and facilitating payment of social contributions | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
and facilitating payment of social contributions ................................................... 57 4.2 Horizontal coordination at the operational level ................................................................. 65 Table of contents 4.3 Facilitating payments of income transfers ........................................................................... 68 4.4 Avenues for stakeholder participation in scheme design and management ....................... 69 4.5 Grievance and appeals mechanisms for accountability. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
...................................................... 72 5 Identifying potential patterns in good governance ....................................................... 79 6 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 84 Bibliography ........................................................................................................................ 86 Annex 1 Good governance among the ‘umbrella’ principles of ILO Recommendation 20294 Annex 2 Social security institutional organigrams from select countries. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
........................ 96 Annex 3 Targeting effectiveness of different policy designs .......................................... 100 Annex 4 MIS integration experiences ........................................................................... 103 Annex 5 Social protection and the social contract ......................................................... 105 Table of Figures, Boxes and Tables iv Table of Figures, Boxes and Tables Figure 1-1: Key governance mechanisms and principles at high-, mid- and street levels ...................... 6 Figure 2-1: Core lifecycle benefits specified under ILO Convention 102 and Recommendation 202 .... 9 Figure 2-2: Levels of investment in different core lifecycle and other programmes across OECD countries, 2014 - 2016 .......................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 2-3: Evolution of social security legislation around the world, by branch ................................ 15 Figure 2-4: Coordination required to implement national social protection floors. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
............................ 17 Figure 2-5: Internal and external policy coherence in social protection .............................................. 18 Figure 2-6: Example of the organizational set-up for coordination at policy level .............................. 20 Figure 2-7: Institutional arrangements in Ethiopia’s nascent social protection system ...................... 29 Figure 2-8: Social security institutional arrangements (excluding health care) in the Netherlands and Norway. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
................................................................................................................................................ 31 Figure 2-9: Mixed, fragmented social protection systems in low- and middle-income countries ....... 33 Figure 2-10: Depiction of ideal pension systems with universal (left) or pension-tested (right) tier 1. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
.............................................................................................................................................................. 35 Figure 2-11: Multi-tiered disability benefits system ............................................................................ 36 Figure 3-1: Key operations processes and systems for social protection scheme implementation .... 39 Figure 3-2: The three pillars of a social protection information management ecosystem .................. 45 Figure 3-3: A potential integrated social protection information management system ...................... 48 Figure 4-1: Increase in social insurance membership under the monotax regime vs new job creation, Argentina (1998-2019) ......................................................................................................................... 61 Figure 4-2: Increase in monotributo participation, Uruguay (2006-2018) ........................................... 61 Figure 4-3: Five steps to improve operational-level horizontal coordination. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
..................................... 65 Figure 4-4: Conceptual framework for social accountability in social protection ................................ 76 Figure 0-1: Social security system in Finland ........................................................................................ 96 Figure 0-2: Social security system in the Maldives ............................................................................... 96 Figure 0-3: Social security system in the Republic of Korea ................................................................. 97 Figure 0-4: Social security system in Mongolia .................................................................................... 97 Figure 0-5: Social security system in South Africa ................................................................................ 98 Figure 0-6: Social security system in Viet Nam ..................................................................................... 98 Figure 0-7: Social security system in Georgia ....................................................................................... 99 Table of Figures, Boxes and Tables v Figure 0-8: Relationship between coverage of schemes and exclusion measured against intended recipients. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
........................................................................................................................................... 101 Figure 0-9: Relationship between the coverage of schemes and exclusion of the poorest 20 per cent of intended categories ....................................................................................................................... 102 Figure 0-10: Social security and the social contract ........................................................................... 105 Figure 0-11: Broader coverage equals broader support. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
