Beware of the Crocodile: Quantitative Evidence on How Universal Old Age Grants Distort the Social Assistance Systems of Low‐Income Countries

Bernd Schubert

Poverty & Public Policy, 2020, vol. 12, issue 2, 188-205

Abstract: This article compares two approaches to establishing or improving social assistance systems in low‐ and lower‐middle‐income countries. Taking Eswatini and Lesotho as examples of the mainstream approach, it provides quantitative evidence on the social protection outcomes of social assistance systems that are based on categorical programs and are dominated by universal Old Age Grants. Both countries fail to provide social assistance to large sections of the poorest and most vulnerable households. An alternative approach has been pursued in Malawi and in a number of other African countries like Zimbabwe and Ethiopia. Malawi's social support system adopts a systemic, need‐oriented, and inclusive approach with means‐tested programs tailored to the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable households. Such an approach does not focus on a single program but considers an ensemble of programs, which together ensure that the most pressing social needs are covered. This approach gives a fuller meaning to the human rights requisites of universalism by requiring that the overall arrangement of social protection in a country be universalistic, not just a single program. The comparison leads to conclusions with regard to how low‐income and lower‐middle‐income countries should design or redesign their social assistance systems. The design process should start with a quantitative poverty and vulnerability assessment, leading to a detailed identification of the social assistance needs of different categories of poor and vulnerable households. The design should further be based on an assessment of to what extent the identified social assistance needs are covered by existing programs. The comparison of social assistance needs with the coverage of those needs by existing programs leads to the identification of social protection gaps. The results of the gap analysis provide the base for social assistance policy decisions and priority setting. When planning how best to close the prioritized social assistance gaps within the financial space available, different program options have to be assessed with regard to their impact on the performance of the social assistance system as a whole. The guiding principle should be to harmonize the system in such a way that the combined outcome of system components (programs) achieves a maximal welfare impact. This means shifting from “program universalism” to “systemic universalism,” to ensure that social assistance systems cover all citizens in need while giving priority to cover the neediest. 本文比较了两个建立或提升低收入及中低收入国家社会援助系统的方法。以斯威士兰和莱索托作为此主流方法的研究案例, 本文就基于不同分类计划、由全民老年补贴支配的社会援助系统的社会保护结果提供了定量证明。两国都未能对大部分最贫困、最脆弱的家庭提供社会援助。马拉维和一系列其他非洲国家、例如津巴布韦和埃塞俄比亚等国使用一项替代性方法。马拉维的社会支持系统采用一个系统的、以需求为导向的包容性社会支持方法, 包括按收入调查进行支付的计划, 适用于最贫困且脆弱的家庭的需求。这类方法不聚焦于单一计划, 而是将所有计划作为整体考量, 因此确保覆盖最迫切的社会需求。此法通过要求一个国家的整体社会保护安排具备普遍适用性, 而不是单个计划, 因此为以普世主义为要素的人权赋予更完整的意义。 Este documento compara dos enfoques para establecer o mejorar los sistemas de asistencia social en países de ingresos bajos y medios bajos. Tomando a Eswatini y Lesotho como ejemplos del enfoque general, proporciona evidencia cuantitativa sobre los resultados de protección social de los sistemas de asistencia social que se basan en programas categóricos y están dominados por las Subvenciones de Vejez universales. Ambos países no brindan asistencia social a grandes sectores de los hogares más pobres y vulnerables. Se ha seguido un enfoque alternativo en Malawi y en otros países africanos como Zimbabwe y Etiopía. El Sistema de Apoyo Social de Malawi adopta un enfoque de asistencia social sistémico, orientado a las necesidades e inclusivo con programas probados según los medios adaptados a las necesidades de los hogares más pobres y vulnerables. Dicho enfoque no se centra en un solo programa, sino que considera un conjunto de programas, que en conjunto aseguran que se cubran las necesidades sociales más apremiantes. Este enfoque da un significado más completo a los requisitos de universalismo en materia de derechos humanos al exigir que la disposición general de la protección social en un país sea universalista, no solo un programa único.

Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1002/pop4.281

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wly:povpop:v:12:y:2020:i:2:p:188-205

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Poverty & Public Policy from John Wiley & Sons
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().