Social protection – have aid agencies got it wrong?

new paper from a consortium of thinktanks, including IDS and [caption id="attachment_2814" align="alignright" width="129" caption="but is anyone listening?"]but is anyone listening?[/caption] ODI. Their overall finding is that donors’ preference for evidence and pilots, and lack of engagement with national political realities, have undermined their impact. Hard to summarize – it’s a treasure trove – but here are some highlights: Where are we at? ‘The 2002/03 humanitarian crisis in southern Africa was the trigger for a big push by the international community on the then emerging social protection policy agenda, which has since gone through two broad phases. In the first phase (roughly 2002-05), the strategic objective of certain donors to prevent food aid from swamping the region was successfully achieved, social protection was established on the policy agenda in many countries, some governments initiated national social pension schemes or ‘productive safety net’ programmes, and donors invested heavily in building the evidence base for social transfers, and in enhancing the capacity of government partners to deliver social protection programmes. The second phase (2006-10) has been more erratic. Many countries now have social protection strategies; ‘emergency cash transfers’ have displaced or complemented food aid in food crises; some large-scale programmes have been introduced while others have been consolidated. But in other countries pilot social transfer projects have not scaled up and face uncertain futures, while several African governments remain resistant to institutionalising national-level social transfers, often revealing a strong preference for input subsidies and public works instead. As for the development community, we cannot agree among ourselves on how to move the social protection agenda forward – some take a ‘rights-based’ perspective while others want to implement a needs-based ‘social floor’; some favour unconditional cash transfers while others want to introduce conditions; some argue for social pensions while others target ‘orphans and vulnerable children’ (OVC) or the poorest 10%; and in some countries different approaches are being ’piloted’ in different districts simultaneously, not informed by any national vision.’ 6 current approaches, and why they have largely failed: 1) Financing pilots and demonstration projects: governments suspect (reasonably enough) these are Millennium Village-style ‘Potemkin projects’, designed (and funded) to succeed, that can’t be scaled up. ‘We know of no cases where such a pilot or demonstration project has become a government-owned social protection programme with national coverage.’ 2) Building the evidence base: governments have not been persuaded by the evidence – not least because policy choices are influenced by lots of other, messier, things like politics, election cycles etc (would never happen here, eh?). 3) Building the capacity of implementing ministries: no good when the relevant ministries are so far down the government pecking order, with negligible influence over the ‘Ministries of Money.’ 4) Mobilising civil society: few success stories – CSOs are usually seen by governments as junior partners or service providers 5) Engaging directly with Ministries of Finance: they only listen to macroeconomists, and the macroeconomists won’t buy into SP until you can show it boosts growth (rather than just reduces poverty and suffering). 6) Lobbying parliamentarians: has not translated into government action. So what’s the problem? The paper turns the spotlight on ‘outsiders like us’ and asks ‘What’s wrong with the way outsiders are engaging in social protection in Africa?’ It offers five options for improving our performance: (1) Learn from government-driven programmes and work with governments to monitor, evaluate, improve and extend them; find out where the energy is, and build on this. When governments in Lesotho and Swaziland introduced national social pensions, they had to do so against the advice of donors and with no external financial or technical support. (2) Work through appropriate institutional mechanisms, at regional and national levels (but remember that the final decisions are almost always national). (3) Learn lessons for national implementation, rather than from pilot projects. What is needed now is not more evidence of impact from small experiments: it is practical experience that will inform implementation at national scale. (4) Be driven less by instruments and locate social transfers within a broader national social policy agenda, by paying more attention to social protection objectives – including reducing vulnerability (5) Find new levers for supporting African governments, based on a more sophisticated understanding of the political economy in each national context. Identify the ‘drivers’ of social protection policy processes: key stakeholders, government priorities and constraints – national food security, electoral cycles etc –  informal as well as formal institutions, complex patterns of allegiance and competition involving domestic and external actors. By understanding and working with the grain of national politics, social protection advocates will achieve far more than if they insist on parachuting in technocratic approaches, however well designed.]]>

Subscribe to our Newsletter

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. For information about our privacy practices, please see our .

We use MailChimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to MailChimp for processing. Learn more about MailChimp's privacy practices here.


5 Responses to “Social protection – have aid agencies got it wrong?”
  1. Interesting blog! What is missing is an understanding of the assymetrical power relationships that develop between those paying for projects; and governments, or indeed civil society structures, who are recipients. Who wields overt or covert power in deciding on transfer processes? For example, Potemkin projects may often be the result of assymetrical power relations, related to a desire among recipients to please donors. Another example: building the evidence base and building “capacity” may also be directly related to power relations. In these cases there may be an unexpressed fear of powerlessness on the part of recipients; a fear that they are losing control. I think that an understanding of the need for power among donors and feelings of powerlessness among recipients may assist in improving the way in which aid is given and utilised.

  2. Interesting recommendations. I wonder though about learning from national implementation – I agree that pilot projects often lead to nothing, but won’t national implementations lead to expensive failure instead of cheapo failure?

  3. Thanks for the interesting and thought provoking read! This report makes a key point that social protection needs to be considered in the context of the political economy within a country. But there seems to be a slight unease between this point and the call for a greater focus on vulnerability. Poverty and vulnerability aren’t the only (or necessarily the main) objectives of governments when considering social protection, with other objectives relating to fairness, social cohesion and political popularity.
    Even though the report mentions there have been few success stories in mobilising civil society in Africa, their role and potential in supporting social protection should not be dismissed altogether. There may be important lessons which can be learnt from other regions. In Asia, civil society has been fundamental to advocating for social pensions in the Philippines and Thailand. For three years, the Coalition of Services of the Elderly (COSE) and the Confederation of Older Persons Association of the Philippines (COPAP) have been campaigning for the introduction of social pensions. The campaigns led to the expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2010. The pension is expected to cover 1.2 million older people, estimated to be slightly less than 20% of the older population.
    Following on from Matt Davies’ post, you may be interested to see a summary of the UN Independent Expert on Human Rights’ latest report here:
    You can also watch a video where she explains why social pensions are critical to human rights: