87984 The State of Social Safety Nets 2014 The State of Social Safety Nets 2014 iii T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S Foreword v Acknowledgments vii Structure of the Report ix Abbreviations and Acronyms xi Executive Summary xiii Section 1: Coverage 1 1.1 Basic Definitions 1 1.2 Coverage Estimates 2 Section 2: Program Inventory 7 Section 3: Spending 15 Section 4: Policy, Institutions, and Administration 23 4.1 Policies and Strategies 23 4.2 Institutions 25 4.3 Administration 26 Section 5: Results and Evidence 31 5.1 Performance of Social Safety Net Programs 31 5.2 Evidence from Impact Evaluations 33 Annexes Annex 1: Countries Included in the Report 37 Annex 2: Program Inventory 41 Annex 3: Spending 55 Annex 4: Policies, Institutions, and Administration 61 Annex 5: ASPIRE Performance Indicators Based on Household Surveys 83 Annex 6: References 89 Endnotes 103 Boxes Box 1. Types of Social Safety Net Programs 3 Box 2. Top Five Safety Net Programs, by Scale (Millions of Individuals) 12 Box 3. Top Five Social Safety Net Programs, by Share of Population Covered (Percentage) 12 Box 4. Spending on Fuel Subsidies Is Often Higher Than on Social Safety Nets 19 Box 5. Institutions, Coordination, and Scalable Social Safety Nets: Lessons from Ethiopia and Mexico 26 Box 6. Social Registries as a Backbone for Program Integration: The Cadastro in Brazil 27 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Box 7. The Management Information System in Colombia, RUAF 29 Box 8. Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of Resilience and Equity Indicators Based on Household Surveys 32 Figures Figure 1: Social Safety Nets Are a Component of Social Protection Systems 1 Figure 2: Most People Living in Extreme Poverty Are Not Covered by Social Safety Nets, Especially in Lower-Middle-Income Countries (Millions) 2 Figure 3: Flagship Social Safety Net Programs Often Do Not Meet the Scale of the Poverty Challenge 4 Figure 4: Percent of Poorest Quintile Covered by Social Safety Nets, by Income and Region 5 Figure 5: Social Safety Nets Have Been on a Steady Rise 7 Figure 6: School Feeding Programs Are the Most Prevalent Type of Transfer 8 Figure 7: Almost Half of the Countries Have Four or Five Program Types 8 Figure 8: Number of Countries with at Least One Given Program Type, by Region 10 Figure 9: Percentage of Countries with a Cash or In-Kind Program, by Income Group 11 Figure 10: Percentage of Population Covered by Largest National Program, by Type 13 Figure 11: Spending on Social Safety Net in More than Half of the Countries Is Below the Global Average 16 Figure 12: External Financing Represents the Main Source of Safety Nets Funding in Some Countries 17 Figure 13: On Average Regions Spend More on Social Safety Net than on Fuel Subsidies 18 Figure 14: Variations in Social Safety Nets Spending Are Higher in Lower-Income Countries 19 Figure 15: Social Safety Net Spending Is Not Always Commensurate with Country Level of Income 20 Figure 16. Safety Net Spending Has Been Growing over the Last Decade in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and Latin America 21 Figure 17: Status in Social Protection Policies/Strategies as of 2013 (Percentage) 23 Figure 18: Number of Countries with Available Policy/Strategy (Cumulative), 2004–2013 24 Figure 19: The Average Size of Transfers Does Not Fill the Poverty Gap 31 Tables Table 1: Number of Countries with at Least One Given Program Type, by Region 9 Table 2: Number of Countries with at Least One Given Program Type, by Income Group 9 Table 3: Remittances Inflows Are Higher Than Social Safety Nets Spending in Low-Income Countries 17 Table 4: Social Protection Policy/Strategy Status as of 2013 (Number of Countries) 24 Table 5: Selected Examples of Social Registries, Latest Available Data 28 Table 6: Examples of Recent Impact Evaluations of Social Safety Net Programs, by Channels of Impact 34 v F O R E W O R D Over the last decade, developing and emerging countries have been rapidly building, improving and enhancing their social safety net programs and integrating them into broader social protection systems. Long prominent in mostly high-income and middle-income countries, social safety nets have gained relevance in lower income countries as well, boosted by south-south cooperation and learning and a strong foundation of rigorous and reliable evidence that shows their efficacy in a wide variety of contexts. For the World Bank Group, helping countries build and strengthen their social safety nets and social protection systems is a central part of our core strategy to help end extreme poverty and to promote shared prosperity. Accordingly, the World Bank’s 2012 Social Protection and Labor Strategy committed to helping countries build social protection systems, especially where the needs were the greatest. Globally, there is also a broad emphasis on the importance of social safety nets for development goals, as, for instance, reflected in the move to enshrine them in the post-2015 global development agenda. So what are social safety nets? They are programs comprising of non-contributory transfers in cash or in-kind, designed to provide regular and predictable support to poor and vulnerable people. Social safety nets, which are also known as “social assistance” or “social transfers,” are part of broader social protection systems that also include measures such as contributory insurance and various labor market policies. Social safety nets play a number of important roles. For example, they help alleviate poverty, food insecurity, and malnutrition; they contribute to reducing inequality and boosting shared prosperity; they support households in managing risks and cope with shocks; they help build human capital and connect people to job opportunities; and they are an important factor in shaping social contracts between states and citizens. This publication begins a series that will monitor and report on social safety nets in developing countries. This first report in the series provides key social safety nets statistics and explains trends using information from 146 countries, including detailed household survey data from 69 countries in the World Bank’s Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of Resilience and Equity (ASPIRE) database. This report reviews important policy and practical developments in social safety net programs and highlights emerging innovations. While the primary focus is on developing and emerging countries, it also includes some references to high-income settings. This report is designed for policymakers, analysts, and practitioners interested in both social safety nets in particular and social protection more widely. This series will give context and provide details to complement what is already available. For example, the International Labor Organization (ILO) produces an annual publication on extending social security in the world. Other organizations have published reports on specific social safety net interventions. For example, over the past five years the World Bank has published comprehensive publications on conditional cash transfers and public works, while the World Food Programme (WFP) recently launched a report on the state of school feeding worldwide. Furthermore, initiatives are underway to develop common inter-agency frameworks and protocols for assessing social protection systems, including the generation of relevant program and system-level data and information. What is still lacking is the global picture. How many people do social safety net programs reach in the developing world? How well are extreme poor people and countries covered? What are the main programs available? What types of programs are more prevalent in a given context? The first edition of The State of Social Safety Nets series will review the current state of social safety nets and to what extent countries are using them to alleviate poverty and build shared prosperity. vi FOREWORD In line with the spirit of the initiative, future issues of State of Social Safety Nets will monitor and update data and trends, providing ongoing snapshots of the latest available information. Even as you read this report, there are likely to be exciting new developments as different countries roll out, expand, and refine their social safety nets and integrate them into social protection systems. At the same time, new and updated data—both from surveys and from administrative data—are becoming increasingly available for new variables, new time periods, and even new countries. Future installments of the series will thus seek to stay current with the latest innovations, carefully tracking and reporting on developments around the world as they relate to the ever-expanding, and ever-changing landscape of social safety nets. Arup Banerji Director, Social Protection and Labor The World Bank vii A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S This report was prepared by a team of authors comprising Ugo Gentilini, Maddalena Honorati, and Ruslan Yemtsov. The authors are with the Social Protection and Labor Global Practice of the World Bank and worked under the guidance of Arup Banerji (Director of the Social Protection and Labor Global Practice) and Anush Bezhanyan (Practice Manager). Excellent research assistance was provided by Ana Veronica Lopez, Dahye Seo, Marina Novikova and Gabriela Cunha. Precious comments were received from Jehan Arulpragasam, Margaret Grosh, and Cem Mete. Insightful feedback and advice were provided by Hideki Mori, Robert Palacios, Phillippe Leite, Lucian Pop, Ihsan Ajwad, Tomas Damerau, Abla Safir, and Frieda Vandeninden. The team is grateful to the extended cross-regional Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of Resilience and Equity team for contributing to the development of the Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of Resilience and Equity global database. Special thanks to Colin Andrews, Mirey Ovadyia, Claudia Rodriguez-Alas and Eric Zapatero for their inputs and suggestions. Raiden Dillard was key for the report’s design and layout. The editorial work was graciously offered by Aliza Marcus and the final formatting was conducted by Ngoc-Dung Thi Tran. For further information, please contact socialprotection@worldbank.org. ix S T R U C T U R E O F T H E R E P O R T The report is broken down into five sections: • Section One sets out preliminary estimates on the coverage of social safety nets—namely, how many people are reached by those programs, and where. • Section Two examines a range of program characteristics, such as the type of programs available and the scale of the major initiatives. • Section Three presents levels and patterns in social safety nets spending. • Section Four discusses findings from a stock-taking of key policy, institutional, and administrative developments. • Section Five offers an overview of evidence from selected performance indicators and recent impact evaluations. A set of six annexes on inventories, data, statistics, “newsfeeds” and resources complement and complete the report. Structure of the   report  Section 1. Coverage  Section 2. Inventory Section 3. Spending Section 4. Policies, Institution, and Administration Section 5. Results and Evidence  xi A B B R E V I A T I O N S A N D A C R O N Y M S AFR Africa region (Sub-Saharan) ASPIRE Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of Resilience and Equity CCT Conditional Cash Transfer CIT Conditional In-Kind Transfer EAP East Asia and Pacific region ECA Eastern Europe and Central Asia region HIC High-Income Country ILO International Labour Organization LAC Latin America and the Caribbean region LIC Low-Income Country LMIC Lower-Middle-Income Country MENA Middle East and North Africa region MIC Middle-Income Country PPP Purchasing Power Parity PSNP Productive Safety Net Program SA South Asia region UCT Unconditional Cash Transfer UIT Unconditional In-Kind Transfer UMIC Upper-Middle-Income Country WFP World Food Programme xiii E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y What Are Social Safety Nets? Social safety nets are non-contributory transfers designed to provide regular and predictable support to targeted poor and vulnerable people. These are also referred to as “social assistance” or “social transfers.” Social safety nets are part of broader social protection systems that may also include measures such as contributory insurance and various labor market policies. The report considered five types of social safety net programs, including conditional cash transfers, unconditional cash transfers, conditional in-kind transfers, unconditional in-kind transfers, and public works. General subsidies were not included in the review, while targeted and traceable waivers and subsidies were considered. The global scale of social safety nets can potentially cover almost all of the world’s extreme poor. Over 1 billion people in developing countries (or a fifth of the population) participate in at least one social safety net program. The estimate is based on a review of 475 programs in 146 countries. Therefore, the global scale of social safety nets is close to the number of people (1.2 billion) living on less than $1.25 per day. But the glass is only 1/3 full—most of the extreme poor are not covered by social safety nets. Only 345 million are covered by social safety nets, according to the most recent World Bank estimates. About 870 million people in extreme poverty remain uncovered. There are two primary reasons or this. First, there are still many countries (both low-income and middle-income) that do not have scaled-up social safety net programs. Second, many social safety nets may not specifically target the income-poor, but instead have objectives such as improving nutrition, protecting orphans, or providing old age security. One-third of social safety net beneficiaries live in countries where only 12 percent of the extreme poor live. Some 352 million people of those receiving social safety net transfers are in upper- middle-income countries (UMICs). These countries host only one in eight of the extreme poor worldwide. The poorest countries are worse-off in terms of covering the extreme poor. About 479 million extremely poor people in lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) lack social safety net support. In low-income countries (LICs), where 47 percent of the population is extremely poor, social safety nets cover less than 10 percent of the population (or only about one every five extremely poor people). To cover all the extremely poor, social safety nets need to expand and include an additional 300 million extremely poor people, hence at least doubling in size for these countries. Yet there has been an exponential growth in social safety nets, especially cash-based programs. The expansion of cash transfers is particularly evident in Sub-Saharan Africa. For example, back in 2010, 21 countries in the continent (or about half) had some form of unconditional cash transfer in place; by 2013, the number had almost doubled and social safety nets are now implemented in 37 African countries. Globally, the number of countries with conditional cash transfers increased from 27 in 2008 to 52 in 2013, while countries with public works expanded from 62 in 2011 to 85 countries in just two years. Now every country has at least one social safety net program in place. For instance, school feed- ing programs are present in 130 countries and are the most widespread type of social safety net. Unconditional cash transfers are also common and now are implemented in 118 countries globally. The five largest programs in the world account for almost half of global coverage. India’s National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, India’s School Feeding Program, China’s Di Bao, Brazil’s Bolsa Familia and Programa de Alimentacao Escolar have a combined reach of over 486 million people. The coverage of individual flagship programs shows significant variation, ranging from covering less xiv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY than 1 percent of the population in some countries to over 30 percent in Brazil, Ecuador, Sri Lanka, Mongolia, and St Lucia. Most countries have flagship programs that are targeted to help the poor. An average developing country covers an estimated 12 percent of its population with the largest social safety net flagship interventions. Some 57 countries have social safety net coverage commensurate with the scale of poverty as defined by countries themselves (i.e., measured by national poverty lines). For example in Guatemala, 54 percent of population is below the national poverty line, and programs cover 49 percent of the overall population. In such cases, the main policy challenge is to ensure that programs—though large enough—also include sufficient numbers of poor people. But in 50 other countries, program coverage is below the scale of the poverty challenge. For example, in Madagascar, 75 percent of the population is deemed poor, but only 1 percent is currently covered; in Burundi, 67 percent are below the national poverty line, and only 5 percent are reached by social safety nets. Aggregate spending of social safety nets rises as countries get richer, but still averages just 1.6 per- cent of GDP. The combined spending on social safety nets (excluding general price subsidies and including external financing) in 107 developing and emerging countries amounts to $337 billion. This is twice the amount needed to provide every person living in extreme poverty with an income of $1.25 a day. Richer countries spend more—1.9 percent of GDP on average—than lower income countries, who spend around 1.1 percent of GDP. Considerable cross country variation exists, mainly due to factors such a the relative size of internal versus external finance, the scale of programs, or the relative generosity of the benefits. A quarter of spending on social safety nets is for the poorest 20 percent of households, but generally it is insufficient to lift them out of poverty. The relatively low power of social safety net transfers in many countries, even when targeted to the neediest, is because of the modest size of transfers provided by social safety nets. On average, these transfers are just 23 percent of the poor household’s already low income or consumption. Remittances do not close the gap. The overall amount spent on social safety nets is less than the volume of remittance inflows to the same group of countries (around $370 billion in 2012, out of which only $28 billion flow to low-income countries). In upper-middle-income countries and high income countries, the share of households receiving remittances is higher in poorest quintiles. The pattern is reversed in low-income countries, where most of the recipients of remittances are in the richest quintile. Globally, less than 15 percent of the remittances reach the extreme poor. Many countries spend more on energy subsidies than on social safety nets. Energy subsidies, present in many countries, account for a substantial portion of their government spending. General price subsidies often represent the main form of social safety nets as in several countries in the Middle East and North Africa, which spend significantly more on fuel subsidies (i.e., over 4 percent of GDP on average) than on social safety nets programs (around 1 percent of GDP). Energy subsidies do benefit the entire population through reduced prices of energy for heating, transport, and lighting and through lower prices of energy-intense goods and services. But they mostly have an impact on the upper income groups in the population, who are more likely to be consuming electricity and fuels in larger quantities. External financing represents the main sources of social safety net funding in some lower income countries. Among a sample of 25 African countries, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Burkina Faso are the most dependent on external finance for social safety nets. Donor financing in these three countries is approximately 94, 85, and 62 percent of total spending respectively. In Ethiopia, the flagship Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) is almost entirely externally-financed. However, many low-income coun- tries are increasingly putting these programs “on-budget,” and social safety net spending in most middle-income countries are largely from domestic resources. