Transcript (15 mins) - Presentation by Prof. Jeremy Seekings

The Politics of Social Protection in Africa
Jeremy Seekings
(Research Programme on “Legislating and Implementing Welfare
Policy Reforms”, University of Cape Town)
Namibian Social Protection Conference, Windhoek, July 2015
The study of social protection
policy in Africa
Originally part of the field of ‘social work’
or ‘social development’ ( e.g. Midgley,
Kaseke)
Increasingly central to study of
‘development’ (e.g. Mkandawire, Bungura,
UNRISD)
Prospectively central to the study of the
state and citizenship
(NB J.Ferguson, Give a Man a Fish, 2015)
Research Programme on
“Legislating and
Implementing Welfare Policy
Reforms” (LIWPR)
(University of Cape Town)
1. (How) is Africa different?
The standard story: Africa is a ‘laggard’ in
terms of social protection
Africa has:
• the lowest expenditure (in relation to GDP) on either
pensions for the elderly or child benefits (ILO, World
SP Report 2014).
• The proportion of unemployed workers receiving
unemployment benefits is also lowest in Africa (ibid).
• 2.8 percent of GDP is spent on ‘social security’,
compared to a global average of 5.7 percent (World
Bank, The Cash Dividend, 2012).
• The lowest health ‘coverage’, in terms of the
proportion of the population affiliated to public
health system or private insurance schemes: 25% in
Africa, compared to 61% globally (ILO, 2014)
Where is Africa in the global/comparative
analysis of social protection / ‘welfare regimes’?
Missing!
Why do most studies treat Africa as a
laggard in terms of social protection,
rather than distinctive?
1. A narrow understanding of what counts as ‘social
protection’, i.e. a narrow range of programmes
2. Ignoring variation within Africa, especially cases with
greater social protection coverage (even using a
narrow understanding of social protection)
3. Insufficient focus on the distribution of benefits, i.e.
“who are the beneficiaries?”
What does the ‘welfare state’ do?
Public
education
Public
health
care
Income
maintenance
And, across much of the global North, public housing
What does the ‘welfare state’ do?
Public
education
Social
assistance
Public
health
care
Social
insurance
What does social protection do in Africa?
Social
assistance
Public
education
Public
employment
programmes
Public
health
care
Social
insurance
Policies to
help small
farmers
become
food secure
Emergency
food aid
Provident
funds etc
Provision
for
government
employees
Subsidised
benefits in
kind (e.g.
school feeding
programmes)
What does social protection do in Africa?
Social
assistance
Public
education
Emergency
food aid
Urban and rural poor
Public
employment
programmes
Public
health
care
Social
insurance
Formal sector workers
Policies to
help small
farmers
Peasants
Provident
funds etc
Provision
for
government
employees
Subsidised
benefits in
kind
What does social protection do in Africa?
Social
assistance
Public
education
Emergency
food aid
Urban and rural poor:
without land or with land
Subsidised
Public without
but
labour
Public
health
care
employment
programmes
Social
insurance
Formal
sector
benefits in
kind
workers: with employment
now, but what risk of no employment?
Policies to
help small
farmers
become
food secure
Provident
funds etc
Provision
for
government
employees
Peasants: with land, but risk of
drought , insufficient credit etc
What does social protection do?
