From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThis article is about the general concept of social wellbeing and systems that ensure this. For specific systems named "Social Security" and other uses, see Social Security.

The promotional U.S. Social Security card distributed as an example card in wallets distributed by the F.W. Woolworth Company

Social security is a concept enshrined in Article 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states, Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation 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. In simple terms, the signatories agree that society in which a person lives should help them to develop and to make the most of all the advantages (culture, work, social welfare) which are offered to them in the country.[1]

Social security may also refer to the action programs of government intended to promote the welfare of the population through assistance measures guaranteeing access to sufficient resources for food and shelter and to promote health and well-being for the population at large and potentially vulnerable segments such as children, the elderly, the sick and the unemployed. Services providing social security are often called social services.

Terminology in this area in the United States is somewhat different to that in the rest of the English-speaking world. The general term for an action program in support of the well being of the population in the United States is welfare program and the general term for all such programs is simply welfare. In American society, the term welfare arguably has negative connotations. The term Social Security, in the United States, refers to a specific social insurance program for the retired and the disabled. Elsewhere the term is used in a much broader sense, referring to the economic security society offers when people are faced with certain risks. In its 1952 Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention (nr. 102), the International Labour Organization defined the traditional contingencies covered by social security as follows:

Survival beyond a prescribed age, to be covered by old age pensions; The loss of support suffered by a widow or child as the result of the death of the

breadwinner (survivor’s benefit); Responsibility for the maintenance of children (family benefit); The treatment of any morbid condition (including pregnancy), whatever its cause

(medical care); A suspension of earnings due to pregnancy and confinement and their consequences

(maternity benefit);

A suspension of earnings due to an inability to obtain suitable employment for protected persons who are capable of, and available for, work (unemployment benefit);

A suspension of earnings due to an incapacity for work resulting from a morbid condition (sickness leave benefit);

A permanent or persistent inability to engage in any gainful activity (disability benefit); The costs and losses involved in medical care, sickness leave, invalidity and death of the

breadwinner due to an occupational accident or disease (employment injuries).

People who cannot reach a guaranteed social minimum for other reasons may be eligible for social assistance (or welfare, in American English).

Modern authors often consider the ILO approach too narrow. In their view social security is not limited to the provision of cash transfers, but also aims at security of work, health, and social participation; and new social risks (single parenthood, the reconciliation of work and family life) should be included in the list as well. [2]

Social security may refer to:

social insurance , where people receive benefits or services in recognition of contributions to an insurance program. These services typically include provision for retirement pensions, disability insurance, survivor benefits and unemployment insurance.

services provided by government or designated agencies responsible for social security provision. In different countries, that may include medical care, financial support during unemployment, sickness, or retirement, health and safety at work, aspects of social work and even industrial relations.

basic security irrespective of participation in specific insurance programs where eligibility may otherwise be an issue. For instance assistance given to newly arrived refugees for basic necessities such as food, clothing, housing, education, money, and medical care.

Contents

1 History 2 Income maintenance 3 Social protection 4 National and regional systems 5 See also 6 References 7 Further reading 8 External links

History

While several of the provisions to which the concept refers have a long history (especially in poor relief), the notion of ‘social security’ itself is a fairly recent one. The earliest examples of

use of the term date from the 19th century. In a speech to mark the independence of Venezuela, Simón Bolívar (1819) pronounced that: “El sistema de gobierno más perfecto es aquel que produce mayor suma de felicidad posible, mayor suma de seguridad social y mayor suma de estabilidad política”.[3]

In the Roman Empire, social welfare to help the poor was enlarged by the Emperor Trajan.[4]

Trajan's program brought acclaim from many, including Pliny the Younger.[5]

In Jewish tradition, charity (represented by tzedakah) is a matter of religious obligation rather than benevolence. Contemporary charity is regarded as a continuation of the Biblical Maaser Ani, or poor-tithe, as well as Biblical practices, such as permitting the poor to glean the corners of a field and harvest during the Shmita (Sabbatical year). Voluntary charity, along with prayer and repentance, is befriended to ameliorate the consequences of bad acts.