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xv Countries are moving from ad-hoc social safety net interventions to more integrated and efficient social protection systems. The biggest shift in the nature of social safety net programs over the last half-decade is towards building better-integrated social protection systems that weave together the often disparate and fragmented social safety net programs, as well as those relating to social insurance and labor markets. As of 2013, a total of 67 countries have a social protection policy or strategy in place that outlines such systemic approaches, up from just 19 in 2009. At the same time, 10 countries have now introduced institutional bodies (such as dedicated steering committees and agencies) to coordinate social protection programs across sectors and ministries. Administrative innovations like unified registries are reducing program fragmentation. A key step in establishing common administrative systems includes the use of “social registries” containing infor- mation on potential social safety net beneficiaries. These are databases that can be used by multiple programs and institutions, thus helping reduce program fragmentation and avoiding duplication of efforts. For example, in Brazil, the Cadastro social registry includes data on about 27.3 million people and connects 10 programs. At least 23 developing countries now have a social registry at various degree of development, while 10 countries are planning to establish one. Robust evidence continues to mount on the impacts of social safety nets, although more research is needed. Over the past three years, a total of 53 new impact evaluations on social safety nets have been completed, many of which in Africa. These are cementing the robust evidence base of social safety nets on a vast range of dimensions, such as poverty, inequality, food security and nutrition, human capital, local economic multipliers, investments in productive activities, risk resilience, social cohesion, and others. Yet more research might be needed on the performance of alternative design and implementation options, on linking social safety nets to the ‘graduation’ agenda, and on adapting social safety nets to different contexts, particularly urban areas and fragile states. 1 S E C T I O N Coverage 1 1.1 Basic Definitions S ocial safety nets are non-contributory transfers designed to provide regular and predictable support to targeted poor and vulnerable people. These are also referred to as “social assistance” or “social transfers.” Social safety nets are a component of wider social protection systems. In general, social protection also includes contributory social insurance as well as active and passive labor market programs. It may also comprise a set of policies and programs that facilitate people’s access to social services in the context of education, health, nutrition, housing, and other sectors. Figure 1 positions social safety nets within this space and provides examples of programs that may or may not fall under the remit of social safety nets. Some of the types of social safety net programs illustrated in the figure are further described in the next section. Social safety nets programs have been examined according to three broad principles. First, the general focus is on social safety net transfers, as opposed to the broader set of measures that may form the social safety net universe. As such, the paper only examines universal or targeted non-contributory transfers, as well as targeted and traceable waivers and subsidies. In other words, general untargeted price subsidies were not considered.1 Second, the report included both key “modalities” in social safety nets, namely cash and in-kind transfers. Although vouchers or near-cash transfers have a number of commonalities with cash and in-kind modalities, vouchers were considered as part of a broader set of in-kind transfers (and so were targeted subsidies).2 Finally, in line with the empirical literature, the publication examined country portfolios according to three “classes” of interventions: conditional transfers, unconditional transfers,3 and public works.4 Box 1 defines the resulting five types of social safety net programs considered in the analysis. Based on such approach, the report identified 475 programs in 146 developing countries (out of the 155 countries surveyed).5 This forms the basis for the analysis in this section and Section 2 on “program inventory.” For each program, Annex 2 reports the number of beneficiaries and the program FIGURE 1 Social Safety Nets Are a Component of Social Protection Systems Social protection Outside social protection e.g., microcredit Social pensions, public works Social insurance and labor market policy Contributory schemes (pensions, work Social safety nets incidence protection etc.), labor market (or social assistance) Non-contributory transfers, fee waivers, etc. Social services Access to social services for education, health, nutrition Health insurance Unconditional transfers Outside social protection e.g., teacher training Conditional cash transfers, school feeding Source: Adapted from Gentilini and Omamo (2011) 2 CO COVERAGE VERA VE COVERAGE RAGE specific source of information. The analysis chiefly draws from Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of Resilience and Equity and is further complemented by databases from other international agencies, regional reviews, country assessments, and published materials. 1.2 Coverage Estimates More than 1 billion beneficiaries are currently covered by social safety nets. This is a conservative estimate since the report only includes the largest program in each type described in Box 1.6 Figure 2 represents coverage statistics for the world from the inventory of social safety net programs with a breakdown by income country groupings (see Annex 1 for definitions). It also compares the scale of social safety nets to the number of the extreme poor in the world (those living on less than $1.25 per day in purchasing power parity (PPP) in 2005 prices). The global scale of social safety nets can potentially cover almost all of the world’s extreme poor. The coverage of 1 billion people (or 1019 million) represents about one-fifth of the developing countries’ population. This number is close to the 1.2 billion people estimated to be living on less than $1.25 per day in 2010.7 In other words, the inventory of social safety nets shows that, globally, programs have a potential to reach the vast majority of the extremely poor. The glass is still only 1/3 full; most of the extreme poor are in fact not covered by social safety nets. The main objective of social safety nets is to provide the poor and vulnerable with support. Even though globally social safety nets are at the scale to cover most among 1.2 billion extreme poor, only 345 million extremely poor people are in fact covered by social safety nets (Figure 2).8 About 870 million people in extreme poverty remain uncovered. There are two primary reasons for this. First, there are still many countries (both low-income and middle-income) that do not have scaled-up social safety net programs. Second, many social safety nets may not specifically target the income-poor, but instead have other important objectives such as improving nutrition, protecting orphans, or providing old age security. Many social safety net beneficiaries live in countries hosting only a fraction of the extreme poor. In fact, every third beneficiary receiving social safety net transfers lives in upper-middle-income FIGURE 2 Most People Living in Extreme Poverty Are Not Covered by Social Safety Nets, Especially in Lower-Middle-Income Countries (Millions) 345 million 1 Billion extreme people 674 poor covered people by social covered safety by social nets safety 345 nets 1.2 Billion 315 extreme poor 173 people 870 79 99 278 479 299 74 93 Developing Low-Income Lower-Middle-Income Upper-Middle-Income World Countries Countries Countries Source: Poverty data are from the World Bank POVCALNET, program number of beneficiaries from Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of Resilience and Equity and different data sources (Annex 2), Population is from World Bank Development Indicators 2014. COVERAGE 3 BOX 1. Types of Social Safety Net Programs By combining different “modalities” and “classes” of transfers, a family of five types of social safety nets programs is generated, including conditional cash transfers, unconditional cash transfers, conditional in-kind transfers, unconditional in-kind transfers, and public works. Cash Unconditional Cash Transfers Conditional Cash Transfers Public Works In-Kind Unconditional In-Kind Transfers Conditional In-Kind transfers Unconditional Conditional Public Works Conditional cash transfers (CCTs) provide cash to participants upon their fulfillment of a set of conditions or co-responsibilities. Examples include programs that combine one or more conditions such as ensuring a minimum level of school attendance by children, undertaking regular visits to health facilities, or attending skills training programs; conditional cash transfers also include school stipend programs. For example, Mexico’s Oportunidades program falls under this category. Unconditional cash transfers (UCTs) include the provision of cash without particular co-responsibilities. Examples embrace various cash transfer programs targeted to particular categories of people, such as the elderly (also known as “social pensions”) or orphan children. The Hunger Safety Net Program in Kenya represents an example of such social safety net type. Conditional in-kind transfers (CITs) involve, similarly to conditional cash transfers, forms of compliance such as ensuring a certain level of monthly school attendance. In this case, however, the form of transfer is in-kind. Typical examples of conditional in-kind transfers are school feeding programs that provide on-site meals to children in schools. Sometimes, these programs also envision “take-home” food rations for children’s families. An example includes Brazil’s Programa Nacional de Alimentacao Escola. Unconditional in-kind transfers (UITs) envision the distribution of food, vouchers, or other in-kind transfers without any form of conditionality or co-responsibility. Examples may include the provision of fortified food supplements for malnourished pregnant women and children. The Public Food Distribution System in Bangladesh is an example of unconditional in-kind transfers. Public works programs (PWs) engage participants in manual, labor-oriented activities such as building or rehabilitating community assets and public infrastructure. Examples include seasonal labor-intensive works for poor and food insecure populations. Public works implemented under the Productive Safety Net Program in Ethiopia illustrate such type. Source: Adapted from World Bank (2012b) and Grosh et al. (2008). countries, which host hardly more than 10 percent of the extreme poor globally. At the same time, the poorest countries are worst-off in terms of covering the extreme poor. About 479 million extremely poor people in lower-middle-income countries lack social safety net support. In low-income countries, where 47 percent of the population is extremely poor, social safety nets cover less than 10 percent of the population (or only one of every four extreme poor persons). To cover them, social safety nets need to expand and include additional 299 million extreme poor people, hence at least doubling in size for these countries. Most countries have flagship programs that are targeted to help the poor. An average developing country covers an estimated 12 percent of its population with the largest flagship interventions. Some 57 countries have social safety net coverage commensurate with the scale of poverty in the country (as measured by national poverty lines). Figure 3 shows combined coverage by the largest social safety net programs in countries versus national poverty headcounts. The shaded area on the graph represents countries where social safety nets are at scale comparable to national poverty rates. 4 COVERAGE For example in Guatemala, 54 percent of population is below national poverty line, and programs cover 49 percent of the overall population. In such cases, the main policy challenge is to ensure that programs—although they may be very large already—also include sufficient numbers of poor people. In some countries, combined social safety net coverage exceeds the number of the poor; for example, in the Dominican Republic, 60 percent of population is covered by social safety nets, versus a poverty rate of about 40 percent (area on Figure 3, above the shaded region). In such cases, issues of coordination among social safety nets are at the forefront for achieving effective protection of the poor. In 50 other countries, program coverage is below the scale of the poverty challenge (Figure 3, the area below the shaded part). For example, in Madagascar, 75 percent of the population is deemed poor, but only 1 percent is currently covered; in Burundi, 67 percent are below the national poverty line, and only 5 percent are covered. These are countries where scaling up of existing social safety net programs or launching new flagship programs is the main policy challenge. Similar findings emerge by examining survey data from 69 countries included in Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of Resilience and Equity. Countries with the highest coverage of the poorest 20 percent of the population are Chile, Ecuador, Mongolia, Peru, Thailand, and Uruguay, where over 80 percent of the poor (or the bottom quintile) are covered by social safety net transfers. Some large developing countries achieve high coverage too: for example, Indonesia covers 65 percent of the poor, Mexico 55 percent, and Brazil 53 percent. FIGURE 3 Flagship Social Safety Net Programs Often Do Not Meet the Scale of the Poverty Challenge 0 70 . Lucia St.Lucia St. minican Rep. Dom Dominican e 0 60 c Ecuador Brazil Percent population covered by flagship SSNs, % 0 50 0 40 Swaziland 0 30 Haiti Uruguay 0 20 0 10 Burundi 0 Madagasca Madagascar 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Percent population below national poverty line, % Source: Poverty data are from POVCALNET, program number of beneficiaries from Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of Resilience and Equity and different data sources (Annex 2), Population is from World Bank Development Indicators 2014. COVERAGE 5 Coverage is low in the poorest countries where the needs are greatest. Overall, across all low-income countries, less than 30 percent of the poor are covered (Figure 4). The region with highest coverage rate is Latin America and Caribbean (53 percent), followed by Europe and Central Asia (50 percent). In Africa and South Asia, social safety nets cover only a quarter of the poorest quintile. Large gaps in coverage by social safety nets in poorest countries are not compensated by private or informal forms of solidarity and assistance. Data from Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of Resilience and Equity includes the percentage of households (in different income quintiles) receiving private transfers or remittances.9 In upper middle income and high income countries, households in the poorest quintiles receive on average higher remittances compared to the richest quintile. The pattern is reversed in lower income countries, where the poor are not well covered by social safety nets and most of the remittances recipients are in the richest quintile. Globally, less than 15 percent of the remittances reach the extreme poor. FIGURE 4 Percent of Poorest Quintile Covered by Social Safety Nets, by Income and Region 60 60 Percent of Poorest Quintile Percent of Poorest Quintile 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 Lower-Income Lower-Middle- Upper-Middle- High-Income Africa South Middle East East Asia Eastern Latin America Country Income Country Income Country Country Asia and North and Pacific Europe and and the Africa Central Asia Caribbean Note: Data from Iraq 2006 survey are excluded from calculations of regional and income group averages. Source: Authors calculations based on Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of Resilience and Equity indicators based on household surveys (Annex 5). 7 S E C T I O N Program Inventory 2 T his section presents more detailed findings on the nature of the Unconditional cash transfers (Africa) social safety net programs included in the inventory. Programs 40 37 are generally described using the taxonomy previously presented in Box 1 and draws from the same inventory of 465 programs presented 35 in Annex 2. 30 Number of countries There has been an exponential growth in social safety nets, especially 25 21 cash-based programs. The expansion of cash transfers is particularly 20 evident in Sub-Saharan Africa. For example, in 2010, 21 countries in 15 the continent (or about half) had some form of unconditional cash transfers in place; by 2013, the number had almost doubled and social 10 safety nets are now implemented in 37 African countries. Globally, the 5 number of countries with conditional cash transfers increased from 27 0 in 2008 to 52 in 2013, while countries with public works expanded from 2010 (Garcia & Moore) 2013 62 in 2011 to 84 countries in just two years (Figure 5). Conditional cash transfers in the world Now every country has at least one social safety net program in place. 60 School feeding programs are the most prevalent type of program and 52 Number of countries are present in 130 countries. Unconditional cash transfer programs are 50 in place in at least 119 countries. In more than one third of the cases, 40 or 42 countries, the cash transfers are in the form of social pensions. Conversely, conditional cash transfers are present in less than one-third 30 27 (52 countries) of the sample (Figure 6). 20 10 0 2008 (Fiszbein & Schady) 2013 Public works in the world 90 84 80 70 Number of countries 62 60 50 40 30 FIGURE 5 Social Safety Nets Have Been on a Steady Rise 20 Source: authors’ calculations for 2013 based on data in Annex 2. For unconditional cash 10 transfers in 2010 see Garcia and Moore (2011), while 2008 data for conditional cash transfers are from Fiszbein and Schady (2009). For public works up to 2011, the number 0 refers to countries as reported in Subbarao et al. (2013). 2011 (Subbarao et al.) 2013 8 PROGRAM INVENTORY FIGURE 6 School Feeding Programs Are the Most Prevalent Type of Transfer 140 130 119 120 100 89 Number of countries 85 80 60 52 40 20 0 Conditional Conditional cash Unconditional Unconditional Public works inkind transfers transfers inkind transfers cash transfers Source: Authors’ calculations based on Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of Resilience and Equity and other sources (Annex 2). Almost half of the countries show significant diversity in program portfolios. In particular, 73 countries display all five or four programs types; 56 countries have three or two types, and 26 countries have only one or none of the types (Figure 7). The large majority of countries in Africa (34 countries) and Latin America (20 countries) show high program diversity (including four or five types of social safety nets), while in other regions programs tend to be more evenly distributed across types. FIGURE 7 Almost Half of the Countries Have Four or Five Program Types 60 51 50 Number of countries 40 33 30 22 23 20 17 9 10 0 Countries with all Countries with 4 Countries with 3 Countries with 2 Countries with 1 Countries with no 5 program types program types program types program types program types program types Source: Authors’ calculations based on Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of Resilience and Equity and other sources (Annex 2). PROGRAM INVENTORY 9 TABLE 1: Number of Countries with at Least One Given Program Type, by Region Region Eastern Latin America Middle East East Asia Europe and and the and South Total of Countries with At Program Type Africa and Pacific Central Asia Caribbean North Africa Asia Least One Program Type Conditional In-Kind Transfers 45 12 22 29 15 7 130 Conditional Cash Transfers 13 6 6 19 3 5 52 Unconditional In-Kind Transfers 39 8 11 22 5 4 89 Unconditional Cash Transfers 37 11 28 25 12 6 119 Public Works 39 9 12 14 6 5 85 Total Number of Countries in 48 20 30 30 19 8 Respective Region Source: Authors’ calculations based on Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of Resilience and Equity and other sources (Annex 2). TABLE 2: Number of Countries with at Least One Given Program Type, by Income Group Region Lower-Middle- Upper-Middle- Total of Countries Low-Income Income Income High-Income with At Least One Program Type Countries Countries Countries Countries Program Type Conditional In-Kind Transfers 34 39 48 9 130 Conditional Cash Transfers 10 18 21 3 52 Unconditional In-Kind Transfers 31 31 26 1 89 Unconditional Cash Transfers 26 37 46 10 119 Public Works 31 32 20 2 85 Total Number of Countries in Respective Income Group 35 48 59 13 Source: Authors calculations based on Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of Resilience and Equity and other sources (Annex 2). The presence of program types varies by regions. The report examined the number of countries in each region with at least one program of a given type (Table 1). Almost all countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia—28 out of 30—have an unconditional cash transfer program. Public works and unconditional in-kind transfers are most prevalent in Africa, where 39 countries have such programs. Conditional cash transfers are still a “trademark” of the Latin America region, where 19 countries have one, compared with Middle East and North Africa, where only 3 countries have such a transfer program (Figure 8 on page 10). The availability of program types differs by countries’ income levels. Among the countries that have an unconditional cash transfer (Table 2), most are upper-middle-income countries (46); both conditional and unconditional in-kind transfers are equally distributed among low-income countries, lower-middle-income countries, and upper-middle-income countries. The vast majority of condi- tional cash transfers are in middle-income countries (39 countries), while low-income countries and lower-middle-income countries combined house 63 countries with public works programs. The percentage of countries with in-kind programs tends to decline with higher levels of income. The choice between in-kind (i.e., food, vouchers, targeted subsidies) and cash-based social safety nets is an important policy choice, including involving theoretical, operational and political economy matters.10 The report examined the composition of cash versus in-kind social safety nets by consid- ering unconditional cash transfers and conditional cash transfers as “cash” programs, and uncondi- tional in-kind transfer and conditional in-kind transfer programs as “in-kind” social safety nets.11 The 10 PROGRAM INVENTORY FIGURE 8 Number of Countries with at Least One Given Program Type, by Region Conditional inkind transfers Conditional cash transfers South Asia 7 South Asia 5 Middle East & North Africa 15 Middle East & North Africa 3 Latin America & Caribbean 29 Latin America & Caribbean 19 Eastern Europe & Central Asia 22 Eastern Europe & Central Asia 6 East Asia & Pacific 12 East Asia & Pacific 6 Africa 45 Africa 13 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 5 10 15 20 Number of countries Number of countries Unconditional inkind transfers Unconditional cash transfers South Asia 4 South Asia 6 Middle East & North Africa 5 Middle East & North Africa 12 Latin America & Caribbean 22 Latin America & Caribbean 25 Eastern Europe & Central Asia 11 Eastern Europe & Central Asia 28 East Asia & Pacific 8 East Asia & Pacific 11 Africa 39 Africa 37 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 Number of countries Number of countries Public works South Asia 5 Middle East & North Africa 6 Latin America & Caribbean 14 Eastern Europe & Central Asia 12 East Asia & Pacific 9 Africa 39 0 10 20 30 40 50 Number of countries Source: Authors’ calculations based on Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of Resilience and Equity and other sources (Annex 2). PROGRAM INVENTORY 11 FIGURE 9 Percentage of Countries with a Cash or In-Kind Program, by Income Group In-kind transfers Cash-based transfers 100 92.9 90 80 72.9 Percentage of countries 70 62.7 57.2 56.7 60 51.4 50 50 38.4 40 30 20 10 0 Low-Income Lower-Middle- Upper-Middle- High-Income Countries Income Countries Income Countries Countries Source: Authors’ calculations based on Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of Resilience and Equity and other sources (Annex 2). results indicate that the share of countries with at least one in-kind transfer tends, on average, to be higher in low-income countries (over 90 percent) and subsequently fall below 40 percent in high-income countries; at the same time, the share of countries with at least one cash-based program tends to remain generally constant across income groups. The five largest programs in the world account for about half of global coverage. The five largest social safety net programs are all in middle-income countries and reach over 486 million people. The Chinese Di-Bao is the largest unconditional cash transfer program, reaching about 78 million individuals. With coverage of 52.4 million people per year, Bolsa Familia is the largest conditional cash transfer in the world. Two Indian programs in the global inventory are on top of their respective types, including the School Feeding Program (113 million) and the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (193 million). These are also the largest-scale social safety nets globally. The Child Support Grant in South Africa is the largest social safety net in the continent, followed by Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net Program (Box 2). Yet, the coverage of individual flagship programs shows significant variation, ranging from covering less than 1 percent of the population in some countries to over 30 percent in Brazil, Ecuador, Sri Lanka, Mongolia and St. Lucia (see Box 3). However, it is clear that there is significant variance in the scale and coverage of flagship programs across countries. For example, depending on the level of income, the difference in terms of the maximum share of population ranges from about 15 percentage points in low-income countries to over 50 percentage points in upper-middle-income country settings (Figure 10). 12 Program Inventory Box 2. Top Five Social Safety Net Programs, by Scale (Millions of Individuals) Unconditional Cash Transfers Conditional In-Kind/Near-Cash Transfers Di-Bao (China) 74.8 School Feeding Program (India) 113.6 IG National Old Age Pension Scheme (India) 19.2 Programa de Alimentacao Escolar (Brazil) 47.2 Bantuan LSM (Indonesia) 15.5 School Feeding Program (China) 26.0 Child Support Grant (South Africa) 10.8 School Feeding Program (South Africa) 8.8 Child Allowances (Russia) 10.5 School Feeding Program (Egypt) 7.0 Conditional Cash Transfers Unconditional In-Kind/Near-Cash Transfers Bolsa Familia (Brazil) 57.8 Raskin (Indonesia) 18.5 Oportunidades (Mexico) 32.3 Housing and Heating Subsidy Voucher (Russia) 9.1 Pantawid (Philippines) 20.0 Samurdhi** (Sri Lanka) 7.7 Familias en Accion (Colombia) 9.5 General Food Distribution Program (Sudan) 5.1 Janani Suraksha Yojana (India) 9.5 Red de Seguridad Alimentaria (Colombia) 4.1 Public Works Programs All Types MGNREGS (India) 193.0 MGNREGA (India) 193.0 Productive Safety Net Program* 7.5 School Feeding Program (India) 113.6 (Ethiopia) Di Bao (China) 74.8 Regional PWs Program (Russia) 1.5 Bolsa Familia (Brazil) 57.8 PGUD (Benin) 1.5 Programa de Alimentacao Escolar 47.2 EGPP (Bangladesh) 1.2 (Brazil) Notes: *About 80 percent of Productive Safety Net Program beneficiaries participate in PWs. ** Include other programs types. Source: Authors’ calculations based on Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of Resilience and Equity and other sources (Annex 2). Box 3. Top Five Social Safety Net Programs, by Share of Population Covered (Percentage) Unconditional Cash Transfers Conditional In-Kind/Near-Cash Transfers Public Assistance Program (St. Lucia) 56% National School Meal Program (Swaziland) 27% Child Money Program (Mongolia) 33% School Feeding Program (Timor Leste) 24% Social Welfare Benefits (Kosovo) 24% Programa de Alimentacao Escolar (Brazil) 24% Child Support Grant (South Africa) 21% School Feeding (Lesotho) 21% Targeted Social Assistance (Georgia) 20% School Feeding (Haiti) 21% Conditional Cash Transfers Unconditional In-Kind/Near-Cash Transfers Bono de Desarrollo Humano (Ecuador) 41% Samurdhi* (Sri Lanka) 38% Bolsa Familia (Brazil) 29% CSA (Senegal) 26% Programa Solidaridad (Dominican Rep.) 29% Comer es Primero (Dominican Rep.) 20% Mi Bono Seguro (Guatemala) 28% Subsidies for Housing and Utilities (Belarus) 16% Oportunidades (Mexico) 27% General Food Distribution Program (Sudan) 14% Public Works Programs All Types Mgnregs (India) 16% Public Assistance Program (St. Lucia) 56% Public Works Program (Zimbabwe) 15% Bono de Desarrollo Humano (Ecuador) 41% Pgud (Benin) 15% Samurdhi* (Sri Lanka) 38% Rural Public Works, Nsap (Sierra Leone) 14% Child Money Program (Mongolia) 33% Food for Assets (S. Sudan) 9% Bolsa Familia (Brazil) 29% Note: *Include other program types. Source: Authors’ calculations based on Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of Resilience and Equity and other sources (Annex 2). PROGRAM INVENTORY 13 FIGURE 10 Percentage of Population Covered by Largest National Program, by Type 60.00 56.25% 50.00 40.00 Percent of Population Max 30.00 29.07% Min Average 20.00 17.67% 15.43% 10.00 10.49% 10.66% 6.25% 5.32% 0.00 0.61% 0.09% 0.081% 0.68% Low-Income Lower-Middle- Upper-Middle- High-Income Countries Income Countries Income Countries Countries Source: Authors’ calculations based on Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of Resilience and Equity and other sources (Annex 2). 15 S E C T I O N Spending 3 T his section examines the latest available data on spending on social safety nets. The aggregate spending data reported in this section12 refers to non-contributory transfers and includes external assistance. Cross-country comparisons should be interpreted with caution as the definition of social safety nets may not be fully consistent across countries. Despite some regional variations13 in the definition of social safety nets, total social safety nets spending includes the following programs: cash transfers and near cash (whether mean tested or categorical), conditional cash transfers, social pensions, in-kind transfers (including school feeding, nutrition programs, food rations and distribution), school supplies, public works and food for work programs, and fee waivers or targeted subsidies for health care, schooling, utilities, or transport. Food and energy subsidies are excluded from social safety net spending and this represents a major difference with previous attempts to measure social safety net spending.14 The section is based on a total of 107 countries with most recent figures typically spanning 2008–2012 (see Annex 3 for a complete summary of spending data, years and data sources by country).15 Data presented here are primarily based on data collection efforts by the World Bank, Eurostat, and Asian Development Bank recent stock taking of social protection spending and available country documents. Governments in developing and emerging countries spend on average 1.6 percent of GDP on social safety nets programs (with a median country spending 1.2 percent). Aggregate spending on social safety nets (excluding general price subsidies) reveals that considerable resources are committed globally to fight extreme poverty. The combined spending on social safety nets amounts to $337 billion (in 2005 Purchasing Power Parity USD); this is twice the amount needed to provide every person living in extreme poverty with an income of $1.25 a day. Social safety net spending varies across countries, with the poorest spending on average less than the rich. Figure 11 reveals considerable cross-country variation, ranging from 0.01 of GDP in Papua New Guinea to approximately 6 percent of GDP in Georgia.16 For about half of the countries, spending falls between 0 and 1.2 percent of GDP. Figure 11 also shows the large variation within each region, with East Asia and Africa as the regions where spending varies the most. Social safety net spending ranges from an average of 1.9 percent of GDP in 14 high-income countries, to 1.8 in 39 upper-middle-income countries, to 1.5 in 34 lower-middle-income countries, to 1.1 percent of GDP in 20 low-income countries. FIGURE 11 Percent of GDP 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Benin Zambia Ghana Cameroon Median Tanzania Average Niger Mali Togo Kenya Burkina Faso Gambia, The Rwanda Madagascar Mauritania Africa Liberia Mozambique Swaziland Eritrea Namibia Botswana Seychelles South Africa Sierra Leone Mauritius Lesotho Papua New Guinea Solomon Islands Vanuatu Malaysia Lao, PDR Philippines Vietnam Samoa China Cambodia Thailand Indonesia Fui Marshall Islands East Asia and Pacific Palau Mongolia Kiribati Timor-Leste Tajikistan Latvia represent the average and median safety nets spending across the sample of 107 countries with available data. Azerbauan Kazakhstan Bulgaria Macedonia, FYR Belarus Turkey Armenia Montenegro Kosovo Albania Poland Serbia Lithuania Slovakia Moldova Ukraine Estonia Slovenia Russia Bosnia & Herz. Eastern Europe and Central Asia Romania Kyrgyz Rep. Hungary Spending on Social Safety Net in More than Half of the Countries Is Below the Global Average Croatia Georgia Peru Honduras Mexico Colombia El Salvador Uruguay St. Lucia St. Kitts and Nev. Ecuador Jamaica Argentina Chile the Caribbean St. Vincent Latin America and Brazil Panama Belize Nicaragua Egypt Tunisia West Bank & Gaza Kuwait Morocco Saudi Arabia Lebanon Syria Jordan North Africa Iraq Middle East and Yemen, Rep. Bahrain Afghanistan India Bangladesh Bhutan Pakistan Nepal Maldives South Asia Source: Authors’ calculations based on most recent spending data (Annex 3). The figure plots aggregate spending on social safety nets as percentage of GDP by country for latest available year (2008–2012). The horizontal lines Sri Lanka SPENDING 16 SPENDING 17 FIGURE 12 External Financing Represents the Main Source of Safety Nets Funding in Some Countries Domestic External Percent of Total Safety Nets Spending 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ria e so n go a a er n e i ia al on oo bi ny ni qu an ig M Fa be To m Be Ke Le er N bi rit Za Li am a am au ra in rk oz M er C Bu Si M Source: Monchuk (2013). External sources of financing play a key role in lower income countries, representing in some coun- tries the main sources of social safety net funding. While high-spending countries such as Georgia and Mauritius finance their social safety nets domestically, Lesotho and Timor-Leste spend 3.9 and 5.9 percent of GDP, mostly relying on international assistance (and natural resource funds). Within a sample of 25 African countries, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Burkina Faso are the most dependent on external finance.17 Donor financing in these three countries is approximately 94, 85, and 62 percent of total spending respectively. In Ethiopia, the flagship Productive Safety Net Program is almost entirely externally financed. In Kenya, cash transfers for relief and recovery programs have been largely funded by donors (donor financing was approximately 71 percent of total social safety nets spending). However, many low-income countries are increasingly putting social safety nets programs “on-budget,” and social safety nets in most middle-income countries are largely financed domestically. Remittances have a great potential to complement government and external spending on safety nets, especially in lower income countries. The overall amount spent on social safety nets globally ($337 billion) is less than the volume of remittances inflows to the same group of countries (around $370 billion in 2012). Looking at the total value of public and private transfers to the population, remittances account for a bigger share of the total transfers to the population in lower income countries, TABLE 3: Remittances Inflows Are Higher Than Social Safety Nets Spending in Low-Income Countries Social Safety Net Spending Remittances Inflows ($ billions) ($ billions) Low-income countries (20) 3.6 28.4 Lower-middle-income countries (34) 38.0 186.3 Upper-middle-income countries (39) 196.9 135.0 High-income countries (14) 98.9 19.7 Total (107) 337.4 369.5 Source: Authors’ calculations based on most recent spending data (Annex 3) and “Migration and Remittances Factbook,” the World Bank. Remittances amounts refer to 2012. 18 SPENDING FIGURE 13 On Average Regions Spend More on Social Safety Net than on Fuel Subsidies 4.1 2.2 1.7 1.7 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 Africa East Asia and Pacific Eastern Europe Latin America Middle East and South Asia (25) (18) and Central Asia and the Caribbean North Africa (8) (27) (17) (12) Source: Authors’ calculations based on most recent safety nets spending data (Annex 3). Spending on fuel subsidy refers to the pre-tax subsidies for petroleum products, electricity, natural gas and coal as percent of GDP in 2011 (IMF, 2013). (Table 3). However, Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of Resilience and Equity data shows that in lower income countries the majority of remittances recipients are in the richest quintile. Regional patterns emerge with countries in Eastern Europe spending more on social safety net programs. On average Eastern Europe and Central Asian countries spend the most (2.2 percent of GDP), followed by Latin America and the Caribbean and African countries (1.7 percent on average), East Asian and Pacific (1.2 percent of GDP), Middle East and North African (1 percent of GDP) and South Asian countries spending the least (0.9 percent on average). These regional patterns may reflect different country incomes and financial resources as well as variations in terms of the composition, scale and the key redistributive role that safety nets programs play in the overall country poverty and inequality reduction policies (Figure 13). Many countries spend more on energy subsidies than on social safety nets. For example, in the Middle East and North Africa region, countries spend more on fuel subsidies (over 4 percent of GDP on average) than on safety nets programs (around 1 percent of GDP). Nonetheless, even countries with comprehensive social safety net systems such as Ecuador spend more on fuel subsidies (6.3 percent of GDP) than on social safety net programs (1.8 percent of GPD). Similarly, Indonesia spends 2.6 percent of GDP on fuel subsidies and only 0.8 on social safety net (Box 4). Despite having fewer resources for social safety nets, some lower income countries allocate more funds than average. While on average richer countries spend more on safety nets programs, the range of spending is much wider in lower income countries. Interestingly, the maximum social safety nets spending in lower middle income countries (6.1 percent of GDP in Georgia) and in upper middle income countries (4.4 in Mauritius) are higher than the maximum spending value in our sample of high income countries (3.8 percent of GDP in Croatia) (Figure 14). In some cases, high or low spending on social safety nets may reflect policy preferences. Figure 15 identifies those “outliers” by plotting their social safety nets spending against their GDP per capita. Countries with similar social safety nets spending have different GDP per capita; vice versa, countries with similar GDP per capita may spend on social safety nets very different shares of GDP. For example, Egypt’s spending on social safety nets is one-fifth of Georgia’s, although they have similar levels of SPENDING 19 BOX 4. Spending on Fuel Subsidies Is Often Higher Than on Social Safety Nets Fuel general subsidies are present in several countries and account for a substantial portion of government spending. Regardless of the level of income, fuel subsidies spending is highest in the Middle East and North Africa region and may crowd out public spending on safety nets and pro-poor policies. Even lower income countries such as Egypt, Yemen and Morocco spend about 6.7, 4.7 and 0.7 percent of GDP on fuel subsidies and only 0.2, 1.4 and 0.9 percent of GDP on safety nets programs respectively. In oil exporting countries, fuel subsidies are used as policy instruments to distribute oil revenues across citizens. Energy subsidies benefit the population through reduced prices of energy for heating, transport, lighting and through lower prices of energy-intense goods and services. However, energy subsidies are often highly inequitable as they tend to benefit relatively more the upper income groups in the population. Studies from several countries have shown that fuel subsidies are regressive and ineffective in terms of protecting the poorest. Bangladesh Malaysia India Cameroon Jordan Indonesia Kuwait Yemen, Rep. Bahrain Ecuador Egypt Saudi Arabia Iraq 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Fuel subsidy (% GDP) Social safety nets spending (% GDP) Source: Authors’ calculations based on most recent safety nets spending data (Annex 3). IMF (2013). FIGURE 14 Variations in Social Safety Nets Spending Are Higher in Lower-Income Countries 7.0 6.0 6.1 5.0 4.4 4.0 3.8 3.5 Max 3.0 Min 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.5 Average 1.0 1.1 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Low-Income Lower-Middle- Upper-Middle High-Income Countries Income Countries Income Countries Countries (20) (34) (39) (14) Source: Authors’ calculations based on most recent spending data available (Annex 3). 