Public
education
Social
assistance
Urban and rural poor
Africa in C21st
Public
employment
programmes
Public
health
care
Social
insurance
Formal
sector
Policies to
help small
farmers
become
food secure
Peasants
Emergency
food aid
Provident
funds etc
Subsidised
benefits in
kind
Latin America
workers
in C20th
Provision
for
government
employees
Africa in most of C20th
Historical development of welfare regimes in
Africa
• Mid C20th (late colonial and early post-colonial): Mostly ‘agrarian’
–
–
–
–
Priority = to assist peasant farmers
Drought → emergency relief
Contributory programmes for small numbers of formally-employed workers
Exceptionally (in cases of early deagrarianisation): social assistance
programmes (e.g. old-age pensions in RSA, Mauritius)
• Late C20th / early C21st: shift to pro-poor cash transfers
– ↑ deagrarianisation, ↓ kin support, AIDS
– (Re)democratisation: competitive elections, stronger civil society
– ↑ interest among donors and international agencies in cash transfers to
mitigate poverty / achieve MDGs / facilitate development / replace
emergency food aid / expand rights
– ↑ old-age pensions, child grants, disability grants (for ‘deserving’ poor) esp
in Southern Africa
– Donor-funded poverty-targeted pilot programmes
1
1.5
.5
-.5
0
Higher-spending postCommunist Central /
Higher-spending LatAm
East Europe
& Lower-spending C/E
Europe
-1
Spend more on social assistance
Africa
and
South
Asia
-1
0
1
social insurance as % of GDP in SD from mean
2
Spend more on social insurance
Africa vs Latin America: Social insurance
Mandatory employment injury coverage by GDP per
capita
Mandatory coverage (% of the labour force)
100
90
80
R² = 0.221
70
60
Africa
50
Latin America and the Caribbean
R² = 0.0643
40
Log. (Africa)
Log. (Latin America and the Caribbean)
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
GDP per capita (2013), PPP (International $), constant 2011 prices
60
Africa vs Latin America: Social assistance
Non-contributory pension coverage by GDP per
capita
Non-contributory pension coverage
100
R² = 0.3102
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
R² = 0.002
20
10
0
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
GDP per capita, PPP (International $), constant 2011 prices
Africa
Latin America and the Caribbean
Log. (Africa)
Linear (Latin America and the Caribbean)
1. (How) is Africa different?
• Emphasis in mid-C20th on agrarian programmes (for peasant
farmers) not social insurance (for workers in formal
employment)
• In exceptional cases: social assistance (for the urban and
rural poor)
• ↑ emergency relief
• In late C20th and esp C21st: expansion of social assistance
(including public employment programmes and cash
transfers)
But NB: there is considerable variation within Africa. Why?
2. Why is there variation within Africa?
• Donors and
international
organisations
• The state:
• Interdepartmental
relations
• Bureaucratic
power
• Champions
• Elite values and
ideology
• Political parties
• Electoral
competition
• Public opinion
Our LIWPR analytic model
Economic pressures
and constraints
Social change
Ideas and
models
State
capacity
(implementation)
Variation in Southern Africa
•
•
Coverage
of few
poor
people
•
•
State should intervene very little
Cash transfers only for very
narrowly-defined groups of
deserving poor;
workfare for working-age adults;
parsimonious benefits/wages
Coverage of most poor
people
•
•
Cash transfers / other
benefits for wider range
of poor people;
more generous
benefits/wages
•
•
•
•
•
•
Donors supported pilot cash transfer
programmes, but government opposed;
Govt said: poor people are lazy; state
intervention = bad
Coverage of most poor people through universal
old-age pensions and grants for OVCs, and public
employment programmes for working-age adults;
but very parsimonious;
Therefore reduces ultra-poverty, but not poverty;
Requires a strong state
More populist rhetoric, but not
much policy reform
•
•
•
•
•
Inherited programmes, and extended them massively
Coverage of most poor people through universal old-age
pensions and grants for all children, plus public
employment programmes for working-age adults;
Benefits = generous;
Reduces poverty
Requires a strong state
General lessons
Most donors prefer poverty-targeting, but
this excludes many poor people and
implementation causes political problems
General lessons
Most donors prefer poverty-targeting, but this
excludes many poor people and
implementation causes political problems
Most political elites in Africa are ambivalent
about providing too much to too many citizens
But this means that poverty persists
(and public employment programmes require
strong state capacity)
General lessons
Most donors prefer poverty-targeting, but this
excludes many poor people and
implementation causes political problems
Most political elites in Africa are ambivalent about
providing too much to too many citizens
•
•
But this means that poverty persists
(and public employment programmes require strong
state capacity)
•
•
•
Modest benefits (= ‘conservative’)
Covers all poor people (= ‘social
democratic’)
Popular
Not difficult to implement
No disincentives to work etc
2.Why is there variation in Africa?
Economic pressures and
constraints
Social change
How
committed
to ending
poverty?
How
accountable?
Ideas and
models
State
capacity
(implementation)
How much
capacity to
pay grants
(easier) or to
implement
PEPs (more
difficult)?
Thank you
Legislating and Implementing
Welfare Policy Reforms
(LIWPR)
University of Cape Town
[email protected]