Distributing alms to the poor, abbey of Port-Royal des Champs c. 1710

The Song dynasty (c.1000AD) government supported multiple forms of social assistance programs, including the establishment of retirement homes, public clinics, and pauper's graveyards [6]

According to Robert Henry Nelson, "The medieval Roman Catholic Church operated a far-reaching and comprehensive welfare system for the poor..."[7][8]

The concepts of welfare and pension were put into practice in the early Islamic law [9] [not in citation given]

of the Caliphate as forms of Zakat (charity), one of the Five Pillars of Islam, since the time of the Rashidun caliph Umar in the 7th century. The taxes (including Zakat and Jizya) collected in the treasury of an Islamic government were used to provide income for the needy, including the poor, elderly, orphans, widows, and the disabled. According to the Islamic jurist Al-Ghazali (Algazel, 1058–1111), the government was also expected to store up food supplies in every region in case a disaster or famine occurred.[9][10] (See Bayt al-mal for further information.)

There is relatively little statistical data on transfer payments before the High Middle Ages. In the medieval period and until the Industrial Revolution, the function of welfare payments in Europe was principally achieved through private giving or charity. In those early times, there was a much broader group considered to be in poverty as compared to the 21st century.

Early welfare programs in Europe included the English Poor Law of 1601, which gave parishes the responsibility for providing poverty relief assistance to the poor.[11] This system was substantially modified by the 19th-century Poor Law Amendment Act, which introduced the system of workhouses.

It was predominantly in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that an organized system of state welfare provision was introduced in many countries. Otto von Bismarck, Chancellor of Germany, introduced one of the first welfare systems for the working classes in 1883. In Great Britain the Liberal government of Henry Campbell-Bannerman and David Lloyd George

introduced the National Insurance system in 1911,[12] a system later expanded by Clement Attlee. The United States did not have an organized welfare system until the Great Depression, when emergency relief measures were introduced under President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Even then, Roosevelt's New Deal focused predominantly on a program of providing work and stimulating the economy through public spending on projects, rather than on cash payment.

Income maintenance

Main article: Unemployment benefits

This policy is usually applied through various programs designed to provide a population with income at times when they are unable to care for themselves. Income maintenance is based in a combination of five main types of program:

Social insurance, considered above Means-tested benefits, financial assistance provided for those who are unable to cover

basic needs, such as food, clothing and housing, due to poverty or lack of income because of unemployment, sickness, disability, or caring for children. While assistance is often in the form of financial payments, those eligible for social welfare can usually access health and educational services free of charge. The amount of support is enough to cover basic needs and eligibility is often subject to a comprehensive and complex assessment of an applicant's social and financial situation. See also Income Support.

Non-contributory benefits. Several countries have special schemes, administered with no requirement for contributions and no means test, for people in certain categories of need: for example, veterans of armed forces, people with disabilities and very old people.

Discretionary benefits. Some schemes are based on the discretion of an official, such as a social worker.

Universal or categorical benefits, also known as demogrants. These are non-contributory benefits given for whole sections of the population without a means test, such as family allowances or the public pension in New Zealand (known as New Zealand Superannuation). See also, Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend.

Social protection

Social protection refers to a set of benefits available (or not available) from the state, market, civil society and households, or through a combination of these agencies, to the individual/households to reduce multi-dimensional deprivation. This multi-dimensional deprivation could be affecting less active poor persons (such as the elderly or the disabled) and active poor persons (such as the unemployed).

This broad framework makes this concept more acceptable in developing countries than the concept of social security. Social security is more applicable in the conditions, where large numbers of citizens depend on the formal economy for their livelihood. Through a defined contribution, this social security may be managed.

But, in the context of wide spread informal economy, formal social security arrangements are almost absent for the vast majority of the working population. Besides, in developing countries, the state's capacity to reach the vast majority of the poor people may be limited because of its limited resources. In such a context, multiple agencies that could provide for social protection is important for policy consideration. The framework of social protection is thus capable of holding the state responsible to provide for the poorest sections by regulating non-state agencies.