20 SPENDING FIGURE 15 Social Safety Net Spending Is Not Always Commensurate with Country Level of Income 7.00 GEO TMP 6.00 5.00 SSN Spending/GDP LSO MUS 4.00 SLE HRV 3.00 R² ϭ 0.0325 2.00 KEN MKD 1.00 MLI EGY MYS 0.00 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 Log (GDP per capita, Purchasing Power Parity) Source: Authors’ calculations based on most recent spending data (annex 3) and GDP per capita, purchasing power parity USD of the respective year. Note: TMP—Timor-Leste; GEO—Georgia, LSO—Lesotho, SLE—Sierra Leone, MLI—Mali, KEN—Kenya, EGY—Egypt, MYS—Malaysia; MKD—Macedonia, Former Yugoslav Republic; FYR; MUS—Mauritius; HRV—Croatia. income. Mauritius spends 4 times more than Macedonia and Lesotho almost six times more than Kenya. Conversely, a low income country such as Sierra Leone spends as much on social safety nets as high income country such as Croatia. Overall, the positive relationship between social safety nets spending and country income is not very strong (correlation of 0.03) and shows that resources spent on social safety nets may reflect policy choices instead of pure economic factors and level on development. Universal social pension programs explain the high social safety nets spending in Georgia and Lesotho. For example, Georgia does not have a contributory public pension scheme. Instead, it provides a flat universal pension to all elderly financed by general revenue, together with disability benefits. Within Georgia’s social protection system, spending on social pensions represents almost 90 percent of overall expenditures; in other countries this type of spending is typically covered by the contributory social insurance system. If social pensions are excluded, its level of spending would not be different from other countries with similar income, around 0.6 percent of GDP.18 This is very similar to the other outlier in the chart, Lesotho. Also in this case, high spending is almost entirely devoted to the country’s generous universal social pension program for the elderly. Post-conflict contexts and the need to rebalance social dynamics may lead to more generous social safety nets systems. For example, Timor-Leste is a post-conflict country that emerged from a long period of civil strife and turmoil. The government used social protection and social safety nets to also foster social cohesion, including providing relatively generous welfare support to veterans. The rapid increase in the social assistance budget in Timor-Leste has been supported by growing fiscal space from oil-fund revenues.19 Sierra Leone, another post-conflict country with considerable natural wealth, has a similar social safety nets program, although it is mostly financed by external donors. Energy subsidies may crowd out other types of public spending, explaining low spending on social safety nets. Egypt and Malaysia, with similar level of income to Georgia and Mauritius, have large energy subsides which absorb significant fiscal resources. For instance, Egypt spends almost 7 percent of GDP on energy subsidies, followed by 2 percent of GDP spent on food subsidies, Malaysia spends about 3.7 percent in different subsidies, mostly energy-based.20 SPENDING 21 Social safety net spending increased over time in most high spending countries. Over the past decade, social safety net spending in selected Eastern Europe and Central Asian countries increased by 15 percent annually on average21, going from an average of 0.9 percent of GDP in 2000, to 1.3 in 2005, to about 2 percent of GDP in 2010. In Turkey, the average annual growth rate of social safety nets spending between 2006 and 2010 has been about 30 percent, while in Lithuania about 19 percent (Figure 16). FIGURE 16 Social Safety Net Spending Has Been Growing over the Last Decade in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and Latin America 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 a ia H ia Es a a Ko n th o a on nia R gro ia ia U ey ne a il C hile Ec bia Sa or or s o ru y az ra ua ni i ni a v ni in ic Bi en ar at an rb d ad Pe so rk st ai ex ba to ua o nt om du ne ua Br C ro g lg Se Tu m kh ed om kr lv ge ru M Al Bu C on te Ar ol za ac U Li Ar H Ka M El M 2000 2005 2010 Source: Authors’ calculations based on Eastern Europe and central Asia Speed database (World Bank 2013e) and Cerutti et al. (2014) for selected countries. The 2010 data point for Lithuania refers to 2009. BiH stands for Bosnia and Herzegovina. 23 S E C T I O N Policy, Institutions, and Administration 4 T his section frames social safety nets within the wider realm of social protection. Indeed, policies are seldom formulated for a narrow set of social safety net measures, but rather they include social safety nets as part of broader social protection systems. Based on data from 135 countries gathered through internal policy monitoring and reporting materials, this section presents cross-country information on social protection policy and strategic frameworks. It also provides an overview of some of the main developments and innovations in the realm of insti- tutional coordination and program administration. Annex 4 largely provides the source of information for this section. 4.1 Policies and Strategies About half of the surveyed developing countries have a social protection policy or strategy, while these are absent in almost one-third of the countries. A total of 67 countries, or about 50 percent of the 135 surveyed countries, have a social protection policy;22 19 percent (or 26 countries) are currently planning or formulating one, while in about 31 percent of the cases a policy was not reported or it was not possible to find through policy monitoring systems and literature reviews (Figure 17). FIGURE 17 Status in Social Protection Policies/Strategies as of 2013 (Percentage) Planned 19% Available 50% Not reported 31% Source: Authors’ calculations based on data presented in Annex 4. 24 POLICY, INSTITUTIONS, AND ADMINISTRATION TABLE 4: Social Protection Policy/Strategy Status as of 2013 (Number of Countries) N. of Countries Status (n= 137) Available Planned Not Reported Total Income group Low-Income Countries 16 9 9 34 Lower-Middle-Income Countries 17 11 18 46 Upper-Middle-Income Countries 34 6 15 55 (Middle-Income Countries tot.) (51) (17) (32) (101) Region East Asia and Pacific 5 1 13 19 Eastern Europe and Central Asia 16 1 6 23 Latin America and the Caribbean 15 5 8 28 Middle East and North Africa 5 1 3 9 South Asia 3 4 1 8 Africa 23 14 11 48 Total by status 67 26 42 Source: Authors’ calculations based on data presented in Annex 4. A number of regional and income variations emerge. The detailed number of countries by status is laid out in Table 4, including by region and income group. In relative terms, although the availability of frameworks is not very dissimilar between middle-income countries and low-income countries (50 and 47 percent, respectively), social protection policies are considerably more widespread in low-income countries than lower-middle-income countries (a difference of 10 percentage points). East Asia and Pacific shows the higher rates in terms of unavailability of frameworks (about 68 percent), while Latin America and the Caribbean and Eastern Europe and Centra Asia show availability rates of 53 and 70 percent, respectively. The number of countries that introduced policy or strategies on social protection increased expo- nentially in the past decade. Countries have progressively introduced their policy frameworks. For example, between 2009 and 2013, an average of 12 countries per year formulated a new policy or strategy, raising the total number of countries with a policy or strategy from 19 to 67 (Figure 18). FIGURE 18 Number of Countries with Available Policy/Strategy (Cumulative), 2004–2013 80 67 70 60 55 50 42 40 30 26 19 20 17 14 7 8 10 3 0 1997–2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Source: Authors’ calculations based on data presented in Annex 4. POLICY, INSTITUTIONS, AND ADMINISTRATION 25 Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia emerge as the most vibrant regions in terms of planned or ongoing initiatives. In Africa, about 30 percent of the countries are planning a social protection policy framework, while half of the 8 South Asian countries are doing so. Initiatives being planned as of 2013 include the National Social Protection Strategy in Bangladesh, the Holistic Social Protection Paper in Benin, a Social Protection Note in the Democratic Republic of Congo, a National Social Protection Strategy in Ghana, and a National Social Protection Framework in Tanzania. In a more limited number of cases, initiatives include the deepening of existing frameworks, such as in Dominica where the Growth and Social Protection Strategy will be complemented by an Integrated Social Protection Strategy. Out of the countries with a framework in place, about 70 percent have a “deliberate” policy or strategy on social protection frameworks, while in the rest policies are embedded in wider devel- opment and poverty reduction plans. As of 2013, deliberate frameworks are available in 68 percent (or 46 countries) of the 67 countries with a policy or strategy, and tend to be more detailed and comprehensive than sections of a development plan. In over three-quarter of the cases, deliberate frameworks were introduced between 2010 and 2013. Examples of social protection policies enacted in 2013 include Bhutan, Ethiopia, Gabon, Honduras, Jamaica, Mauritania and Sierra Leone.23 4.2 Institutions Given the multi-sectoral nature of social protection, governments are increasingly establishing mechanisms and bodies to enhance coordination across institutions, ministries and functions. Social safety net programs often involve a range of ministries and sectors for program implementation, especially in the case of conditional transfers. Also, coordination is key when connecting systems functions, such as responses to crises (Box 5), or between social safety nets and insurance. The report’s analysis shows that as of 2013, measures for institutional coordination are emerging in 10 cases described in Annex 4: Afghanistan’s Inter-Ministerial Committee on Social Protection, Benin’s Comité Socle de Protection Sociale, Burkina Faso’s Conseil National de la Protection Sociale, the Technical Working Group on Social Protection in Burundi, the Social Protection Thematic Group in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the National Steering Committee on Social Protection in Nepal, the Consultative Inter-Ministerial Committee on Social Protection in Niger, the SDC Sub-Committee on Social Protection in the Philippines, and a Social Protection Core Team in South Sudan. In some cases, new institutions were created, such as the National Social Protection Authority in Sierra Leone and the Agency for Social Protection in the Seychelles. A number of “second-generation” issues are also being tackled, such as deeper integration of institu- tional and administrative platforms for social safety nets and social insurance. These are underway, for example, in countries such as China, Georgia, Kazakhstan and Turkey. In Turkey, for example, households applying for social assistance are automatically registered into the Turkish Labor Institution database via the Social Assistance Information System (SAIS). 26 POLICY, INSTITUTIONS, AND ADMINISTRATION BOX 5. Institutions, Coordination, and Scalable Social Safety Nets: Lessons from Ethiopia and Mexico International experience suggests that in order for social safety net systems to be scaled up in crises, some building blocks would need to be in place. These may include the following: (a) linking early warning systems to programming; (b) establishing contingency plans; (c) establishing contingency financing; and (d) building institutional capacity ahead of crises. Connecting and integrating these blocks requires well-defined coordination mechanisms among a network of ministries and agencies. For example, Mexico’s Programa de Empleo Temporal (PET) is an inter-agency social safety net program overseen by the Ministry of Social Welfare and implemented by several sector ministries. A parliamentary act stipulates the responsibilities of each party and mandates the coordination mechanism requiring the ministries involved to share a common beneficiary database (registry). All implementing agencies receive data from the early warning system that allows them prepare an emergency response or scale up in affected localities through PET. In response to climate events and natural disasters, the Government of Mexico used PET to provide rapid support to an additional 900,000 people between 2007 and 2011. Similarly, in Ethiopia, the Ministry of Agriculture coordinates disaster risk management and food security related activities including its flagship Productive Safety Net Programme (PSNP). Different directorates under the Ministry have linkages to the early warning system, humanitarian response, and emergency relief and to the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development for management and disbursement of cash resources. Using the Productive Safety Net Program risk financing facility, the Government of Ethiopia rapidly extended support to an additional 3.1 million people in response to the 2011 drought. Source: World Bank (2013b), Hobson and Campbell (2012). 4.3 Administration There is growing interest and investment in consolidated and harmonized database systems to managing information on potential beneficiaries of social protection programs. This section sets out basic concepts and emerging experiences in the realm, particularly around “social registries.”24 Several costs are associated with keeping multiple “parallel” databases of potential beneficiaries for different social protection programs. Multiple and fragmented registries may present several disadvantages. First, it may increase the cost to both governments and households due to multiple data collection and enrolment efforts. Second, it may introduce inconsistencies across programs in how they define “poverty” and related concepts. Third, it may result in multiple and incompatible programs that “don’t talk to each other.” Given these shortcomings, a number of countries are working to consolidate or harmonize some of their registries into common social registries. For example, Brazil did so in the context of Cadastro Unico to serve as the entry point for social assistance policies (see Box 6). Social registries are physical or virtual databases of potential beneficiaries that include a series of individual and household level characteristics needed to determine eligibility for social protection programs. Social registries can provide updated information on potential beneficiaries and contain a minimum set of information required to allow one or more program administrators to determine eligibility for their programs (e.g., date of birth, gender, contributory records, income, household size and composition). In some cases, registration in the social registry is a condition to become a beneficiary; but it does not guarantee that the registered individual or household would participate in POLICY, INSTITUTIONS, AND ADMINISTRATION 27 BOX 6. Social Registries as a Backbone for Program Integration: The Cadastro in Brazil In 2003, the Government of Brazil initiated a set of reforms to improve its social safety net system. The reforms integrated several federal programs, including Bolsa Escola, Bolsa Alimentação, Cartão Alimentação, and Auxílio-Gás into a single conditional cash transfer program, the Bolsa Família Program. The Cadastro Unico became the data and information backbone for the reform. The Cadastro registers all families in Brazil whose income per capita is less than half a minimum salary (R$724/month) so as to facilitate their access to federal social programs. The registry serves federal, state and municipal public agencies and contains information on 27.3 million families, more than half of which are Bolsa Familia beneficiaries, and serves as a platform for 10 programs. any program. Generally, countries that implement social registries have different design parameters, that is, registries can differ in terms of the amount of individual data required, the frequency at which the data must be collected, and percentage of total population included in the database. Robust social registries can be used to link programs across sectors. This for example may include programs on health (e.g., Ghana and the Philippines’ experiences of linking, respectively, LEAP and the Pantawid conditional cash transfers to health insurance programs), education (e.g., Brazil’s experience that provide tertiary education quotas for Bolsa Família beneficiaries) and agriculture (e.g., again, Brazil’s experience with productive inclusion activities in the rural areas for Bolsa Família beneficiaries). As of 2013, social registries were present in at least 23 countries and were planned in other 10. Table 5 below provides an overview of the countries for which a single registry is institutionalized or in progress, as well as the number of households contained in the database and programs they connect. In other 10 countries, efforts to introduce a social registry are planned or underway, including Benin, Djibouti, Haiti, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Mozambique, Senegal, Tajikistan, and Tunisia. However, there are also reasons for why programs may maintain different registries. These may include the frequency of updating information and nature of eligibility determination. For instance, sometimes large-scale programs such as India’s NREGS may maintain a separate registry with more detailed information specific for their program (although information should be, if possible, cross- verified with other databases as the social registry). In other words, not all the information contained in a common registry would be useful or necessary for all social programs. It may be important, therefore, to identify programs that have sufficient overlap to make it beneficial in cost-benefit terms to generate the consolidated database. The social registry is one element of the larger delivery system. The whole delivery system includes components such as identification of beneficiaries, their eligibility determination and enrolment, benefit payments, and other delivery processes. Therefore, social registries should be interpreted as only one of such components. Instead, a “management information system” (MIS) defines required information flows from multiple social registries, and consolidates and cross-checks the data in order to provide a holistic picture of the overall system (see Box 7 for an example from Colombia). Therefore, an MIS facilitates evidence-based decision-making, including working as a warehouse of data required for monitoring and evaluation. 28 POLICY, INSTITUTIONS, AND ADMINISTRATION TABLE 5: Selected Examples of Social Registries, Latest Available Data N. of Households in N. of Programs Country Social Registry State Managing Institution Database (’000) Served Armenia Family Benefit System Institutionalized Ministry of Labor and 94.9 1 Social Affairs Azerbaijan MIS of Ministry of Labour Institutionalized Ministry of Labor and 127.2 3 and Social Protection of Social Protection of the Population (MLSPP) Population Bangladesh Poverty Database In progress Ministry of Planning Belize Single Information System of In progress Ministry of Economic Beneficiaries Development Bolivia Beneficiary Registry of Social In progress Ministry of Development Programs Planning Brazil Cadastro Unico Institutionalized Ministry of Social 23,900 10 Development and Fight against Hunger Cabo Verde Unique Registry Institutionalized 2 Chile The Integrated System of Institutionalized Ministry of Social 2,500 3 Social Information (SIIS) Development Colombia The Integrated Information Institutionalized Ministry of Health and 3,000 31 System of Social Protection Social Protection (SISPRO) Costa Rica Sistema de Identificación de la Institutionalized IMAS (Agency for Social 1,420* 3 Problación Objectivo (SIPO) Benefits) Dominican Sistema Unico de Beneficiaros Institutionalized Cabinet of Social Policy 6,059 10 Republic (SIUBEN) Coordination Georgia System of Social Assistance Institutionalized Minister of Labor, Health 450 3 and Social Affairs, and Social Service Agency Ghana National Targeting System In progress Ministry of Gender, 2 Children and Social Protection Kenya Integrated Registry of In progress Ministry of Labor, Social 220 (500 planned) 2 (5 are planned) Beneficiaries Security and Services Lebanon National Poverty Targeting In progress Ministry of Social Affairs 93 (160 planned) Program Lesotho National Information System In progress Ministry of Social 40 (as of July 2013) 4 (planned), 1 (as for Social Assistance (NISSA) Development of July 2013) Macedonia, Cash Benefits Management In progress 1 FYR Information System (CBMIS) Mauritius Social Register Institutionalized Various Ministries 41 ( as of June 2013) 4 Panama Unified Registry of Institutionalized Secretaria Técnica 178.3* 11 Beneficiaries (RUB) del Gabinete Social Philippines Listahanan Institutionalized Department of Social 10,909 2 Welfare and Development Turkey Social Assistance Information Institutionalized General Directorate of 4,100 17 System (SAIS) Social Assistance Romania Integrated Information System Institutionalized National Agency for 6,000* 14 for Administration of Social Social Benefits Benefits (SAFIR) Seychelles Integrated MIS In progress Agency for Social 5 Protection Source: Author’s compilation based on Leite et al. (2011); Ortakaya (2012); Lokshin (2012); Sultanov (2012); Minasyan (2012); GoCR (2012); World Bank (2011m); http:// go.worldbank.org/WZ5OPUEF40. *Refers to individuals POLICY, INSTITUTIONS, AND ADMINISTRATION 29 BOX 7. The Management Information System in Colombia, RUAF The Registro Unico de Afiliados (RUAF) was enacted in 2003 under the Ministry of Social Protection. RUAF was initially envisioned as a solution to end the recurrent issues created by the decentralization and disarticulation of SPS beneficiary information. RUAF is the central repository that integrates data from different institutions dealing with social programs delivery (in 2009 it consolidated information from 10 institutions and 49 programs, including SISBEN data), where each program has to upload their beneficiary caseload information periodically to RUAF. This requires the coordination and commitment of the institutions given that the data upload is not conducted automatically or simultaneously by all stakeholders. All database integration is done through the Sistema Integral de Informacion de la Proteccion Social (SISPRO), which is an IT platform that manages information of program beneficiaries and service providers. In total SISPRO includes 6 databases: NADE (Online information of births and deaths), PAI (Immunization Program), SIHO (Information System of Public Hospitals), RIPS (Information System of Health Providers), PILA, and most importantly, RUAF. Therefore, SISPRO validates and reconciles beneficiary records to ensure that data of individuals match and that a unique record of benefits per beneficiary is generated. This is needed because as of today, applicants still register in different program offices at different times, and SISPRO consolidates the information. 