................................................................... 106 Figure 0-12: Reasons for not applying for assistance from the Social Services Agency, by quintile (2018), Georgia. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
.................................................................................................................................. 108 Box 2-1: The lifecycle framework for social protection and potential implications for governance ...... 9 Box 2-2: Recommendation 202 provisions on national social security strategies ............................... 11 Box 2-3: Aligning the definition of social protection with international practice. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
............................... 12 Box 2-4: Advances in coordination in Kenya through the Social Protection Secretariat ...................... 19 Box 2-5: Successful coordination in Bangladesh, but limited progress toward expansion .................. 21 Box 2-6: Scaled back ambitions regarding cross-sectoral coordination in Chile Crece Contigo ........... 22 Box 2-7: Institutionalization of cash transfers from a whole systems perspective .............................. 23 Box 2-8: The complex role of federalism in social protection extension ............................................. 25 Box 2-9: Fragmentation in social protection sectors in low- and middle-income countries ................ 33 Box 2-10: Multi-tiered systems for universal coverage ........................................................................ 35 Box 3-1: Core administrative, systems and management processes in social protection implementation .................................................................................................................................... 39 Box 3-2: Contribution collection and compliance system requirements ............................................. 41 Box 4-1: International guidelines for coverage extension through facilitating contribution collection and compliance .................................................................................................................................... 58 Box 4-2: ICT-facilitated data exchange for contribution collection and compliance ............................ 59 Box 4-3: The Monotax and coverage extension in Argentina and Uruguay ......................................... 61 Box 4-4: Attracting young workers to social insurance through social pensions in China. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
.................. 63 Box 4-5: Mauritius’ single window through MoSS frontline offices ..................................................... 66 Box 4-6: Shock-responsive social protection and governance ............................................................. 67 Box 4-7: Scheme design shapes stakeholder interests in Uganda’s NSSF ............................................ 71 Box 4-8: Citizenship participation in social protection programme management ............................... 72 Box 4-9: Complaints and appeals mechanisms in Fiji. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
.......................................................................... 74 Box 0-1: Building alliances for a stronger social contract. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
.................................................................. 106 Table of Figures, Boxes and Tables vi Table 3-1: Objectives, indicators and examples of good national practice in Single Registries (Integrated Beneficiary Registries) ....................................................................................................... 49 Table 3-2: Integrated information management elements along social protection delivery chain ..... 50 Table 3-3: Models of coordination and examples, from least integrated/complex (left) to most integrated/complex (right) ................................................................................................................... 54 Table 4-1: Pros and cons of main types of programme grievance channels ........................................ 74 Table 5-1: Potential to further good governance of core lifecycle programmes compared with other (supplementary) benefits ..................................................................................................................... 79 Table 0-1: ‘Umbrella’ principles articulated in R202 ............................................................................ 94 Acronyms vii Acronyms APS Agence de protection sociale (Agency for Social Protection of Seychelles) AUH Asignación Universal por Hijo (Universal Child Allowance of Argentina) BISP BPS COFEDESO Benazir Income Support Programme (Pakistan) Banco de Protección Social (Social Insurance Bank of Uruguay) Consejo Federal de Desarrollo Social (Social Development Federal Council of Argentina) CBM Citizen Based Monitoring CBSS Crossroads Bank for Social Security (Belgium) CCT Conditional Cash Transfer CMC CT-OVC Central Management Committee (Bangladesh) Cash Transfer for Orphans and Vulnerable Children (Kenya) DPME Department of Performance, Monitoring and Evaluation in the Presidency (South Africa) ECLAC Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean EESSI Electronic Exchange of Social Security Information EU European Union HSNP ICT Hunger Safety Net | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