Collaborative research from the Institute of Development Studies debating Social Protection from a global perspective, suggests that advocates for social protection fall into two broad categories: 'instrumentalists' and 'activists'. 'Instrumentalists' argue that extreme poverty, inequality and vulnerability, is dysfunctional in the achievement of development targets (such as the MDGs). In this view social protection is about putting in place risk management mechanisms that will compensate for incomplete or missing insurance (and other) markets, until a time that private insurance can play a more prominent role in that society. 'Activist' arguments view the persistence of extreme poverty, inequality and vulnerability, as symptoms of social injustice and structural inequality and see social protection as a right of citizenship. Targeted welfare is a necessary step between humanitarianism and the ideal of a 'guaranteed social minimum' where entitlement extends beyond cash or food transfers and is based on citizenship, not philanthropy

Social protectionFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Social protection, as defined by the United Nations Research Institute For Social Development, is concerned with preventing, managing, and overcoming situations that adversely affect people’s well being.[1] Social protection consists of policies and programs designed to reduce poverty and vulnerability by promoting efficient labour markets, diminishing people's exposure to risks, and enhancing their capacity to manage economic and social risks, such as unemployment, exclusion, sickness, disability and old age.[2]

Most common types of social protection:

Labor market interventions are policies and programs designed to promote employment, the efficient operation of labor markets and the protection of workers.

Social Insurance mitigates risks associated with unemployment, ill health, disability, work-related injury and old age, such as health insurance or unemployment insurance.

Social Assistance is when resources, either cash or in-kind, are transferred to vulnerable individuals or households with no other means of adequate support, including single parents, the homeless, or the physically or mentally challenged.

Contents

1 History of social protection 2 Types of social protection

o 2.1 Labor market Interventions o 2.2 Social insurance

o 2.3 Social assistance 3 Policy issues

o 3.1 Universalism vs. Targeting o 3.2 Targeting income vs. capabilities o 3.3 Means of provision

4 National programs o 4.1 Developmentalism o 4.2 Dualism o 4.3 Agrarian-Informal

5 Donor approaches 6 References 7 External links

History of social protection

Traditionally, social protection has been used in the European welfare state and other parts of the developed world to maintain a certain living standard, and address transient poverty.[3] One of the first examples of state-provided social protection can be tracked to the Roman Emperor Trajan, who expanded a program for free grain to include more poor citizens of the empire. In addition, he instituted public funds to support poor children.[4] Organized welfare was not common until the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It was during this period that in both Germany and Great Britain, welfare systems were established to target the working classes (see National Insurance).[5] The United States followed several years later, during the Great Depression, with emergency relief for those struck the hardest. However, modern social protection has grown to envelop a much broader range of issues and purposes; it is now being used as a policy approach in developing nations, to address issues of persistent poverty and target structural causes. Moreover, it is designed to lift recipients out of poverty, rather than exclusively providing passive protection against contingencies .[6]

Types of social protection

Labor market Interventions

Labor market interventions, consisting of both active and passive policies, provide protection for the poor who are capable of gaining employment. Passive programs, such as unemployment insurance, income support and changes in labor legislation, allieviate the financial needs of the unemployed but are not designed to improve their employability.[7]

On the other hand, active programs focus on directly increasing the access of unemployed workers.[8] Active labour market policies (ALMPs) are used to reduce the risk of unemployment and to increase the earnings capacity of workers. ALMPs have two basic objectives: (1) economic, by increasing the ability of the unemployed to find jobs, and increase productivity and earnings; and (2) social, by improving the inclusion and participation of productive employment. These programs have the ability to increase employment opportunities and address the social problems that often accompany high unemployment. Active policies are a way of reversing the

negative effects of industrial restructuring in transition economies and to help integrate vulnerable people furthest from the labor markets.[9] ALMPs are often targeted to the long-term unemployed, workers in poor families, and particular groups with labor market disadvantages. These programs have important social, as well as economic, objectives. Active labor market programs include a wide range of activities to stimulate employment and productivity such as:

Employment services. These services include counseling, placement assistance, job matching, labor exchanges, and other related services to improve the functioning of the labor market.