31 S E C T I O N Results and Evidence 5 T his section discusses the performance of social safety nets on a range of dimensions as captured by the Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of Resilience and Equity database. Although the impacts of social safety nets are multi-dimensional, we discuss primarily those related to poverty. The section also provides a snapshot of empirical evidence on social safety nets drawing from recent rigorous impact evaluation studies available in the public domain and published in economic journals and in the form of working paper series. 5.1 Performance of Social Safety Net Programs On average, the adequacy (or transfer size) of social safety nets in developing countries could be enhanced. In order to assess the adequacy of social safety nets, Annex 5 presents data on the value of transfers as a share of total consumption or income of the poor. The average level of benefits across countries is 23 percent of the poor’s income or consumption. According to the World Bank data on global poverty, average level of consumption among the poor in the developing world is 34.8 percent below the 1.25/day poverty line. Hence, the average size of social safety nets do not close the poverty gap (Figure 19). Yet, there are marked differences in the adequacy of transfers. The share of social safety nets in beneficiaries’ consumption ranges from a low 5 percent in Middle East and North Africa and Sub- Saharan Africa to 20–30 percent in Europe and Central Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean. There is a negative relationship with the size of needs: poverty is relatively shallow in Europe and Central Asia (on average, the poor need a 20–25 percent boost in consumption to raise it above the poverty line). For countries in Africa, such increase should be in the order of 40–50 percent on average. FIGURE 19 The Average Size of Transfers Does Not Fill the Poverty Gap $1.25/day poverty line Level of Income or consumption Average poverty gap Average size of safety net transfers (23% of income/consumption of the poor) Average level of consumption by the poor (34.8% below the poverty line) Source: Devised by authors based on Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of Resilience and Equity database. 32 RESULTS AND EVIDENCE BOX 8. Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of Resilience and Equity Indicators Based on Household Surveys The Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of Resilience and Equity database, accessible online, includes key country and program level indicators for social protection and labor programs, including social safety nets, social insurance and labor market programs. These are calculated using national representative household surveys, and are the result of a careful process of quality assurance, identification of programs in each country, grouping of different programs into standard categories, and harmonization of core indicators. When interpreting Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of Resilience and Equity indicators, it is important to bear in mind that the extent to which information on specific transfers and programs is captured in the household surveys can vary considerably across countries. Moreover, household surveys do not capture the entire universe of social protection programs in the country, but often mainly the largest programs. As a consequence, Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of Resilience and Equity indicators are not fully comparable across program categories and countries; however, they provide approximate measures of social protection systems performance. The database includes over 100 harmonized surveys for the 1999–2012 period, covering 69  countries with data on social protection in the most recent period. The 2005–2012 period presented in Annex 5 contains information on almost 5 million individuals (1.3 million households), representing over 3 billion people in developing countries.25 Existing Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of Resilience and Equity indicators track total transfers or benefits, coverage, adequacy, and targeting performance (the latter measured by benefit or beneficiary incidence). Importantly, Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of Resilience and Equity includes simulated impacts of social safety nets on poverty and inequality reduction. In order to compare countries, poverty is defined in relative terms: in each country, the bottom 20 percent of population in terms of consumption or income (post- transfer) is defined as poor. Coverage, targeting and impacts on poverty are then assessed focusing on that group as a target for social safety nets. According to World Bank data, the rate for extreme poverty in the world is 20.6 percent in 2010. Hence, focusing on the bottom 20 percent globally is consistent with the objective of eliminating absolute poverty; but not all countries have poverty rates equal or close to 20 percent of the population. Source: www.worldbank.org/aspire Globally, the targeting of social safety nets is pro-poor, although room for improvement exists. The benefit incidence column in Annex 5 presents the proportion of the transfers received by the poorest quintile as a percentage of total transfers. If this indicator is above 20 percent, the distribution tends to be pro-poor or progressive; instead, if it is below 20 percent, the distribution is regressive. Globally, 30 percent of all social safety nets go to households in the poorest quintile. While this is progressive, it is notable in Annex 5 that some countries have much better targeting outcome, including top performers such as Argentina, Panama, Peru, Romania, and West Bank and Gaza. These countries transfer more than 50 percent of social safety net budgets to the poorest quintile. Progressive impacts can lead to reduction in inequality. When considering the Gini index,26 simulations show that average inequality would be 3 percent higher in the absence of social safety net transfers. This effect varies across regions and income, and it is most pronounced in Europe and Central Asia and Latin America and Caribbean. For example, Romania reduced its inequality by 14 percent, followed closely by Belarus, Poland, Serbia and Montenegro. In Latin America and Caribbean, the strongest progressive effect is in Mexico (5 percent), followed by Chile, Brazil and Uruguay. RESULTS AND EVIDENCE 33 Social protection achieves visible results in terms of reducing poverty. Annex 7 presents the simulated impact of programs on poverty.27 Across the countries in Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of Resilience and Equity, social safety nets reduce the poverty headcount on average by 8 percent and the poverty gap by 17 percent. In absolute terms, 23 million people are lifted out of the lowest quintile, representing 7 percent of the population in such income group. Extrapolating those results for the developing world population, 78 million people would be in the bottom of income distribution in the absence of social safety nets.28 Similarly, social safety nets have strong effects in reducing extreme poverty, as defined using the international absolute poverty line of $1.25 a day. Across countries in the Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of Resilience and Equity database, social safety nets reduce global extreme poverty by 3 percent and help move 50 million people above the poverty line.29 The poverty-reducing effects are greater where coverage is higher and more generous trans- fers are provided. In Eastern Europe and Central Asia, the combined effect of all social safety nets helps to reduce poverty incidence by 12 percent (with 6 million people moving out of the bottom quintile). In Latin America and the Caribbean, in the absence of social safety nets poverty would be 8 percent higher and affect an additional 9 million people. Yet, in Sub- Saharan Africa only 375,000 people are moved out of the bottom quintile, and only slightly more than 2 million in all low-income countries (the extrapolation to all low-income countries not yet included in Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of Resilience and Equity would produce an estimate of 3.2 million). This is due to a combination of limited capacities, low coverage, low benefit levels, and challenges in targeting. In several countries, Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of Resilience and Equity has started to trace indicators over time. Some of these cases show increase in coverage, improved targeting or enhanced efficiency of social safety nets. For example, in Brazil, between 2006 and 2009 the targeting of its flagship conditional cash transfer has improved: while 48 percent of the poorest quintile were participating in the program, the rate subsequently increased to 51 percent. More remarkably, in El Salvador about 57 percent among the poorest quintile of the population were benefiting from social protection programs in 2007; by 2009 this share increased to 83 percent. 5.2 Evidence from Impact Evaluations Social safety nets have been thoroughly evaluated in the past decade. The first systematic review by the World Bank’s Independent Evaluation Group in 2011 identified 92 impact evaluations of social safety nets in developing countries over 1999–2009. The review concluded that evidence on social safety nets is “richer than most other areas of social policy” and that “each intervention has positive impacts on the original objectives set out in the programs.” Most of the work was focused on Latin America (63 percent of all studies) and conditional cash transfers. A forthcoming update of the IEG database has identified 53 new evaluations completed in 3 years, many of which in Africa (24 new impact evaluations).30 Such speed of building up rigorous evidence is impressive and offers great insights into the transformational role of such programs. The first generation of evaluations established that social safety nets have both short- and long-term benefits ranging across different dimensions of well-being. The strongest effects were observed 34 RESULTS AND EVIDENCE for poverty reduction and human capital (education, health and nutrition). Impact evaluations found limited evidence of labor market disincentives.31 They also generally dispelled the myth that partic- ipation in transfer program may encourage greater fertility among the poor; on the contrary, they often increased women’s control of child bearing choices. New evaluations continue to show positive short-term results on household consumption, school attendance, children’s health and labor supply, and provide new evidence on local economy effects and long-term sustainability. New studies have examined long-term impacts of social safety nets on job prospects and earning, including 14 impact evaluations on the matter covering countries as different as Mexico, Ethiopia, Colombia and Pakistan, and new results on local economy impacts are now available, many of which are documented by the initiative “From Protection to Production Project.”32 The examples of new evidence is summarized across 8 channels of impact and presented in Table 6 below. TABLE 6: Examples of Recent Impact Evaluations of Social Safety Net Programs, by Channels of Impact Channel of Social Safety Impact Country Nets Main Findings Year/Authors Investing in Brazil, Mexico and Conditional Positive and significant impact on grade promotion and cumulative Glewwe and Kassouf Human Capital: Colombia cash transfers years of schooling. (2011) Education, Pakistan Conditional Beneficiary girls were more likely to complete secondary school by Alam et al. (2010) Health and cash transfer 4 to 7 percentage points. Nutrition Tanzania Conditional Significant increase in the number of children completing primary Evans et al. (2014) cash transfer school and moving to higher education; Increase of health insurance expenditures among program participants; effects were larger among the poorest Malawi Conditional The impacts of the conditional cash transfer arm increased Baird et al. (2011) cash transfer/ attendance by 13.9 percentage points versus 6.3 in the Unconditional unconditional cash transfer arm cash transfer Colombia Conditional Children exposed to program in early ages are 4 to 8 percentage Baez and Camacho cash transfer points more likely to finish high school, particularly girls in rural (2011) areas. Nicaragua Conditional Being exposed to the program in utero or early days of Barham et al (2013); cash transfer life improves cognitive development in subsequent years; Macours (2012) improvement of cognitive outcomes (language and memory at age of 36 month), do not fade-out of impacts two years after the program was ended and transfers were discontinued. Burkina Faso School Positive effect on attendance; reduced the number of days absent Alderman et al. feeding by 1.4 days. Girls were 9 percentage points less likely to participate (2009) in farm-based and market-based labor. Promoting Guatemala Unconditional Children under two years of age who benefited from a nutritional Behrman et al. (2008) Better Job in-kind social safety net earned wages 46 percent higher as adults Prospects transfer compared to those who did not benefit from the intervention. Jamaica ECD Children participating in early childhood development programs Gertler et al. (2013) showed, as adults, average monthly lifetime earnings 60 percent higher than non-participants Uganda Grants Monthly real earnings increase by 49% and 41% after 2 and 4 years. Blattman et al. (2013) RESULTS AND EVIDENCE 35 Channel of Social Safety Impact Country Nets Main Findings Year/Authors Improving Food Bangladesh Unconditional Participation in food and cash-based programs increased Ahmed et al. (2010) Security and in-kind household per capita food consumption between 23–66 Nutrition transfer, PWs, kilocalories per person per day per 1 taka transferred. Conditional in-kind transfer Ecuador Conditional Food, cash and voucher transfers show significant improvements in Hidrobo et al. (2014) in-kind per capita caloric intake between 6–16 percent. transfer, Conditional cash transfer Mexico Unconditional Food transfers increased the intake of higher-quality foods (e.g., Le Roy et al. (2010) in-kind meat) and proteins by 13.4 percent transfer Uganda Conditional Anemia among girls enrolled in the school feeding program was 20 Adelman et al. (2008) in-kind percentage points lower compared to girls not participating in the transfer, program. Uncondtional cash transfer Indonesia Unconditional Food supplements reduced stunting for infants by 3.6 percentage World Bank (2011v) in-kind points, while that for the oldest age group by 2.8 percentage transfer points. Using Transfers Mexico Conditional Participation of beneficiaries in non-agricultural activities Gertler et al. (2012) for Productive cash transfer increased by 3.3 percentage points; beneficiary households are Investments 17.1 percent more likely to own production animals. After 5 years and a half, thanks to investment paying off, households increased consumption by 41.9 pesos per capita per month. Malawi Uncondtional Significant increases in the ownership of farm tools (hoes, sickles, Boone et al. (2013); cash transfer axes) and livestock, up by about 50 percent points. Covarrubias et al. (2012) Stimulating Malawi Uncondtional A cash transfer program generated up to US$2.45 in local Davies and Davy Local cash transfer communities for every dollar provided to beneficiaries. (2008) Economies Lesotho Uncondtional Multiplier effect of US$2.23 in local economy increased incomes Taylor et al. (2012) cash transfer from each $1 transferred to beneficiaries. Multi-country study Conditional In Ghana, it is estimated that the LEAP program generated up Davis (2013) cash transfer, to $2.50 for every dollar provided to beneficiaries. Similarly, the Uncondtional multiplicative effects of social safety nets were found in Ethiopia cash transfer ($2.50), Zambia ($1.79) and Kenya ($1.34). Risk Resilience Zambia Uncondtional Beneficiary households in drought-prone areas are more likely to Seidenfeld (2013) cash transfer be selling crops and are 17 percentage points more likely to own non-farm enterprises. Ethiopia PW and assets Improved food security; participants 20 percentage points more Hoddinott (2012) likely to use fertilizers and invest in land improvements Enhancing Chile Conditional Beneficiaries have greater self-esteem and higher perceived self- Carneiro et al. (2010) Agency and cash transfer efficacy in the labor market as well as greater optimism towards Self-Esteem the future Malawi Conditional Participation makes adolescent girls less likely to get involved in Baird et al. (2011) cash transfer/ risky relationships and better control their fertility decisions Uncondtional cash transfer Improved Social Brazil Conditional Coverage of schools by the Bolsa program leads to a strong and Chioda et al. 2012 Cohesion cash transfer significant reduction on crime in the respective neighborhoods. Tanzania Conditional Positive effects on social cohesion and civil like participation Evans et al. (2014) cash transfer Liberia Grants An employment program for rural ex-fighters in Liberia reduced Blattman and Annan the likelihood of engaging in criminal activities. After 14 months, (2012) treated men shifted hours of illicit resource extraction to agriculture by 20 percent. Source: Adapted from World Bank (2013a) and Andrews et al. (forthcoming). 