EU European Union HSNP ICT Hunger Safety Net Programme (Kenya) Information and Communications Technology ILO International Labour Organization IMIS Integrated Management Information System INPS Instituto Nacional de Previdência Social (National Social Protection Institute of Cabo Verde) ISAS Integrated Social Assistance System (Turkey) ISSA International Social Security Association LEAP Livelihoods Empowerment Against Poverty MERCOSUR MGNREGA Mercado Commún del Sur (Southern Common Market) Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act MIS Management Information System MISSOC Mutual Information System on Social Protection MoA Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Resources (Ethiopia) MOU Memorandum of Understanding MoUDH Ministry of Urban Development and Housing (Ethiopia) NAV Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NSPB NSPP National Social Protection Board National Social Protection Policy NSPS National Social Protection Strategy NSSF National Social Security Fund (Kenya and Uganda) NSSS OECD National Social Security Strategy (Bangladesh) Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development POESSA Public Employees Social Security Agency (Ethiopia) PMT PSNP Proxy Means Test Productive Safety Net Programme (Ethiopia) PSSSA Private-Sector Social Security Agency (Ethiopia) SASSA SDGs South Africa Social Security Agency Sustainable Development Goals SIACI International Agreements System in Social Security SOCPEN Social Pension database (South Africa) SOCX SSPS MoLSA Social Expenditure Database Social Security Policy Support programme (UNDP-Bangladesh) Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (Ethiopia) SSA Social Security Administration (United States of America) SVB Sociale Verzekeringsbank (Social Insurance Bank of the Netherlands) Acronyms viii SZW Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid (Inspectorate for Social Affairs and Employment of the Netherlands) TANF Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (United States of America) TSA Targeted Social Assistance (Georgia) UNDESA | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
TSA Targeted Social Assistance (Georgia) UNDESA United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs UNDG United Nations Development Group UNDP United Nations Development Programme UPSNP Urban Productive Safety Net Project (Ethiopia) US United States of America UWV Uitvoeringsinstituut Werknemersverzekeringen (Institute for Employee Benefit Schemes of the Netherlands) VUP Vision 2020 Umurenge Program (Rwanda) 1 Introduction 1 1 Introduction Good governance of social protection systems is one of the preconditions for the effective realization of human rights. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
Governance starts at the highest levels of policymaking — including coordination across diverse actors, schemes, institutions, sectors, and levels of government — and permeates every level of social protection implementation.
Well-governed social protection systems benefit from strong accountability structures, active participation of the stakeholders, transparency of operations and viable access to information. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
Likewise, effective governance encompasses good financial management; benefit delivery that respects the principles of availability, accessibility, and adequacy; contribution collection (where applicable); management information systems (MIS); data protection and privacy; as well as clear complaint and appeal procedures. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
This review seeks to understand, as an overarching question, the ways in which “good governance” can contribute to realizing people’s right to social security, against a backdrop of the principles set out in international social security standards, notably ILO Recommendation 202 on Social Protection Floors and Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No.
102). | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
102).
The objective is to highlight, through practical examples, the decisive role of governance in realizing gains in coverage — in terms of comprehensiveness of risks covered as well as horizontal and vertical extension — in fulfilment of the right to social security, which rests on compliance by all actors with their prescribed duties and obligations. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
The overview paper is part of a broader project “Achieving the SDGs and ending poverty through Universal Social Protection,” the objective of which is to strengthen the capacity of the government in the project’s countries of focus (Pakistan and Cambodia) to formulate, implement, monitor, and evaluate social protection systems.
As such, the results of the study will be used to guide the development of learning modules that will be of practical use in these countries and beyond. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
Complementing this global overview, three detailed case studies are presented to offer detailed insights into the governance of social protection systems in select national contexts, including Argentina, Kenya and the small island states of Fiji and Mauritius, the latter of which are treated in the same paper.1 This global overview paper is structured as follows: This chapter presents a working definition of governance, focusing on social protection system governance at the service of coverage extension and emphasising the importance of governance at all levels of social protection policymaking and delivery; Chapter 2 explores the high-level structures — including policies, legislation, mechanisms for institutional coordination, and financing —needed to build sustainable systems; Chapter 3 describes the overall mid-level administrative structures and operations that are required for effective management of social protection programmes, including core administrative structures in a digital age, with a focus on building management information systems (MIS) to support the achievement of universal social protection; Chapter 4 explores how well systems ‘interface’ with key stakeholders and rights holders, identifying appropriate frontline governance structures that build trust in the system among end users (including both rights holders, as well as stakeholders such as social partners or private-sector actors engaged in delivery); Chapter 5 attempts to pull together the lessons from the good performers at each level of social protection system governance to propose an initial classification or typology of good governance in social protection systems; Chapter 6 concludes. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
1 The cases were selected based on consultations with ILO and UNDESA.
Brief explanations for their selection are provided in the conclusion of this global overview paper as well as in the case studies themselves.
1 Introduction 2 1.1 Social protection system governance at the service of universal social protection –working definition and framework for analysis.
There is no single, universally agreed definition of governance as it relates to social protection. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
According to the International Social Security Association (ISSA), the “definition often depends on the goals to be pursued, the entities involved, and the socio-political environment.”2 Using the global goal of universal social protection as a guidepost, this report examines social protection governance from the perspective of the whole national system.3 This consideration of system-wide governance is in recognition of the fact that individual schemes, programmes or organizations may be reasonably well-governed by some definitions,4 but if they operate within a poorly governed overall social protection system, they are unlikely to be contributing to – and may even hinder – the fulfilment of the right to social protection for broad swaths of the population through meaningful coverage extension. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
Indeed, some have noted that “administrative efficiency is only as good as the policies it supports” (McKinnon et al., 2014).
By the same logic, there are risks to investing in improving the system’s component parts without understanding where they fit within the overall system design and architecture.
As the ILO/ITC notes: “individual schemes… have their own roles to play and objectives to meet, but…they must also serve the objectives of and overall national social protection policy. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
[And] just like each of its component schemes, the national social protection system should be assessed in terms of its objectives, notably… coverage, effectiveness and efficiency” (International Labour Office and International Training Centre of the ILO, 2010, p. 7).5 This system-wide view also requires understanding governance as multi-dimensional, encompassing democratic, technical, political, and legal aspects. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
Governance structures should therefore, as far as possible and under the general responsibility of the state, ensure participation of all stakeholders involved (democratic governance); efficient and effective administration, management and monitoring of benefits and services (technical governance); clear, transparent and accountable legislative and executive powers (political governance); and a comprehensive legal framework guaranteeing predictability, rights-based entitlement and well-functioning complaints and appeals mechanisms (legal governance). | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
The importance of good governance, including at the system level, has long been recognized in international commitments to social protection and in the establishment of social security minimum standards.6 ILO Convention No.
102, in particular, continues to serve as a broad touchstone for understanding the fundamentals of social security governance, including the responsibility of the 2 International Social Security Association (ISSA), (2019a). | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
The ISSA, which has a mandate to improve social security administration, defines it from the perspective of the administering agency, where governance is “the manner in which the vested authority uses its powers to achieve the institution’s objectives, including its powers to design, implement and innovate the organization’s policies, rules, systems and processes, and to engage and involve its stakeholders.” 3 Taking a system-wide view does not preclude a recognition that certain aspects of governance may be confined to the level of individual schemes or institutions/organizations. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
4 In fact, there are many examples of social security schemes winning national awards for good governance, but the criteria do not include extending coverage. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
5 A broader definition of social security system governance was also acknowledged in ILO and ITC’s Governance of Social Security Systems: A Guide for Board Members in Africa: “All consultative and decision-making processes, institutional arrangements and managerial and administrative actions whereby social protection policies are designed, agreed, implemented and supervised. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
The definition encompasses the first blueprints for a social protection system in government or other institutions, and then the consultation process, the legal enactment, the managerial and administrative implementation and national and lower-level supervision of social protection schemes.” International Labour Office and International Training Centre of the ILO, (2010).5 6 ILO (1952), Article 6.
See also ILO (2011), especially paragraphs 57 and 141. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
1 Introduction 3 state and the importance of the participation of stakeholders in supervision and accountability structures.7 However, as social security systems have evolved over time, the growing diversity of actors and institutions involved in various stages of social security policymaking and delivery has made it increasingly challenging to interpret and apply these original governance principles in practice. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
As the UNDG note in their “Social Protection Coordination Toolkit”: “Unlike other government sectors, social protection has … been developed and delivered by several institutions and stakeholders focusing on certain population groups (e.g., workers of the formal sector), delivering specific services (e.g., health care), or certain types of transfers (e.g., family allowances). | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
Therefore, the design and implementation of a Social Protection Floor will require coordination among all of the different organizations involved in the provision of social protection services and transfers” (United Nations Development Group (UNDG) and International Labour Organization, 2016). | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
Several recent trends have contributed to the growing complexity of social protection systems around the world and challenged the governance structures that had served the predominantly insurance-based and largely centralised models that characterised earlier systems. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
First, private and non-state entities have taken on increasingly prevalent roles in benefit and service delivery, and, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, separately administered programmes have proliferated outside of traditional social security institutional structures, complicating the institutional landscape.8 Second, many of the newer programmes that have emerged, especially in the Global South, have been financed from state budgets (or donor funds) rather than contributions, with very different implications for the nature of the entitlements, long-term financial sustainability, and the representation of stakeholder interests and participation of (would-be) beneficiaries in accountability structures. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
A third trend has been the growing dominance of the “social risk management” framework promoted by the World Bank and others,9 which led to a proliferation of so-called ‘safety net’ programmes that aim above all to reduce (extreme) poverty or specific vulnerabilities but are —arguably by design — disconnected from the lifecycle and labour market risks that have historically characterised core social security schemes. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
These safety net programmes have become synonymous with ‘social protection’ in many circles, leading to confusion about what constitutes social protection and social security.
Finally, many of these newer schemes in low- and middle-income countries are not grounded in legislation,10 resulting in ad-hoc governance frameworks that are vulnerable to political whims and wax and wane with the slightest economic or fiscal change.
7 According to ILO (2011), “Convention No. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
102 formulated common rules of collective organization, financing and management of social security systems and complements them by the no less fundamental principles of governance: the system shall be supervised by the public authorities or administered jointly by employers and workers whose contributions represent the largest share of social security revenues; representatives of the persons protected, which include social groups outside wage employment, shall participate in management if the administration is not entrusted to a public institution; and the State must accept general responsibility for the due provision of benefits and for the proper administration of the institutions and services concerned”(paragraph 57). | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
8 Cecchini and Martínez, (2012); ILO (2019a, 2011) 9 De Neubourg (2002); Holzmann et al.
(2003) 10 ILO (2019a), paragraph 170. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
1 Introduction 4 Alongside these trends, which resulted in significant changes in the social protection landscape, a much narrower notion of ‘good governance’ was being re-popularized in the broader development discourse.11 This narrower conceptualization of governance was disproportionately focused on the sound financial management of individual schemes and was disconnected from the idea of coverage extension, broadly speaking.12 Instead, this technocratic approach to governance was paired with a focus on ‘rationalising’ programme expenditures, a process which actually undermined coverage extension by placing an undue focus on reducing fraud and avoiding inclusion errors, leaving aside more fundamental questions about exclusion errors based on arbitrarily and unnecessarily narrow eligibility thresholds. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
Despite promoting clear and transparent accountability mechanisms and good management of human and financial resources, these predominantly scheme-based (or institution- based) governance frameworks offered little help in understanding the management and coordination needs of the wide variety of social protection instruments and programmes operating simultaneously in a given national setting.13 Furthermore, this more limited understanding of governance as primarily about scheme management (and therefore the remit of a board presiding over an administrative agency), deepens artificial divisions between policy and administration and overlooks the importance of governance as a cross-cutting tool that operates along a fluid policy- administration continuum.14 1.1.1 Defining the core principles of good governance of social protection systems Grappling with the impacts of these trends, governments around the world continue to attempt to expand coverage and close gaps, even if only in sputtering bursts. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
At the same time, global attention is rightly returning to the importance of good governance for achieving the outcomes expected from a national social protection system writ large.15 In short, while good governance of social protection may be an end in and of itself in certain circumstances, such as for closing gaps between legal and effective coverage or enhancing adequacy of benefits; there is a high risk, especially in contexts of low coverage, that initiatives focused on good governance ‘for its own sake’ will end up serving elites, preserving/strengthening the status quo for those who already enjoy relatively generous protections. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
Therefore, for good governance to matter in the context of the globally embraced goal to reach universal social protection, it must be at the service of coverage extension, and it must operate within a rights-based framework.16 It must contribute to building universal, adequate, and sustainable social protection systems through meaningful – rather than marginal – expansion, including social protection ‘floors’ that are inclusive and cover the key lifecycle risks. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
The core principles of ILO Recommendation 202, which include good governance and coherence of policies, are summarised in Annex 1.
It follows then that good governance of social protection systems would be indicated by several features, adapting the principles from the ISSA’s Guidelines on Good Governance for social security institutions, and drawing on the relevant core principles from ILO Recommendation 202: 11 See e.g., Hickey (2012) 12 Bassett et al. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
(2012) have linked this to the legacy of applying corporate governance frameworks and literature to the management of pension funds, situated squarely within the public management agenda.
13 The challenge of assessing system-wide performance of social protection extends to all areas of system assessment, not just governance.
For example, it makes little sense to assess the adequacy of benefits in one scheme without also examining their interaction with other benefits in the system. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
See, for example (Brimblecombe, 2013) for a discussion of multi-dimensional adequacy.
14 McKinnon et al.
(2014) 15 See, for example, Bassett et al.
(2012); Cecchini et al.
(2014); Cunhill Grau et al.
(2015).
This recognition of importance of whole system is clearly communicated in Recommendation No. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
202 and has subsequently been incorporated into the Inter-Agency Social Protection Assessments (ISPA) Core Diagnostic Instrument (CODI) tool and features prominently in the Universal Social Protection (USP) Call to Action.
See European Commission (EC) et al. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
(n.d.); Global Partnership for Universal Social Protection (USP2030) (2019) 16 Sepúlveda and Nyst (2012) 1 Introduction 5 • High degree of coherence and coordination across ministries, programmes and schemes, and between the various policies (economic, employment, fiscal, etc) (horizontal coordination) and along the policy process— from design through to administrative and citizen accountability structures, and from national levels down to local levels (vertical coordination) — to maximise the potential for achieving universal social protection; • High degree of financial, fiscal, and economic sustainability, with due regard to social justice, solidarity, and equity both within and across schemes and programmes. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
• High degrees of accountability linked to clear mandates (including entitlements and obligations) for different actors and stakeholders, clearly articulated within a legal regulatory framework.
• Clear channels of transparency in accessing information about social protection programmes and rights, including financial management, delivery mechanisms, information about entitlements, etc. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
• High levels of predictability and equal treatment in the application of social protection laws and policies and in the delivery of benefits and services across the social protection system, including the assurance of due process and complaints and appeals procedures. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
• Wide avenues for participation by stakeholders or their representatives of persons protected through broad and inclusive social dialogue and social participation in addressing gaps in coverage and needs and barriers to access to social protection and in decision making about their rights and interests. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
• High potential for adaptability, dynamism, and responsiveness to the constant need for improvement in the design and implementation of nationally defined social protection floors.17 Social protection systems that display these characteristics are much more likely to be inclusive and, therefore, politically sustainable. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
1.1.2 Governance across the social protection policy process As suggested, governance is not reserved for the highest levels of policy making, just as it should not be relegated to the tail end of delivery and operations.
Rather, governance questions permeate all levels of the social protection policy process. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
The report examines the state of social protection governance around the world drawing on examples of relatively well performing systems, using the above principles as guideposts, while also illustrating the very significant challenges facing many systems.
We describe how the systems tend to function in practice, drawing out observable patterns where possible, with a focus on key mechanisms, tools, and structures for improving governance at three levels, as depicted in Figure 1-1. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
At the same time, the principles of good governance laid out in the previous section should apply equally at all levels, and across all governance mechanisms and spaces, as also shown in Figure 1-1. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
For example, while avenues for participation and accountability mechanisms are featured in the frontline discussions, the principles of participation and accountability are relevant all the way up the chain, just as predictability is often framed in terms of the expectation of regularity of payments to beneficiaries but is also crucial at the highest, strategic levels of policymaking (e.g., for ensuring timeline budget allocation and system-wide monitoring). | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
17 Conversely, well-governed systems also need to be resilient against reform attempts that could undermine the goals of social security extension. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
1 Introduction 6 Figure 1-1: Key governance mechanisms and principles at high-, mid- and street levels The framework offers leverage for considering where a selection of governance mechanisms, tools or structures have a clear role, as well as distinguishing a more strategic understanding of governance as key to planning, organizing, managing, and expanding a whole social protection system or ‘sector’, from its more operational interpretations. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
Thus, the high-level discussion focuses on issues related to the legislative and regulatory framework; the importance of a national social protection strategy or definition; the institutional structures and policy designs conducive to better governance; and issues related to coordination of social protection, both within the system itself and across related policy areas and sectors. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |
The mid-level analysis, in line with the project’s particular interest in the role of management information systems (MIS) and ICT in a digital social protection world, focuses on programme-level and integrated MIS options and trade-offs as well as discussing emerging international frameworks and benchmarks for ICT-based solutions in social protection. | https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696755846392.pdf | https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/08/Global-overview_SP-Governance_June-2021.pdf |