Job Training. This includes training/retraining for the unemployed, workers in mass layoffs and youth to increase the quantity of work supply.

Direct employment generation The promotion of small and medium enterprises (e.g., public works projects, subsides) to increase labor demand.[10]

A common issue in implementing successful labor market interventions is how to incorporate the informal economy, which comprises a significant portion of the workforce in developing countries.[11] Informal employment comprises between half and three quarters of non-agricultural employment in the majority of these countries. The proportion of informal employment increases when agriculture is taken into account.[12] Most informal workers are not covered by social security schemes, occupational safety and health measures, working conditions regulations and have limited access to health services and work-related measures of social protection. Labor market interventions work to integrate the different strategies to prevent and compensate occupational and social risks in the informal economy. The strategies that include measures to prevent and mitigate the impact of risks are the most effective.[13]

Social insuranceMain article: Social insurance

Social insurance schemes are contributory programs that protect beneficiaries from catastrophic expenses in exchange for regular payments of premiums. Health costs can be very high, so health insurance schemes are a popular way reducing risk in the event of shock. [14] However, an individual with low income may not be able to afford insurance. Some argue that insurance schemes should be complemented with social assistance. Community-based health insurance allows pooling in settings where institutional capacity is too weak to organize nationwide risk-pooling, especially in low-income countries, making insurance more affordable. In risk-sharing schemes, the insurance premium is unrelated to the likelihood that the beneficiary will fall ill and benefits are provided on the basis of need.[15]

Social assistance

Social assistance schemes comprise programs designed to help the most vulnerable individuals ( i.e., those with no other means of support such as single parent households, victims of natural disasters or civil conflict, handicapped people, or the destitute poor), households and communities to meet a Social floor and improve living standards. These programs consist of all forms of public action, government and non-government, that are designed to transfer resources, either cash or in-kind (e.g. food transfers), to eligible vulnerable and deprived persons. [16] Social assistance interventions may include:

Welfare and social services to highly vulnerable groups such as the physically or mentally disabled, orphans, or substance abusers.

Cash or in-kind transfers such as food stamps and family allowances. Temporary subsidies such as life-line tariffs, housing subsidies, or support of lower prices of

staple food in times of crisis.[17][18]

Policy issues

Universalism vs. Targeting

There are two main schools of thought concerning scope of social protection. Universalism argues that each person, by merit of simply being a citizen should be entitled to benefits from social protection programs. Such a policy would avoid means-testing and any conditionalities such as work requirements.[19] One of the greatest benefits to this policy perspective is social solidarity, since everyone contributes collaboratively to a system that everyone also benefits from. Social security is one such example. Moreover, economists have argued that universalism is an investment in human capital that aids the development of a nation as a whole. [20] Opponents would argue that universalism is cost-ineffective and unfairly distorts individual efforts. Such an argument points toward targeting as a better solution.[21] In such a case, the question arises of who should be the target population that receives benefits from social programs.

Targeting income vs. capabilities

Net income is the simplest method of determining a needy population. Some states use a Guaranteed Minimum Income system, in which all members of a state receive sufficient income to live on, so long as they meet certain conditions. [22] However, proponents of the capabilities approach argue that income is easier to misrepresent, and moreover, fails to target the root causal factors of poverty.[23] Hence, they recommend targeting a minimum level of basic capabilities that will impact quality of life, such as institutional improvements like health and education. Policy examples might include a social floor.[24]

Means of provision

Social protection is an expensive and difficult endeavor, by any means; the question remains how best to implement programs that effectively aid the people who need it the most. Currently, there are a number of mechanisms that provide social protection in various nations. These policies and instruments vary according to country context. In some nations, governments are strongly involved in the provision of social protection, following a developmentalism model, in which social protection is seen as a tool to promote economic growth. There are also nations which are characterized by dualism, in which there is state-provided protection for those who work in the formal sector, but little to no protection for those who work in the informal sector. Finally, there are nations in which the economy is largely agrarian, and a great majority of the population works in the informal economy. In those countries that have only residual social protection coverage and weak state capacity,social protection is mainly provided by non-governmental means such as kin, NGOs, and individual philanthropic donations.[25]

National programs

Developmentalism

In South Korea and Taiwan, the government provides extensive support for public programs, following the developmentalism model, in which social protection is seen as a tool to promote economic growth.[26]

Dualism

In Argentina, Brazil, and South Africa, there is a dualist structure of protected formal sector workers and marginalized informal sector workers.,[27][28]

Agrarian-Informal

In nations such as India and Tanzania, governments struggle to provide adequate social protection, and citizens must instead depend on non-state actors and informal provisioning.