36 RESULTS AND EVIDENCE Yet more research is needed in a number of areas. Increasingly, experimental studies are shedding light on the performance of alternative design and implementation options. In this regard, more research may be needed on the selection of transfer modalities (e.g., cash or in-kind), appropriateness of program timing, the level of benefits, whether and what type of conditionalities work in a given context, the frequency and size of payments, and intra-community and household dynamics. A range of matters around the political economy of social safety nets may deserve further research, including their role in decision-making processes. There is also growing interest in the “graduation” agenda, or notably how to help social safety nets beneficiaries move out of extreme poverty and into sustainable livelihoods and more productive jobs. Yet much remains to be explored on linking social safety nets with complementary programs and services such as asset transfers, financial inclusion, skills training, job search assistance and the effects on beneficiaries’ jobs prospects and earnings. The adaptation of social safety nets to urban areas is an issue of growing relevance in a number of countries, and so is the customization of safety nets in fragile and disaster-prone contexts. A N N E X 1 CO U N T R I E S I N C L U D E D IN THE REPORT 38 COUNTRIES INCLUDED IN THE REPORT Country Name Code Region Income Classification Population (millions) 1 Afghanistan AFG South Asia Low income 29.8 2 Albania ALB Eastern Europe and Central Asia Upper middle income 3.2 3 Algeria DZA Middle East and North Africa Upper middle income 38.5 4 Angola AGO Africa (Sub-Saharan) Upper middle income 20.8 5 Antigua and Barbuda ATG Latin America and the Caribbean High income 0.1 6 Argentina ARG Latin America and the Caribbean Upper middle income 41.1 7 Armenia ARM Eastern Europe and Central Asia Lower middle income 3.0 8 Azerbaijan AZE Eastern Europe and Central Asia Upper middle income 9.3 9 Bahrain BHR Middle East and North Africa High income 1.3 10 Bangladesh BGD South Asia Low income 154.7 11 Belarus BLR Eastern Europe and Central Asia Upper middle income 9.5 12 Belize BLZ Latin America and the Caribbean Upper middle income 0.3 13 Benin BEN Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low income 10.1 14 Bhutan BTN South Asia Lower middle income 0.7 15 Bolivia BOL Latin America and the Caribbean Lower middle income 10.5 16 Bosnia & Herz. BIH Eastern Europe and Central Asia Upper middle income 3.8 17 Botswana BWA Africa (Sub-Saharan) Upper middle income 2.0 18 Brazil BRA Latin America and the Caribbean Upper middle income 198.7 19 Bulgaria BGR Eastern Europe and Central Asia Upper middle income 7.3 20 Burkina Faso BFA Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low income 16.5 21 Burundi BDI Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low income 9.8 22 Cambodia KHM East Asia & Pacific Low income 14.9 23 Cameroon CMR Africa (Sub-Saharan) Lower middle income 21.7 24 Cabo Verde CPV Africa (Sub-Saharan) Lower middle income 0.5 25 Central Afr. Rep. CAF Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low income 4.5 26 Chad TCD Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low income 12.4 27 Chile CHL Latin America and the Caribbean High income 17.5 28 China CHN East Asia & Pacific Upper middle income 1350.7 29 Colombia COL Latin America and the Caribbean Upper middle income 47.7 30 Comoros COM Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low income 0.7 31 Congo, Dem. Rep. ZAR Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low income 65.7 32 Congo, Rep COG Africa (Sub-Saharan) Lower middle income 4.3 33 Costa Rica CRI Latin America and the Caribbean Upper middle income 4.8 34 Côte d’Ivoire CIV Africa (Sub-Saharan) Lower middle income 19.8 35 Croatia HRV Eastern Europe and Central Asia High income 4.3 36 Czech Republic CZE Eastern Europe and Central Asia High income 10.5 37 Djibouti DJI Middle East and North Africa Lower middle income 0.9 38 Dominica DMA Latin America and the Caribbean Upper middle income 0.1 39 Dominican Rep. DOM Latin America and the Caribbean Upper middle income 10.3 40 Ecuador ECU Latin America and the Caribbean Upper middle income 15.5 41 Egypt EGY Middle East and North Africa Lower middle income 80.7 42 El Salvador SLV Latin America and the Caribbean Lower middle income 6.3 43 Equatorial Guinea GNQ Africa (Sub-Saharan) High income 0.7 44 Eritrea ERI Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low income 6.1 45 Estonia EST Eastern Europe and Central Asia High income 1.3 46 Ethiopia ETH Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low income 91.7 47 Fiji FJI East Asia & Pacific Upper middle income 0.9 48 Gabon GAB Africa (Sub-Saharan) Upper middle income 1.6 49 Gambia, The GMB Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low income 1.8 50 Georgia GEO Eastern Europe and Central Asia Lower middle income 4.5 51 Ghana GHA Africa (Sub-Saharan) Lower middle income 25.4 52 Grenada GRD Latin America and the Caribbean Upper middle income 0.1 53 Guatemala GTM Latin America and the Caribbean Lower middle income 15.1 54 Guinea GIN Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low income 11.5 COUNTRIES INCLUDED IN THE REPORT 39 Country Name Code Region Income Classification Population (millions) 55 Guinea-Bissau GNB Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low income 1.7 56 Guyana GUY Latin America and the Caribbean Lower middle income 0.8 57 Haiti HTI Latin America and the Caribbean Low income 10.2 58 Honduras HND Latin America and the Caribbean Lower middle income 7.9 59 Hungary HUN Eastern Europe and Central Asia Upper middle income 9.9 60 India IND South Asia Lower middle income 1236.7 61 Indonesia IDN East Asia & Pacific Lower middle income 246.9 62 Iran IRN Middle East and North Africa Upper middle income 76.4 63 Iraq IRQ Middle East and North Africa Upper middle income 32.6 64 Jamaica JAM Latin America and the Caribbean Upper middle income 2.7 65 Jordan JOR Middle East and North Africa Upper middle income 6.3 66 Kazakhstan KAZ Eastern Europe and Central Asia Upper middle income 16.8 67 Kenya KEN Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low income 43.2 68 Kiribati KIR East Asia & Pacific Lower middle income 0.1 69 Kosovo KSV Eastern Europe and Central Asia Lower middle income 1.8 70 Kuwait KWT Middle East and North Africa High income 3.3 71 Kyrgyz Rep. KGZ Eastern Europe and Central Asia Low income 5.6 72 Lao, PDR LAO East Asia & Pacific Lower middle income 6.6 73 Latvia LVA Eastern Europe and Central Asia High income 2.0 74 Lebanon LBN Middle East and North Africa Upper middle income 4.4 75 Lesotho LSO Africa (Sub-Saharan) Lower middle income 2.1 76 Liberia LBR Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low income 4.2 77 Libya LBY Middle East and North Africa Upper middle income 6.2 78 Lithuania LTU Eastern Europe and Central Asia High income 3.0 79 Macedonia, FYR MKD Eastern Europe and Central Asia Upper middle income 2.1 80 Madagascar MDG Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low income 22.3 81 Malawi MWI Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low income 15.9 82 Malaysia MYS East Asia & Pacific Upper middle income 29.2 83 Maldives MDV South Asia Upper middle income 0.3 84 Mali MLI Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low income 14.9 85 Marshall Islands MHL East Asia & Pacific Upper middle income 0.1 86 Mauritania MRT Africa (Sub-Saharan) Lower middle income 3.8 87 Mauritius MUS Africa (Sub-Saharan) Upper middle income 1.3 88 Mexico MEX Latin America and the Caribbean Upper middle income 120.8 89 Micronesia, FS FSM East Asia & Pacific Lower middle income 0.1 90 Moldova MDA Eastern Europe and Central Asia Lower middle income 3.6 91 Mongolia MNG East Asia & Pacific Lower middle income 2.8 92 Montenegro MNE Eastern Europe and Central Asia Upper middle income 0.6 93 Morocco MAR Middle East and North Africa Lower middle income 32.5 94 Mozambique MOZ Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low income 25.2 95 Namibia NAM Africa (Sub-Saharan) Upper middle income 2.3 96 Nepal NPL South Asia Low income 27.5 97 Nicaragua NIC Latin America and the Caribbean Lower middle income 6.0 98 Niger NER Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low income 17.2 99 Nigeria NGA Africa (Sub-Saharan) Lower middle income 168.8 100 Oman OMN Middle East and North Africa High income 3.3 101 Pakistan PAK South Asia Lower middle income 179.2 102 Panama PAN Latin America and the Caribbean Upper middle income 3.8 103 Papua New Guinea PNG East Asia & Pacific Lower middle income 7.2 104 Paraguay PRY Latin America and the Caribbean Lower middle income 6.7 105 Peru PER Latin America and the Caribbean Upper middle income 30.0 106 Philippines PHL East Asia & Pacific Lower middle income 96.7 107 Poland POL Eastern Europe and Central Asia High income 38.5 108 Qatar QAT Middle East and North Africa High income 2.1 40 COUNTRIES INCLUDED IN THE REPORT Country Name Code Region Income Classification Population (millions) 109 Romania ROM Eastern Europe and Central Asia Upper middle income 20.1 110 Russia RUS Eastern Europe and Central Asia High income 143.5 111 Rwanda RWA Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low income 11.5 112 S. Sudan SSD Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low income 0.2 113 Samoa WSM East Asia & Pacific Lower middle income 0.2 114 Sao Tome and Pr. STP Africa (Sub-Saharan) Lower middle income 28.3 115 Saudi Arabia SAU Middle East and North Africa High income 13.7 116 Senegal SEN Africa (Sub-Saharan) Lower middle income 7.2 117 Serbia SRB Eastern Europe and Central Asia Upper middle income 0.1 118 Seychelles SYC Africa (Sub-Saharan) Upper middle income 6.0 119 Sierra Leone SLE Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low income 5.4 120 Slovakia SVK Eastern Europe and Central Asia High income 2.1 121 Slovenia SVN Eastern Europe and Central Asia High income 0.5 122 Solomon Islands SLB East Asia & Pacific Lower middle income 10.2 123 Somalia SOM Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low income 52.3 124 South Africa ZAF Africa (Sub-Saharan) Upper middle income 10.8 125 Sri Lanka LKA South Asia Lower middle income 20.3 126 St. Kitts and Nev. KNA Latin America and the Caribbean High income 0.1 127 St. Lucia LCA Latin America and the Caribbean Upper middle income 0.2 128 St. Vincent VCT Latin America and the Caribbean Upper middle income 0.1 129 Sudan SDN Africa (Sub-Saharan) Lower middle income 37.2 130 Suriname SUR Latin America and the Caribbean Upper middle income 0.5 131 Swaziland SWZ Africa (Sub-Saharan) Lower middle income 1.2 132 Syria SYR Middle East and North Africa Lower middle income 22.4 133 Tajikistan TJK Eastern Europe and Central Asia Low income 8.0 134 Tanzania TZA Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low income 47.8 135 Thailand THA East Asia & Pacific Upper middle income 66.8 136 Timor-Leste TMP East Asia & Pacific Lower middle income 1.2 137 Togo TGO Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low income 6.6 138 Tonga TON East Asia & Pacific Upper middle income 0.1 139 Trinidad and Tob. TTO Latin America and the Caribbean High income 1.3 140 Tunisia TUN Middle East and North Africa Upper middle income 10.8 141 Turkey TUR Eastern Europe and Central Asia Upper middle income 74.0 142 Turkmenistan TKM Eastern Europe and Central Asia Upper middle income 5.2 143 Tuvalu TUV East Asia & Pacific Upper middle income 0.0 144 UAE ARE Middle East and North Africa High income 9.2 145 Uganda UGA Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low income 36.3 146 Ukraine UKR Eastern Europe and Central Asia Lower middle income 45.6 147 Uruguay URY Latin America and the Caribbean High income 3.4 148 Uzbekistan UZB Eastern Europe and Central Asia Lower middle income 29.8 149 Vanuatu VUT East Asia & Pacific Lower middle income 0.2 150 Venezuela VEN Latin America and the Caribbean Upper middle income 30.0 151 Vietnam VNM East Asia & Pacific Lower middle income 88.8 152 West Bank & Gaza WBG Middle East and North Africa Lower middle income 4.0 153 Yemen, Rep. YEM Middle East and North Africa Lower middle income 23.9 154 Zambia ZMB Africa (Sub-Saharan) Lower middle income 14.1 155 Zimbabwe ZWE Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low income 13.7 Note. The following countries were not included in the report and may be added in the next issues of The State of Safety Nets: American Samoa, Andorra, Aruba, Australia, Austria, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Bermuda, Brunei, Darussalam, Canada, Cayman Islands, Channel Islands, Cuba, Curaçao, Cyprus, Denmark, Faeroe Islands, Finland, France, French Polynesia, Germany, Greece, Greenland, Guam, Hong Kong SAR, Iceland, Ireland, Isle of Man, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Dem. Rep., Korea, Rep., Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Macao SAR, Malta, Monaco, Myanmar, Nauru, Netherlands, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Northern Mariana Islands, Norway, Palau, Poland, Portugal, Puerto Rico, San Marino, Sint Maarten (Dutch part), Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States, Virgin Islands (U.S.). A N N E X 2 P R O G R A M I N V E N TO RY 42 PROGRAM INVENTORY The table below presents an inventory of social safety net programs by region, country and program type. Social safety nets are non-contributory transfers designed to provide regular and predictable support to targeted poor and vulnerable people. These are also referred to as “social assistance” or “social transfers.” Methodology Programs are classified by benefit modality, including programs in cash and in-kind (including vouchers and targeted subsidies). Then the report divides programs by conditionality of transfers. Conditional transfers are provided upon fulfillment of a set of conditions or co-responsibilities by beneficiaries (e.g., ensuring a minimum level of school attendance by children, regular visits to health facilities, etc.). Unconditional transfers are provided without particular co-responsibilities, while public works engage participants in manual, labor-oriented activities such as building or rehabilitating community assets and public infrastructure. By combining these criteria, the following 5 program types are generated: conditional in-kind transfers, conditional cash transfers, unconditional in-kind transfers, unconditional cash transfers, and public works.33 For each of the five categories, the table reports some of the most significant (if not the largest) program in terms of number of beneficiaries based on most recent data and available information, the number of beneficiaries and the data source. When beneficiaries are reported in terms of household these are labelled as “hh,” otherwise they refer to individuals. The time period across programs may differ (ranging from 2008 to 2013) as the table reports only the most recent year. Sources The main source of information was the World Bank Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of Resilience and Equity SPL global database, which includes program data collected through World Bank social protection country assessment reports, public expenditure reviews, poverty assessment report, project documents, country policy notes, regional reports and social safety net reviews. The report also draws from extensive analysis of data available in official websites of governments and international development agencies engaged in social protection. These include the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), Helpage International (in particular the “Social Pensions Database”), the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the International Labor Office (ILO), the Standing Committee for Economic and Commercial Cooperation of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (COMCEC), the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and the World Food Programme. The World Food Programme “State of School feeding Worldwide” (WFP 2013a) and “Public Works as a Safety Net: Design, Evidence, and Implementation” (Subbarao et al., 2013) were key sources for the number of beneficiaries of conditional in-kind transfers (school feeding) and public works programs respectively (see Annex 6 for full references and resources). Specific sources are reported next to each beneficiary number for every program and country.   Condidtional Unconditional Public Works Food and Beneficiaries Conditional Cash Beneficiaries Food and Beneficiaries Unconditional Beneficiaries Beneficiaries Country Near Cash (’000) Source Transfer (’000) Source Near Cash (’000) Source Cash Transfer (’000) Source PW (’000) Source Afghanistan School 1841 WFP       Emergency 1800 WFP       Food-for-Work 1500 WFP (2014j) feeding (2013a) Food Assistance (2014j) Albania School 111 WFP       Energy benefit 57 World Ndihme 102 World Bank Employment 2 World Bank feeding (2013a) Bank Ekonomike (2011n) program (2010e) (2011n) Algeria School 31 WFP                         feeding (2013a) Angola School 221 WFP Angola 900 World Angola nutrition 800 World Angola social 1000 World Bank       feeding (2013a) Conditional Bank program Bank pension (2012o) Cash Transfer (2012o) (2012o) program School Progam Antigua and School 7 WFP                         Barbuda feeding (2013a) Argentina Comedores 3002 WFP Asignación 3541 ECLAC Plan nacional 1954 GoA Pensión no 576 Cerutti et al. Trabajadores 10 Subbarao escolares (2013a) Universal por (2012) de sugeridad (2007) contributiva (2014) Constructores (2013) Hijo para la alimentaria por Protección discapacidad Social Armenia School 38 WFP             Family 76 World Bank Paid public 5 Subbarao feeding (2013a) Benefits (2011o) works et al. (2013) Program Azerbaijana                   Targeted 180 Tesliuc et al.       social (2014) assistance Bahrain School 58 WFP             Large-scale           feeding (2013a) temporary Cash Transfer Program (CTP) Bangladesh School 1930 WFP Primary 7800 UNICEF Public Food 2100 WB Social 2475 Helpage Employment 1200 Subbarao feeding (2013a) Education (2013) Distribution (2010f) pensions International Generation (2013) Stipend Project System (2014) Program for the Poorest Belarusa School 228 WFP       Subsidies for 1490 World Last-resort 166 World Bank       feeding (2013a) housing and Bank social (2011r) utilities (2011r) assistance, GASP Belize School 26 WFP Building 9 ECLAC Women’s Iron 9 WB Social pension 4 Helpage       feeding (2013a) Opportunities (2012) and Folic Acid (2010a) International for Our Social Distribution (2014) Transformation Program (BOOST) Benin School 324 WFP Program for   WB Le programme 22 WB Universal     PGUD 1470 WB (2011f) feeding (2013a) girls education (2011f) d’appui (2011f) Social Pension PROGRAM INVENTORY nutritionnel aux ménages affectés par le 43 VIH/SID   Condidtional Unconditional Public Works 44 Food and Beneficiaries Conditional Cash Beneficiaries Food and Beneficiaries Unconditional Beneficiaries Beneficiaries Country Near Cash (’000) Source Transfer (’000) Source Near Cash (’000) Source Cash Transfer (’000) Source PW (’000) Source Bhutan School 82 WFP                         feeding (2013a) Bolivia School 1906 WFP Bono Juacinto 1750 ECLAC Nutrition 4 WFP Renta 835 Helpage       feeding (2013a) Pinto (2012) program (2013i) Dignidad International Social pension (2014) Bosnia & School 112 WFP             Family 181 World Bank       Herzegovina feeding (2013a) assistance (2010e) benefits Botswana School 330 WFP       Vulnerable 231 WB The Old-Age 90 WB (2011b) Alternative     PROGRAM INVENTORY feeding (2013a) Group Feeding (2011b) Pension (OAP) Packages Program Program (APP) Brazil Programa 47271 WFP Bolsa Familia 57753 ECLAC Segurança -   Previdência 5852 Cerutti et al. Programa -   nacional de (2013a) (2012) Alimentar e Rural and (2014) economia alimentacao Nutricional dos Benefício de solidaria escolar Povos Indígenas Prestação Continuada and Renda Mensal Vitalícia Bulgaria School 166 WFP       Energy Benefit 259 World Child benefits 817 World Bank       feeding (2013a) Bank (2009e) (2009e) Burkina Faso School 2209 WFP       Urban voucher 339 WB CT to OVC 6.5 WB (2011c) Food security     feeding (2013a) program (2011c) support program Burundi School 190 WFP       Support to 252 USAID       Public Works     feeding (2013a) refugees and (2014)  and Urban returnees management Project Cambodia School 756 WFP       Mother and 114 GoC       Emergency 1.3h Subbarao feeding (2013a) Child Health (2009) Food et al. (2013) program Asssistance Project Cameroonc School 43 WFP       Nutrition 20 WB Cash Transfer 20 hh World Bank Public Work s 10h World Bank feeding (2013a) program (2011d) Pilot (2013k) Pilot (2013k) Cape Verde School 86 WFP       Apoio 1.9 ILO Social 23 ILO (2012) Frentes de Alta     feeding (2013a) nutricional (2012) Pensions Intensidade de Mão de Obra (FAIMOs) Central Afr. School 284 WFP       General Food 33 WFP       Food for assets 89 CAR (2013) Rep. feeding (2013a) Distribution (2014c) to IDPs and returnees Chad School 255 WFP Conditional   UNHCR General Food 757 WFP       Food for assets 325 WFP (2012d) feeding (2013a) cash grants in (2011) Distribution (2012d) refugee camps to IDPs and returnees Chile Junta 2263 WFP       Programa -   Chile Solidario 1148 ECLAC ProEmpleo 19.9 GoCh (2013) nacional (2013a) nacional de (2012) de auxilio alimentacion escolar y complementaria becas China School 26000 WFP Educational     Wubao 5500 World Di Bao 74800 Umapathi       feeding (2013a) Subsidies and Bank et al. (2013) program free education (2010g) Colombia School 3334 WFP Familias en 11719 ECLAC Red de 4137 Perfetti Programa de 718 Helpage Programa de 14.3 GoC (2013) feeding (2013a) Acción (2012) seguridad et al. Protección International empleo de alimentaria (2010) Social al (2014) emergencia Adulto Mayor Comoros School 20 WFP                   Community 3.8 Subbarao feeding (2013a) Development et al. (2013) Support Fund (FADC in French) Congo, Dem. School 1176 WFP       Voucher 112 WFP Support to 92 WFP Social 14 Subbarao Rep. feeding (2013a) program (2014e) vulnerable (2014e) Emergency et al. (2013) households Action Program (PASU) Congo, Rep School 223 WFP       Food assistance 70 WFP Cash transfer   Hodges Public Works     feeding (2013a) to refugees (2014f) program in and O’Brien project Brazzaville (2012) and Point-Noire Costa Rica School 603 WFP Avancemos 185 ECLAC Cen-cinai 125 WB Social pension 84 Helpage Programa 2 WB (2008b) feeding (2013a) (2012) (2008b) International Nacional de (2014) Empleo Cote D’ivoire School 374 WFP       General Food 379 WFP Cash Transfer 54 WFP Post-Conflict 3 Subbarao feeding (2013a) Distribution to (2014g) Project in (2014g) Assistance et al. (2013) IDPs Abidjan Project Croatia School 152 WFP             Child 213 World Bank       feeding (2013a) Allowance (2011t) Czech Republic                   Benefit in 71 Tesliuc et al.       material need (2014) Djibouti