Donor approaches

International donors and organizations have influenced social protection approaches both at the level of policy discourse and program design and implementation.[29] Even though The World Bank and International Labor Organization (ILO) are the major donors and the lead organizations in the field, other organizations are also concerned with social protection.[30]

The World Bank is a source of financial and technical assistance for developing countries. In order to identify social risks and potential responses, The World Bank developed a tool called “Social Risk Management” (SRM). The SRM framework includes interventions that focus on managing risks before shocks occur. It is based on two assessments: (1) the poor are most exposed to diverse risks, and (2) the poor have the fewest tools to deal with these risks. The main elements of the SRM framework are:

Risk reduction measures that focus on reducing risks in the labor market. Risk mitigation measures to deal with anticipated shock. Risk coping mechanisms to relieve the impact of risk after its occurred.[31]

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) brings 30 democratic countries together to seek answers to common problems and coordinate domestic and international policies. The Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the OECD is responsible for the Poverty Network (POVNET) that has become very influential on policy development. The DAC-POVNET focuses on the following areas:

Poverty reduction Pro-poor growth People centered development

Decent work [32]

The International Labor Organization, which covers both issues of social security and labor protection, has been the United Nations agency responsible for setting norms and standards at work. Currently the ILO focuses, amongst others, on the following strategies:

Extending social protection to all Promoting decent working conditions Providing programs for informal and migrant workers [33]

Social risk managementFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Social risk management (SRM) is a conceptual framework developed by the World Bank, specifically its Social Protection and Labor Sector, since the end 1990s. [1] The objective of SRM is to extend the traditional framework of social protection to include prevention, mitigation, and coping strategies to protect basic livelihoods and promote risk taking. SRM focuses specifically on the poor, who are the most vulnerable to risk and more likely to suffer in the face of economic shocks. Through its strategies SRM aims to reduce the vulnerability of the poor and encourage them to participate in riskier but higher-return activities in order to transition out of chronic poverty.

Contents

1 Motivations 2 Source of social risks 3 Strategies

o 3.1 Prevention strategies o 3.2 Mitigation strategies o 3.3 Coping strategies

4 Feasibility study: Togo 5 Criticisms 6 Future implications 7 References 8 See also

Motivations

Social Protection has been a part of OECD economies for a long time but it has not played much of a role in development work because the imitation of these measures in developing countries is criticized based on equity and efficiency trade-off arguments.[2] This view changed as a result of the following policy, conceptual and institutional triggers that led to the creation of SRM as a new Social Protection framework:

The East Asian economic crisis in 1997 revealed the volatility of high growth rates in the face of negative economic shocks.[3] Moreover, informal social safety net arrangements and public support programs were shown to be inadequate under those circumstances.[4]

Globalization has led to higher income variability, which together with marginalization and social exclusion leaves major groups like women and ethnic minorities highly vulnerable. Also, higher mobility of factors of production has reduced government ability to raise revenue, pursue independent economic policies, and to have national policies to help the poor when they need them the most.[1]

Fulfillment of World Bank’s mission to reduce poverty requires a deeper "understanding of the nature and characteristics of poverty" itself.[5] Research in this area exposed the long-term negative consequences of seemingly transitory shocks[6] and suggested the need for a preventative view of poverty based on vulnerability.

World Development Report 2000/01[7] presented social protection as a key element in attacking global poverty.

World Bank’s Social Protection and Labor Sector is one of its youngest units established in 1996.[8] Analysis of past experiences in this area for a future policy proposal in the sector’s strategy paper revealed the need for a new framework of social protection that shifted its focus from instruments to objectives[1]

Source of social risks

There are three important categories that aid in the classification of sources of risks:

1. Catastrophic vs. non-catastrophic shocks: Some events occur with low frequency, but have severe income effects like old-age, death in the family, and disabling accidents or illnesses, permanent unemployment, and the technological redundancy of skills. These catastrophic events can hit households hard and may require a continuing flow of transfers to the affected household if it cannot acquire sufficient assets. On the other end of the scale are high frequency events with non-severe income effects like transient illness, crop loss, and temporary unemployment. Protection against these non-catastrophic events need not require long-term net transfers to the afflicted household. If appropriate mechanisms are available, households may use savings or loans with no net transfers from others over time.

2. Idiosyncratic shocks vs. covariant shocks: Some sources lead to losses in only some households in a community like noncommunicative illness or frictional unemployment whereas others hit all households at the same time like drought, inflation or financial crisis. The former are known as idiosyncratic (or micro) shocks while the latter are referred to as covariant (or macro) shocks. Many more mechanisms are available for coping with idiosyncratic shocks than covariant shocks. The latter can be particularly devastating, leaving households with nowhere in the community to turn for relief. For poor and isolated households even idiosyncratic shocks might be difficult to cope with.

3. Single vs. Repeated shocks: A third distinction concerns shocks following one another like drought followed by sickness and death versus shocks that occur as single events. The former are known as repeated shocks and are typically difficult to handle through informal means.[9]

The following table lists social risks and their degree of variance varying from idiosyncratic (micro), regional covariant (meso), to nation-wide covariant (macro).

Main Sources of Risks (adapted from Holzmann and Jorgensen, 2000)[10]

Micro(idiosyncratic)

Meso<-------->

Macro(covariate)

Natural RainfallLandslidesVolcanic eruption

EarthquakesFloodsDroughtTornadoesAsteroid impacts

Health IllnessInjuryDisabilityFood poisoning

PandemicsFood poisoning

Pandemics

Life-cycle BirthOld ageDeath

Social CrimesDomestic violencesDrug addiction

TerrorismGangs

Civil strifeWarSocial upheavalDrug addictionChild abuses

Economic UnemploymentHarvest failure

UnemploymentHarvest failureResettlement

Blue chip company collapsingFinancial or currency crisisMarket trading shocks

Administrative & Political

Ethnic discrimination

Ethnic conflictRiotsChemical & biological mass destructionAdministrative induced accidents & disasters

Political induced malfunctionon social programsCoup

Environmental PollutionDeforestationNuclear disastersSoil salinitiesAcid rains

Global warming

Strategies

Risk management strategies fall in three broad categories.:

Prevention strategies

These are introduced before a risk occurs to reduce the probability of a down-side risk. Reducing the probability of an adverse risk increases people’s expected income and reduces income variance. Both effects increase welfare. Strategies to prevent or reduce the occurrence of income risks have a very broad range varying from small-scale informal arrangements to national economic policies. Examples include:

Avoiding risky crop production Migration when current residence region is exposed to high vulnerability Engaging in hygiene and other disease prevention activities Skill training to reduce the risk of unemployment and underemployment Increasing financial market literacy Optimizing macroeconomic policies to reduce the shocks of financial crisis, such as oil price

surges or unpredictable market moves on currencies, indices and blue chip stocks. Improving labor standards to meet international standards including child labor reduction

interventions Putting disability policies in place to prevent further disadvantaging the disabled population Prevention of pandemic illnesses by implementing vaccination and educational public health

programs Establishing community-based insurance schemes to compensate pensioners Building nursing homes for the elderly and setting up public housing for the homeless and

orphans.[1][9]

Mitigation strategies

Mitigation strategies are also employed before the risk occurs to decrease the potential impact of a future down-side risk. Whereas preventive strategies reduce the probability of the risk occurring, mitigation strategies reduce the potential impact if the risk were to occur. Risk mitigation can take several forms:

Portfolio diversification to reduce the variability of income by relying on a variety of assets that are not correlated strongly enough to have the same returns.

Formal as well as informal insurance policies. While formal insurance benefits from a large pool of participants, informal insurance has the advantage of low information asymmetry. The characteristics of formal insurance are straightforward while informal insurance arrangements are more difficult to describe as they come in different and often disguised forms.

Hedging losses using financial instruments like stocks, exchange-traded funds, insurance, forward contracts, swaps, options, many types of over-the-counter and derivative products, and futures contracts.

Microfinance Pension systems Access to financial markets for the poor Community arrangements that allow for shared tenancy and small-scale pension plans Mandatory insurance for unemployment, old age, disability, sickness, etc.[1][9]

Coping strategies

Coping strategies are designed to relieve the impact of the risk once it has occurred. The government has an important role in assisting people in coping, for example, in the case where individual households have not saved enough to handle repeated or catastrophic risks. Individuals may have been poor for their entire lifetime with no possibility to accumulate assets at all, being rendered destitute by the smallest income loss and running the risk of being faced with irreversible damages. The main forms of coping consist of:

Individual borrowing from community members and banks Seasonal or temporary migration Selling labor including sending children to work Reduction of food intake Reliance on public, private and intra-community transfers. Dissaving of human capital Seasonal/temporary migration Selling of financial assets Disaster relief Social assistance in the form of asset and cash transfers Subsidies Public work projects Government relief fund or publicly raised money. Setting up unemployment benefit schemes.[1][9]

Feasibility study: Togo

In coordination with national governments of Togo [11] and Yemen,[12] World Bank conducted two feasibility studies of the social risk management framework.[13]

Within the Africa Region, Togo was selected as a pilot country to test this approach. The process of application was launched with a workshop in Lomé for key stakeholders from the government and civil society in November 1998. During the workshop, available data was analyzed to determine sources of risks, available arrangements of social protection and vulnerable groups in Togo.

Since Togo’s independence in 1960, the government has provided social security for the privileged minority working in the formal sector and social assistance to a few people or groups conventionally identified as vulnerable (widows, orphans, handicapped). This leaves 95% of the Togolese to rely mostly on informal arrangements through both internal arrangements, which are organized by the prospective beneficiaries and external arrangements, which are organized by agents generally not belonging to the community.

In order to improve social protection, the government rethought its social protection policy in the framework of SRM and the following prevention, mitigation and coping strategies were proposed:

Conducting information and education campaigns focused on key preventive measures, especially for health and environment.

Revising family laws and land tenure laws. Improving the collaboration between government and communities for better access to basic

social services. Supporting risk pooling and creative initiatives for economic shocks and chronic risks. Discouraging widowhood rituals, harmful traditional practices and conspicuous consumption. Filling the gaps of informal arrangements. Reforming social security in the formal sector. Discouraging the exploitation of child labor and trafficking. Organizing a more efficient mechanism to provide assistance for disaster relief [11]

Criticisms

There is a lack of empirical evidence of SRM’s practical application. Besides Yemen and Togo, SRM has not been experimentally studied within the development field. This raises skepticism regarding the framework’s feasibility in the arena of international development.

SRM is sometimes also viewed as a neo-liberal framework that limits the government’s role to coping strategies that spring into action only in the case of market failure.

Its aim to encourage riskier activities that reap higher returns has also come under fire in light of individual risk-taking behaviors that are determined by a multitude of factors and not just decreased risk vulnerability. Also, riskier behaviors not only hold the potential for higher returns but also for bigger losses making World Bank’s encouragement of such activities inappropriate.

Lack of risk monitoring and reviewing to maintain an updated inventory of contextually appropriate risks and strategies is another serious deficit of the SRM framework.[14]

Future implications

World Bank’s Social Protection and Labor Sector is under the process of formulating its Social Protection and Labor Strategy 2012 – 2022. Conceptual note for the strategy outlines four indicative strategic directions:

Expanding from improving individual programs to building social protection systems Strengthening the focus on low income and fragile states Emphasizing promotion of opportunities and livelihoods as a core element of the practice Continuing to build on core strengths in knowledge, innovation and results.

The upcoming Strategy is also aimed at dealing with SRM’s operational issues exhibited by lack of sufficient guidance to design and implement effective social protection systems.[15]