School 28 WFP       Peri-urban 29 WFP Assistance     Social 75 Subbarao feeding (2013a) voucher (2012d) for the Assistance et al. (2013) program demobilized Pilot Program on Labor and Human Capital (75) Dominica School 5 WFP                         feeding (2013a) Dominican School 1372 WFP Programa 2947 ECLAC Comer es 2071 GoDR Ageing in           Rep. feeding (2013a) solidaridad (2011) Primero (2012) Extreme Poverty PROGRAM INVENTORY Protection Programme Ecuador School 1789 WFP Bono de 6418 ECLAC Alimentate     Pension 584 Helpage Mi primer     feeding (2013a) Desarrollo (2012) Ecuador para Adultos International empleo 45 Humano Mayores (2014)   Condidtional Unconditional Public Works 46 Food and Beneficiaries Conditional Cash Beneficiaries Food and Beneficiaries Unconditional Beneficiaries Beneficiaries Country Near Cash (’000) Source Transfer (’000) Source Near Cash (’000) Source Cash Transfer (’000) Source PW (’000) Source Egyptc School 7002 WFP       Support to 15 WFP Social 82 hh GoE (2008) FFA support for 8 WFP (2013g) feeding (2013a) nutrition (2013g) solidarity vulnerable rural pension communities El Salvador School 1,313 WFP Comunidades 412 ECLAC       Basic Social 29 GoES (2013) Program for 63.7 GoES (2013) feeding (2013a) Solidarias (2012) Pension Temporary Rurales Income Support (PATI) Equatorial                               Guineaf PROGRAM INVENTORY Eritrea             Blanket feeding 187 UNICEF       Public Works     for under 5 (2012) program Estonia School 47 WFP             Subsistence 38 Statistics       feeding (2013a) benefit Estonia (means-tested (2014) benefit) Ethiopia School 681 WFP       Food Assistance 3400 WFP Productive 242 hh GoE (2009) Productive 7600 Subbarao feeding (2013a) under Joint (2014h) Safety Nets Safety Net et al. (2013) Emergency Program* Program* Operation Programme Fiji       Care and 8 ADB Food Voucher   ADB Family 25 ADB       Protection (2009j) Program (na) (2009j) Assistance (2009j) Allowance Program Gabonf                               Gambia, The School 159 WFP Family 130 COMCEC Blanket 200 WFP Emergency 20 WFP (2014i)       feeding (2013a) Strengthening (2013) supplementary (2014i) Food Security Program feeding for Response children under 5 Georgia             Electricity 78.5 UNICEF Targeted 900 World Bank       vouchers (2010) social (2012l) assistance Ghana School 352 WFP Livelihood 73 hh ILO Targeted 480 WFP Social   ILO (2013) Labor Intensive 54 World Bank feeding (2013a) Empowerment (2013a) supplementary (2013f) Inclusion Public Works (2014b) Against feeding for Transfer Poverty (LEAP) malnourished children Grenada School 9 WFP       Food Security 1 UN Public 4 UN Women/ Debushing 0.4 Subbarao feeding (2013a) Program Women/ Assistance WB (2009) Program (2013) WB (2009) Guatemala School 3052 WFP Mi Bono 4168 ECLAC Bolsas Solidarias 70 WB Programa del 103 Helpage       feeding (2013a) Seguro (2012) (2010d) Adult Mayor International (2014) Guinea School 553 WFP       Food and 6 WFP Cash Transfer     Productive     feeding (2013a) nutritional (2014k) for nutrition Social Safety assistance to and for girl’s Net Program Ivoirian refugees education Guinea-Bissau School 126 WFP             Social pension 2 GoGB       feeding (2013a) (2007) Guyana School 17 WFP             Social pension 43 Helpage       feeding (2013a) International (2014) Haiti School 2155 WFP Ti Manman 111 ECLAC Unconditional 300 WFP       National Project 450 Subbarao feeding (2013a) Cheri (2012) food transfer (2014d) of Community (2013) relief assistance Participation Development (PRODEP in French) Honduras Programa 1460 WFP Bono 10,000 200 hh WB Nutrition 39 WFP Bono de la 61 Cerutti et al. Agro-Forestry 13 WFP (2012f) Escuela (2013a) (2012n) Support for (2012f) Tercera Edad (2014) and Watershed Saludables Vulnerable Project Groups Hungary School 249 WFP For the road 26 Friedman       Regular social 269 Tesliuc et al.       feeding (2013a) et al. assistance (2014) (2009) Indiae School 113600 WFP Janani 9500 Lim (et al. Integrated Child     Indira Gandhi 19200 Helpage Mahatma 38600 hh Ministry feeding (2013a) Suraksha (2010) Development National Old International Gandhi of Rural Yojana Services Age Pension (2014) National Rural Development Scheme Employment Guarantee Scheme Indonesia School 125 WFP Program 2,906 ADB Raskin 18500 Wolrd Bantuan 15500 ILO (2013b) National   Subbarao feeding (2013a) Keluarga (2009k) Bank Langsung Community et al. (2013) Harapan (2012t) Sementara Empowerment Masyarakat Program (PNPM Mandiri) Iran School 3 WFP             Compensatory 6100 World Bank       feeding (2013a) Cash Transfer (2010i) Iraqc School 555 WFP                         feeding (2013a) Jamaica School 311 WFP Programme of 307 ECLAC Rural feeding 4 WB Social pension 52 Helpage       feeding (2013a) Advancement (2012) Programme (2011o) International through Health (2014) and Education (PATH) Jordanc School 115 WFP       Urban TFA 115 WFP National Aid 250 WFP Rural FFA 42 WFP (2013h) feeding (2013a) (2013h) Fund (2013h) Kazakhstana School 629 WFP BOTA 135 World       Targeted 134 World Bank Road Map 247 World Bank feeding (2013a) Bank social (2011p) (2011p) (2011p) assistance Kenya School 1991 WFP Cash transfer 412 WB General 2180 WB Hunger Safety 290 WB (2012d) Kazi Kwa 300 Subbarao feeding (2013a) for OVC (2012d) relief food (2012d) net program Viajana et al. (2013) (CT-OVC) distribution (HSNP) Program (KKVP) PROGRAM INVENTORY Kiribati                   Elderly 2         Pension 47   Condidtional Unconditional Public Works 48 Food and Beneficiaries Conditional Cash Beneficiaries Food and Beneficiaries Unconditional Beneficiaries Beneficiaries Country Near Cash (’000) Source Transfer (’000) Source Near Cash (’000) Source Cash Transfer (’000) Source PW (’000) Source Kosovo                   Social welfare 426 World Bank Kosovo Public 2h Subbarao benefits (2010e) Works Program et al. (2013) Kuwait School 136 WFP Families of           Disability           feeding (2013a) Students grant grant Kyrgyz Rep.a School 301 WFP       Electricity 516 World Monthly 377 World Bank Public Works     feeding (2013a) compensation Bank benefit for (2014e) (2014e) poor Families with Children (MBPF) PROGRAM INVENTORY Lao, PDR School 177 WFP                   Poverty 118 Subbarao feeding (2013a) Reduction Fund et al. (2013) Latvia School 73 WFP             Guaranteed 120 World Bank Workplaces 82 World Bank feeding (2013a) minimum (2012r) with Stipend (2012r) income Emergency Public Works Program (WWS) Lebanon School 295 WFP             Family and           feeding (2013a) education allowances Lesotho School 445 WFP       Nutrition 134 WB Old age social 83 WB (2012e) Public works     feeding (2013a) Support for (2012e) pension Malnourished Children and other Vulnerable Groups Liberia School 648 WFP       Supplementary 152 WB Social Cash 2 hh WB (2011a) Liberia 153 WB (2011a) feeding (2013a) feeding (2011a) Transfer Emergency Employment Program/ Liberia Employment Action Program (LEEP/LEAP) Libyaf                               Lithuania                   Social benefit 68 GoL (2009) Temporary 6 GoL (2009) Employment Promotion Macedonia,       Conditional 19 World       Social financial 52.7 World Bank Organizing 5 Subbarao FYR cash transfer- Bank assistance (2010e) Public Works et al. (2013) increased child (2011t) allowance Madagascar School 237 WFP Conditional   WB Nutrition- 52 WB Family   WB (2012f) Cash-for-work 50h Subbarao feeding (2013a) cash transfer (2012f) related transfers (2012f) allowance component of et al. (2013) in-kind the Emergency Food Security and Reconstruction Project Malawib School 790 WFP       Targeted in-kind 1709 WFP Social Cash     Public works 223h Subbarao Feeding (2013a) transfer (2013e) Transfer program et al. (2013) Scheme (SCTS) Malaysiac School 1916 WFP             MWFCDs 420 World Bank       feeding (2013a) financial (2014d) assistance programs* Maldives                   Old Age 15 Helpage       Pension International Scheme (2014) Mali School 354 WFP Maternal 5 WB Government 450 WB Unconditional 7 World Bank Public Works 1h Subbarao feeding (2013a) Grants for (2011g) nutrition (2011g) cash transfer (2011g) Porgram et al. (2013) Education program program (Bourses in Gao and Maman) Sikasso Marshall School 4 WFP                         Islands feeding (2013a) Mauritaniad School 186 WFP Cash for 15 WFP Program for 73 WFP       Asset Creation 100 WFP (2013d) feeding (2013a) Training (2013d) Prevention (2013d) Program Program of Acute Malnutrition Mauritius School 75 WFP       Food stamps     Old age social 160 Helpage Public works     feeding (2013a) and vouchers pension International (2014) Mexico School 5164 WFP Oportunidades 32340 ECLAC Programa 674 hh Sedesol Programa de 5100 Helpage Programa 506 ILO (2009) feeding (2013a) (2012) de apoyo (2012) Atención a International de empleo alomentario los Adultos (2014) temporal Mayores de 70 Ampliado años y más en Zonas Rurales Micronesia, FSf                               Moldovaa School 70 WFP             Ajutor Social 27 Tesliuc et al. Moldova Social 112 Subbarao feeding (2013a) (2014) Investment et al. (2013) Fund Mongolia School 135 WFP       Food Stamp 97 ADB Child Money 932 ADB       feeding (2013a) Program (2009f) Program (2009f) Montenegro                   Family 13 Tesliuc et al.       material (2014) support and benefits based on social care Moroccoc School 1423 WFP Tayssir 80 World Villes Sans 324 hh World Family 538 World Bank Promotion 45 World Bank feeding (2013a) Bank Bidonvilles Bank allowances (2011s) Nationale (2011s) (2011s) (2011s) Mozambique School 427 WFP       Food for OVC 125 WFP Programa 217 WB (2011i) Programa de 10 GoM (2013) feeding (2013a) program (2013j) Subsidio Accao Social PROGRAM INVENTORY Social Basico Produtiva 49   Condidtional Unconditional Public Works 50 Food and Beneficiaries Conditional Cash Beneficiaries Food and Beneficiaries Unconditional Beneficiaries Beneficiaries Country Near Cash (’000) Source Transfer (’000) Source Near Cash (’000) Source Cash Transfer (’000) Source PW (’000) Source Namibia School 225 WFP             Old Age 141 Banerji &       feeding (2013a) Pension Gentilini (2013) Nepal School 471 WFP Scholarships 2616 ODI       Old Age 636 Helpage Rural 494 ODI (2012) feeding (2013a) (2012) Pension International Community Scheme (2014) Infrastructure Works program Nicaragua School 967 WFP       Productive 11 hh WB       Food for Work 6 World Bank lunches (2013a) Voucher (Bono (2008) (2008) PROGRAM INVENTORY productivo) Niger School 168 WFP       Récupération   WB Family     Public works     feeding (2013a) Nutritionnelle (2009a) allowance Nigeria School 155 WFP Kano 12 Garcia             Community 35 World Bank feeding (2013a) Conditional & Moore Services, (2013i) Cash Transfer (2012) Women for Girls’ and Youth Education Employment Scheme Omanf                               Pakistanc School 2078 WFP Benazir Income -         Benazir 1760 WB (2013l)       feeding (2013a) Support Income program Program- Support Conditional Program cash transfer component (3 provinces) Panama School 461 WFP Red de 327 ECLAC Bono Familiar 41 ECLAC Social pension 86 Helpage       feeding (2013a) Oportunidades (2012) para la compra (2012) International (na) de alimentos (2014) Papua New                         Public Works   Subbarao Guinea Program et al. (2013) Paraguay School 10 WFP Tekoporâ 555 ECLAC       Social pension 32 Helpage       feeding (2013a) (2012) International (2014) Peru School 3000 WFP Juntos 3573 ECLAC Vaso de Leche 3215 Lavigne Social pension 126 Helpage       feeding (2013a) (2012) (2013) International (2014) Philippines School 92 WFP Pantawid 3,995 hh World Pantawid 743 ADB Tulong Para   ADB Food-for-     feeding (2013a) Bank Kuryente (2009n) Kay Lolo and (2009n) Work for the (2013m) Lola Internally Displaced Poland School 730 WFP             Temporary 445 Kozek et al.       feeding (2013a) social (2012) assistance benefits (Pomoc Spoleczna) Qatar School 57 WFP                         feeding (2013a) Romania School 538 WFP Money for High 140 Friedman Heating 201 Grigoras State Child 4013 World Bank       feeding (2013a) School et al. Allowance and Allowance (2011m) (2009) Tesliuc (2012) Russiaa School 2647 WFP       Housing 9076 GoR Child 10524 Russian Regional public 1521 World Bank feeding (2013a) and heating (2010) Allowances Federal works program (2010h) subsidies State Statistics Service (2010) Rwanda School 541 WFP       Food stamps     The Fond     Vision 2020 24h Subbarao feeding (2013a) and vouchers d’Assistance Umurenge et al. (2013) aux Rescapees (VUP) du Genocide (FARG) S. Sudan School 400 WFP       Supplementary 692 WB       Food for Assets 942 WB (2013c) feeding** (2013a) Feeding (2013c) Program Samoa                   Senior Citizens 9 ADB       Benefit (2009b) Sao Tome School 40 WFP Maes 1.2 hh WB       Old Age Social 3 WB (2014c)       and Pr. feeding (2013a) Carenciadas (2014c) Pension Saudi Arabiac School 2121 WFP Support 428 World       Regular 371 World Bank       feeding (2013a) Assistance: Bank Assistance: (2012q) School Bags (2012q) Divorced, and Uniforms Widowed Women Senegalc School 764 WFP Conditional 5 WB Commissariat 3600 World Child Nutrition 26.3 Garcia       feeding (2013a) Cash Transfer (2013d) à la Sécurité Bank Program, & Moore for Orphans Alimentaire, (2013d) NETS (2012) and Vulnerable CSA Children Serbia School 181 WFP             Child 203 World Bank       feeding (2013a) Allowance (2011t) Seychelles School 6 WFP             Universal Old 7.6 Social       feeding (2013a) Age Social Pension Pension Database Sierra Leone School 530 WFP       Food Assistance 12 WB OVC benefits     The Rural 814 WB (2012i) feeding (2013a) to Refugee (2012i) Public Works and Returnee- and Shelter Affected Areas Programme, of Sierra Leone National Social Action Project Slovakia School 136 WFP Motivation 31 Sundaram       Material need 111 Sundaram       feeding (2013a) allowance et al. benefit et al. (2012) (2012) Slovenia School 68 WFP       Housing 4.5 GoS Child Benefits 371 GoS (2008)       PROGRAM INVENTORY feeding (2013a) Subsidy (2008) Solomon                         Rapid   ADB (2009q) Islands Employment Program (na) 51   Condidtional Unconditional Public Works 52 Food and Beneficiaries Conditional Cash Beneficiaries Food and Beneficiaries Unconditional Beneficiaries Beneficiaries Country Near Cash (’000) Source Transfer (’000) Source Near Cash (’000) Source Cash Transfer (’000) Source PW (’000) Source Somalia School 76 WFP       Targeted 718 WFP CWMG 96.7 Dunn et al. Cash-for-Work 780 FAO (2013) feeding (2013a) Supplementary (2012a) Program** (2013) Programme Feeding Program South Africa School 8821 WFP             Child Support 10790 GoSA et al. Expanded 550 GoSA (2011) feeding (2013a) Grant (2012) Public Employment Program Sri Lanka School 1264 WFP Free 45 WB Samurdhi** 1541 hh WB Monthly 11 WB (2012p) Emergency -   PROGRAM INVENTORY feeding (2013a) scholarship (2012p) (2012p) Allowance for Northern programs for disable Recovery school children— Project (ENReP) Grade 5 St. Kitts School 4 WFP       Uniforms and 2 WB Assistance 1 WB (2009c)       and Nev. feeding (2013a) Shoes (2009c) Pensions St. Lucia School 12 WFP       Education 3 WB Public 22.5 hh WB (2009b)       feeding (2013a) Assistance (2009b) assistance program St. Vincent School 9 WFP       Nutrition 1 WB Public 6 WB (2010b) Road Cleaning 3 WB (2010b) feeding (2013a) Support (2010b) Assistance Program Program Relief Sudan School 1630 WFP       General Food 5127 WFP       Food for Assets 952 WFP (2012c) feeding (2012a) Distribution (2012c) Program Suriname                   Social pension 44.7 Helpage       International (2014) Swaziland National 328 WFP       WFP- Relief 70 WB Old Age Grant 44 WB (2012j) Public works     School Meal (2013a) food distribution (2012j) Program Syria School 46 WFP                   Public Works     feeding (2013a) Program Tajikistan School 330 WFP       Food for TB 45 WFP Targeted 7 World bank       feeding (2013a) patients (2014) social (2013o) assistance (pilot) Tanzania Food for 1275 WFP Tanzania 6 WB Nutritional     Most     Tanzania Social 22 WB (2011k) Education (2013a) Social Action (2011k) program Vulnerable Action Fund Fund—Pilot Children Conditional (MVC) Cash Transfer Program Thailand School 1677 WFP             Old Age 5700 ADB Income     feeding (2013a) Allowance (2009d) generation program (na) Timor-Leste School 288 WFP Bolsa da Mae 11 ADB Food Security     Transfers for 86.9 ADB Cash for work 55 ADB (2009a) feeding (2013a) (2009a) Fund the elderly (2009a) Togo School 40 WFP       Nutrition 26 WB Cash transfer     Public Works 25 Subbarao feeding (2013a) program by (2012k) to children with High Labor et al. (2013) UNICEF Instensity Tonga School 8 WFP                         feeding (2013a) Trinidad School 84 WFP Targeted 36 ECLAC                   and Tob. feeding (2013a) conditional (2011) cash transfer program Tunisiac School 240 WFP             Programme 235hh World Bank       feeding (2013a) National (2013p) d’Aide aux Familles Nécessiteuses (PNAFN)— Cash transfers Turkey School 4209 WFP Conditional 2,130 Emir et al.             Active Labor 64 GoT (2012) feeding (2013a) Cash Transfer (2013) market Şartlı Nakit Programs Transferi Turkmenistanf                               Tuvaluf                               UAEf                               Uganda School 94 WFP       Mother and 76 WFP Direct Income 113 GoU (2014) Northern 300 Subbarao feeding (2013a) Child Health (2013c) Support Uganda Social et al. (2013) program Action Fund 2 Ukrainea School 758 WFP       Housing 684 World Child Care 1800 World Bank       feeding (2013a) and utility Bank Benefit (2011t) allowances (2012s) Uruguay Programa de 256 WFP Asignaciones 528 ECLAC Tarjeta Uruguay 75 hh GoU Social pension 31 Helpage Uruguay trabaja 3 MIDES (2013) alimentacion (2013a) Familiares (2012) social (2013) International escolar (2014) Uzbekistana School 959 WFP       YICF—support 475 UNICEF Social 600 CER (2014) Public Works 0.1h Subbarao feeding (2013a) to breastfeeding (2009) assistance to Employment et al. (2013) poor families Program Vanuatuf                               Venezuela School 4031 WFP             Social pension 675 Helpage       feeding (2013a) International (2014) Vietnam School 3,409 WFP Decree 49 and     Housing support 500 hh Castel Social 1100 Helpage Public Works     feeding (2013a) its revision for the poor (2010) pensions International Program Decree (2014) for Poor 74/2013/ND-CP Unemployed or Underemployed Labours West Bank &             Urban voucher 46 Galluzi et Cash Transfers 100 hh Hillis et al.       PROGRAM INVENTORY Gaza program al. (2010) CTP (2013) 53   Condidtional Unconditional Public Works 54 Food and Beneficiaries Conditional Cash Beneficiaries Food and Beneficiaries Unconditional Beneficiaries Beneficiaries Country Near Cash (’000) Source Transfer (’000) Source Near Cash (’000) Source Cash Transfer (’000) Source PW (’000) Source Yemen, Rep.c School 65 WFP             Social Welfare     Labor Intensive 574 Subbarao feeding (2013a) Fund Works (LIW) (2013) Program— Social Fund for Development Zambia School 2,112 WFP       Food stamps     Social Cash     C-SAFE Zambia 23 WB (2012c) feeding (2013a) and vouchers Transfer Project Scheme Zimbabwe SPLASH 7.2 hh CaLP       DRR Seasonal 630 WFP Harmozied 32.5 OPM (2013) Public works 400h Subbarao PROGRAM INVENTORY voucher (2011) Targeted (2014b) Social Cash program et al. (2013) program Assistance Transfer Program aIncludes other interventions not considered in the report, such as special privileges that provide access to subsidies. bIncludes other interventions not considered in the report, such as agricultural input subsidies. cIncludes other interventions not considered in the report, such as a number of subsidy programs. dIncludes other interventions not considered in the report, such as subwsidized food shops. eIncludes other interventions not considered in the report, such as the targeted public distribution system. fInformation on safety net programs not available. *May include more than one intervention or program type. **Data refers to both Sudan and South Sudan. A N N E X 3 SPENDING 56 SPENDING Income Social Safety Country Name Code Classification Net as % of GDP Latest Year Source Note Afghanistan AFG Low income 0.02 2009 ADB (2009s) Own calculations based on ADB data Albania ALB Upper middle 1.54 2011 World Bank (2013e) Public works and school feeding programs are income not included in safety nets expenditure. Algeria DZA Angola AGO Antigua and ATG Barbuda Argentina ARG Upper middle 1.86 2010 Cerutti et al. (2014) Own calculations based on Cerutti et al. income (2014) Armenia ARM Lower middle 1.43 2012 World Bank (2013e) Public works and school feeding programs are income not included in safety nets expenditure. Azerbaijan AZE Upper middle 0.97 2011 World Bank (2013e) Public works and school feeding programs are income not included in safety nets expenditure. Bahrain BHR High income 1.45 2009 Silva et al. (2013) Bangladesh BGD Low income 0.28 2009 ADB (2009i) Own calculations based on ADB data Belarus BLR Upper middle 1.28 2011 World Bank (2013e) Public works and school feeding programs are income not included in safety nets expenditure. Belize BLZ Upper middle 2.9 2009 World Bank (2010a) Public works expenditures may not be income included. Benin BEN Low income 0.1 2009 World Bank (2011f) Bhutan BTN Lower middle 0.33 2009 ADB (2009c) Own calculations based on ADB data income Bolivia BOL Bosnia & BIH Upper middle 3.33 2010 World Bank (2013e) Public works and school feeding programs are Herzegovina income not included in safety nets expenditure. Botswana BWA Upper middle 3.2 2008 World Bank (2011b) income Brazil BRA Upper middle 2.49 2010 Cerutti et al. (2014) income Bulgaria BGR Upper middle 1.07 2008 World Bank (2013e) Public works and school feeding programs are income not included in safety nets expenditure. Burkina Faso BFA Low income 0.90 2009 World Bank (2011c) Burundi BDI Cambodia KHM Low income 0.72 2009 ADB (2009u) Own calculations based on ADB data Cameroon CMR Lower middle 0.23 2009 World Bank (2011d) income Cape Verde CPV Central Afr. CAF Rep. Chad TCD Chile CHL High income 1.96 2010 Cerutti et al. (2014) Own calculations based on Cerutti et al. (2014) China CHN Upper middle 0.7 2009 ADB (2009w) Own calculations based on ADB data income Colombia COL Upper middle 0.83 2010 Cerutti et al. (2014) Own calculations based on Cerutti et al. income (2014) Comoros COM Congo, Dem. ZAR Rep. Congo, Rep COG Costa Rica CRI SPENDING 57 Income Social Safety Country Name Code Classification Net as % of GDP Latest Year Source Note Cote D’ivoire CIV Croatia HRV High income 3.79 2011 World Bank (2013e) Public works and school feeding programs are not included in safety nets expenditure. Czech CZE Republic Djibouti DJI Dominica DMA Dominican DOM Rep. Ecuador ECU Upper middle 1.79 2010 Cerutti et al. (2014) Own calculations based on Cerutti et al. income (2014) Egypt EGY Lower middle 0.16 2010 Silva et al. (2013) income El Salvador SLV Lower middle 0.86 2010 Cerutti et al. (2014) income Equatorial GNQ Guinea Eritrea ERI Low income 2.5 2008 WB Policy monitoring and reporting tools Estonia EST High income 2.63 2011 World Bank (2013e) Public works and school feeding programs are not included in safety nets expenditure. Ethiopia ETH Fiji FJI Upper middle 0.78 2009 ADB (2009j) Own calculations based on ADB data income Gabon GAB Gambia, The GMB Low income 1 2010 WB Policy monitoring and reporting tools Georgia GEO Lower middle 6.09 2012 World Bank (2013e) Public works and school feeding programs are income not included in safety nets expenditure. Ghana GHA Lower middle 0.20 2012 ILO (2013) income Grenada GRD Guatemala GTM Guinea GIN Guinea-Bissau GNB Guyana GUY Haiti HTI Honduras HND Lower middle 0.54 2010 Cerutti et al. (2014) income Hungary HUN Upper middle 3.4 2011 ESSPROS The number is calculated by aggregating the income child/family, housing and social exclusion social protection functions. India IND Lower middle 0.24 2009 ADB (2009y) Own calculations based on ADB data income Indonesia IDN Lower middle 0.76 2009 ADB (2009k) Own calculations based on ADB data income Iran IRN Iraq IRQ Upper middle 1.22 2009 Silva et al. (2013) income Jamaica JAM Upper middle 1.8 2010 World Bank (2011o) income 58 SPENDING Income Social Safety Country Name Code Classification Net as % of GDP Latest Year Source Note Jordan JOR Upper middle 1.19 2009 Silva et al. (2013) income Kazakhstan KAZ Upper middle 1.04 2012 World Bank (2013e) Public works and school feeding programs are income not included in safety nets expenditure. Kenya KEN Low income 0.8 2010 World Bank (2012d) Kiribati KIR Lower middle 3.73 2010 WB Policy income monitoring and reporting tools Kosovo KSV Lower middle 1.47 2012 World Bank (2013e) Public works and school feeding programs are income not included in safety nets expenditure. Kuwait KWT High income 0.84 2010 Silva et al. (2013) Kyrgyz Rep. KGZ Low income 3.39 2011 World Bank (2014e) Public works and school feeding programs are not included in safety nets expenditure. Lao, PDR LAO Lower middle 0.33 2009 ADB (2009v) Own calculations based on ADB data income Latvia LVA High income 0.88 2012 World Bank (2013e) Public works and school feeding programs are not included in safety nets expenditure. Lebanon LBN Upper middle 1 2010 Silva et al. (2013) income Lesotho LSO Lower middle 4.6 2010 World Bank (2012e) income Liberia LBR Low income 1.5 2011 World Bank (2011e) Libya LBY Lithuania LTU High income 2.12 2009 World Bank (2013e) Public works and school feeding programs are not included in safety nets expenditure. Macedonia, MKD Upper middle 1.08 2011 World Bank (2013e) Public works and school feeding programs are FYR income not included in safety nets expenditure. Madagascar MDG Low income 1.10 2010 World Bank (2012f) Malawi MWI Malaysia MYS Upper middle 0.29 2009 ADB (2009e) Own calculations based on ADB data income Maldives MDV Upper middle 1.55 2009 ADB (2009l) Own calculations based on ADB data income Mali MLI Low income 0.5 2009 World Bank (2011g) Marshall MHL Upper middle 1.05 2009 ADB (2009x) Own calculations based on ADB data Islands income Mauritania MRT Lower middle 1.3 average World Bank (2013f) income 2008–2013 Mauritius MUS Upper middle 4.4 2008 World Bank (2011h) income Mexico MEX Upper middle 0.78 2010 Cerutti et al. (2014) Own calculations based on Cerutti et al. income (2014) Micronesia, FS FSM Moldova MDA Lower middle 2.28 2010 World Bank (2013e) Public works and school feeding programs are income not included in safety nets expenditure. Mongolia MNG Lower middle 3.02 2009 ADB (2009f) Own calculations based on ADB data income Montenegro MNE Upper middle 1.43 2010 World Bank (2013e) Public works and school feeding programs are income not included in safety nets expenditure. Morocco MAR Lower middle 0.87 2008 Silva et al. (2013) income Mozambique MOZ Low income 1.7 2010 World Bank (2011i) SPENDING 59 Income Social Safety Country Name Code Classification Net as % of GDP Latest Year Source Note Myanmar MMR Low income Namibia NAM Upper middle 2.8 2011 Namibia Ministry of income Finance (2011) Nepal NPL Low income 1.2 2009 ADB (2009g) Own calculations based on ADB data Nicaragua NIC Lower middle 2.9 2007 World Bank(2008) income Niger NER Low income 0.4 2009 World Bank (2009a) Nigeria NGA Oman OMN Pakistan PAK Lower middle 1.02 2009 ADB (2009t) Own calculations based on ADB data income Panama PAN Upper middle 2.8 2009 World Bank (2012g) income Papua New PNG Lower middle 0.01 2009 ADB (2009h) Own calculations based on ADB data Guinea income Paraguay PRY Peru PER Upper middle 0.47 2010 Cerutti et al. (2014) income Philippines PHL Lower middle 0.34 2009 ADB (2009n) Own calculations based on ADB data income Poland POL High income 1.6 2011 ESSPROS The number is calculated by aggregating the child/family, housing and social exclusion social protection functions. Qatar QAT Romania ROM Upper middle 3.38 2010 World Bank (2013e) Public works and school feeding programs are income not included in safety nets expenditure. Russia RUS High income 3.3 2010 Russian Statistics Public works programs included, school Service feeding excluded. Rwanda RWA Low income 1.1 2010 World Bank (2012h) S. Sudan SSD Samoa WSM Lower middle 0.67 2009 ADB (2009b) Own calculations based on ADB data income Sao Tome STP and Pr. Saudi Arabia SAU High income 0.95 2009 Silva et al. (2013) Senegal SEN Serbia SRB Upper middle 2.08 2010 World Bank (2013e) Public works and school feeding programs are income not included in safety nets expenditure. Seychelles SYC Upper middle 3.35 2012 World Bank (2013h) income Sierra Leone SLE Low income 3.5 2011 World Bank (2012i) Slovakia SVK High income 2.2 2011 ESSPROS The number is calculated by aggregating the child/family, housing and social exclusion social protection functions. Slovenia SVN High income 2.8 2011 ESSPROS The number is calculated by aggregating the child/family, housing and social exclusion social protection functions. Solomon SLB Lower middle 0.26 2009 ADB (2009q) Own calculations based on ADB data Islands income Somalia SOM 60 SPENDING Income Social Safety Country Name Code Classification Net as % of GDP Latest Year Source Note South Africa ZAF Upper middle 3.4 2012 WB Policy income monitoring and reporting tools Sri Lanka LKA Lower middle 2.64 2009 ADB (2009r) Own calculations based on ADB data income St. Kitts and KNA High income 1.6 2008 World Bank (2009c) Nev. St. Lucia LCA Upper middle 1.3 2008 World Bank (2009b) income St. Vincent VCT Upper middle 2.2 2008 World Bank (2010b) income Sudan SDN Suriname SUN Swaziland SWZ Lower middle 2.2 2010 World Bank (2012j) income Syria SYR Lower middle 1 2010 Silva et al. (2013) income Tajikistan TJK Low income 0.58 2011 World Bank (2013e) Public works and school feeding programs are not included in safety nets expenditure. Tanzania TZA Low income 0.3 2011 World Bank (2011k) Thailand THA Upper middle 0.72 2009 ADB (2009d) Own calculations based on ADB data income Timor-Leste TMP Lower middle 5.91 2009 ADB (2009a) Own calculations based on ADB data income Togo TGO Low income 0.5 2009 World Bank (2012k) Tonga TON Trinidad TTO and Tob. Tunisia TUN Upper middle 0.67 2011 Silva et al. (2013) income Turkey TUR Upper middle 1.33 2010 World Bank (2013e) Public works and school feeding programs are income not included in safety nets expenditure. Turkmenistan TKM Tuvalu TUV UAE ARE Uganda UGA Ukraine UKR Lower middle 2.33 2011 World Bank (2013e) Public works and school feeding programs are income not included in safety nets expenditure. Uruguay URY High income 1.01 2010 Cerutti et al. (2014) Own calculations based on Cerutti et al. (2014) Uzbekistan UZB Vanuatu VUT Lower middle 0.28 2009 ADB (2009o) Own calculations based on ADB data income Venezuela VEN Vietnam VNM Lower middle 0.6 2009 ADB (2009p) Own calculations based on ADB data income West Bank & WBG Lower middle 0.81 2010 Silva et al. (2013) Gaza income Yemen, Rep. YEM Lower middle 1.44 2008 Silva et al. (2013) income Zambia ZMB Lower middle 0.2 2011 World Bank (2012c) income Zimbabwe ZWE A N N E X 4 POLICIES, INSTITUTIONS, A N D   A D M I N I S T R AT I O N 62 POLICIES, INSTITUTIONS, AND ADMINISTRATION The following table is based on internal World Bank monitoring and reporting tools and refers to latest available information as of 2013.   Policy and Strategy Institutions Administration Country Y/N/P Strategy Name Year Comment Comment Comment Afghanistan Y Afghanistan 2008 In 2010 the government A high level Inter- National has started prioritizing Ministerial committee Development the ANDS. The process on Social Protection was Strategy (ANDS) resulted in 22 National formed under the ANDS. priority programs (NPPs). Albania Y Inter-sectorial 2007 The Social Assistance   Statistical monitoring Strategy on Social Framework Law information exists for all Inclusion was amended in programs. 2011 enabling social assitance reforms. The Government is currently working towards their implementation. It took initial steps with the approval of secondary legislation for the implementation of poverty-targeted social assistance program reforms. Algeria Y Government’s 2009 There are plans to The Ministry of national Algera has an M&E for social Plan of revise the sector solidarity is in charge assistance programs. Action for the strategy by the Ministry of social assistance Implementation of National Solidarity, programs for most of the President’s in charge of social vulnerable groups. Program  assistance programs for most vulnerable groups. Angola P     The GOA has made The Bases of Social   progress in developing Protection law states a general framework for that the basic SP scheme social protection. is under responsibility of the Ministério da Assistência e Reinserção Social (MINARS). Antigua and Barbuda Argentina N ANSES, the national ANSES began to publish Social Security a quarterly report on its Administration, has the main social assistance core role of coordination. program, the Universal Child Efforts have been Allowance. made to formalize links between national and provincial governments. Armenia Y Poverty Reduction 2011     A new MIS will be developed Strategy  as part of the SPAP 2 project which will allow for the delivery of integrated monitoring of beneficiaires. Azerbaijan Y Poverty Reduction 2005 The SP system consists MLSPP had commissioned Strategy  of both targeted and technical assistance to build a categorical programs. comprehensive M&E system Recently, there has and build internal staff been a slight shift capacity. A list of 100 social towards non-means- protection indicators has tested programs. been developed based on the review of international best practices. The project’s next phase (after January 2014) will focus on TSA and social housing policy. Bahrain POLICIES, INSTITUTIONS, AND ADMINISTRATION 63   Policy and Strategy Institutions Administration Country Y/N/P Strategy Name Year Comment Comment Comment Bangladesh P National Social     The National Social The Poverty Database, led by Protection Protection Strategy the Statistics and Informatics Strategy (NSPS) development Division, will allow safety is led by the Planning net programs and any Commission. It will other targeted programs to provide a framework for adopt a more coordinated coordinating the existing approach to targeting of 95 safety net programs. beneficiaries. A reform of the largest safety net programs is underway to improve their targeting, payments and grievance redress systems, as well as better monitoring and evaluation. Belarus Y Social and 2006 The Government has Evaluations are available for Economic clearly formulated an some programs based on Development objective of reducing HBS data. of Belarus for poverty that was 2006–2015 translated into their overall strategy for social and economic development Belize P     Belize has begun The GoB has begun a A new monitoring/ to develop the process of rationalization evaluation system in Belize building blocks of an and reorientation of was launched, i.e. the SP Strategy. existing programs, Inter-Agency Public Safety and reorganization management information of institutional system (IPSMIS). The arrangements. The IPSMIS is a database that Ministry of Human tracks institutional and Development, Social social indicators across Transformation and the Statistical Institute Poverty Alleviation of Belize, the Ministry of (MHD) and the Ministry Education, the Ministry of Education (MOE) of Health, the Ministry of will be in charge of Human Development and implementing social the Ministry of Economic protection programs. Development. They are now also sharing a common targeting tool to identify the poorest families. The MOE and MHD are now using the Single Identification System of Beneficiaries Beneficiary (SISB). Benin P Holistic Social The draft Holistic Social Coordination of social A national unified beneficiary Protection Paper Protection Paper has protection intervention database is underway, been validated, and will better materialize tentatively to be housed in transmitted to the when the Holistic Social the Ministry of Family and Council of Ministers for Protection Policy Paper Social Affairs. In 2013, a draft adoption. will fully be implemented. monitoring and evaluation The Comité Socle de system of social protection Protection Sociale has and gender has been undertaken a number developed. The household of activities in 2013, survey program may resume including the validation in 2014. of a harmonized methodology for targeting beneficiaries of social protection programs. A new pilot community-based safety net program is underway with first transfers foreseen for the first half of 2014. 64 POLICIES, INSTITUTIONS, AND ADMINISTRATION   Policy and Strategy Institutions Administration Country Y/N/P Strategy Name Year Comment Comment Comment Bhutan Y National Social 2013 The Royal Government     Protection Policy of Bhutan has drafted for Workers in a national social Bhutan  protection. The strategy expands benefits to those in the formal sector outside of civil service, as well as benefits for senior citizens outside of the formal sector. Bolivia Y Red de Protección 2007 UDAPE have UDAPE completed the Social y responsibility for design of a Beneficiary Desarrollo Integral the monitoring and Registry of Social Programs Comunitario coordination of the Social and initiated the use of a new (RPS-DIC) Protection Network. Monitoring System for social programs. It completed the impact evaluations of BJA. Bosnia and N           Herzegovina Botswana Y Social 2011 In 2011 Botswana, Botswana made important Development through Department progress in establishing Framework of Social Services, an overall M&E system for has adopted a public policies and programs, Social Development and some progress has Framework that covers been made in developing the SP aspects. information systems for specific social assistance programs within the Ministry of Local Government. Brazil Y Brasil Sem Miseria 2011   The Ministry for Social A secretariat (SAGI) is Plan (BSM) Development and Fight dedicated to M&E functions. Against Hunger (MDS) MDS has promoted the leads the BSM. use of the Single Registry (Cadastro Único) as a platform and targeting mechanism for all social programs. Bulgaria N Burkina Faso Y Strategy for 2011 In 2011 the Government In 2013 the government In 2013/14, the government Growth and has developed with put in place the Conseil started a project to develop Sustainable the support of the National de la Protection an M&E system for the Development development partners Sociale (CNPS) to serve new cash transfer program an action plan for the as an inter-ministerial and to undertake impact implementation of coordination mechanisms evaluations. the SP strategy and for social protection and which still needs to be social safety nets. operationalized. Burundi Y National Social 2011 A National Social A technical working Protection Policy  Protection Policy group that brings (PNPS) was adopted in together donors and April 2011. A National Government was Social Protection recently established and Commission (CNPS) has started to meet to was set up by a discuss social protection Presidential decree issues. in August 2012. This commission is chaired by the President himself. POLICIES, INSTITUTIONS, AND ADMINISTRATION 65   Policy and Strategy Institutions Administration Country Y/N/P Strategy Name Year Comment Comment Comment Cambodia Y National 2010 The Action Plan for Mandate was expanded The Monitoring Framework Protection NSPS implementation for the Council for of the National Social Strategy (NSPS, (2012–2015) assigned Agricultural and Protection Strategy has been 2009–2013) responsibilities, Rural Development developed. timeframes and to coordinate the budgets. Some development and progress has implementation of the been made in NSPS, including ensuring operationalizing the that effective inter- NSPS, although it is still ministerial coordination limited. mechanisms are in place. Cameroon P The government is in the process of preparing a social protection strategy. Cape Verde Y Second Growth 2009 The government has The Ministry of Youth, To monitor the performance and Poverty developed a National Employment and Human of the system, the MoYEHRD Reduction Strategy of Social Resources Development Government has developed Strategy Protection which is well (MoYEHRD) is a M&E system (Sistema de articulated with the responsible for Seguimento e Avaliacao pillar of Social Cohesion coordination and SISA). The system integrates of the country’s Third implementation. financial and implementation Growth and Poverty information. A unique Reduction Strategy registry was recently (GPRSP III, 2012). introduced. Central African N Programs are Republic implemented under the leadership of the Ministry of Planning. Chad P     The Government is The Ministry of Social   following a roadmap Action, National to elaborate a national Solidarity and social protection Family performs the strategy. coordination and monitoring of programs in partnership with other departments. Chile Y Social Protection 2012 In 2012, the Congress A variety of specific System established the Ingreso mechanisms and Etico as a subsystem of arrangements have been the Intersectoral Social developed to promote Protection System. coordination, including inter-institutional agreements, national budgeting procedures and an integrated social information system. China Y 12th Five Year Plan 2011 Its 12th Five Year Plan In 2012, a leading group   (2011–2015) includes an overall composed of MOHRSS, strategy for a set of SP MOF, NDRC, ACFTU and programs. In November, NSSF was formed to the CCP 18th third take various measures to plenum outlined a coordinate within social reform proposal to assistance programs deepen reforms so as and between social to address the second assistance and insurance generation issues of programs. social protection and labor. 66 POLICIES, INSTITUTIONS, AND ADMINISTRATION   Policy and Strategy Institutions Administration Country Y/N/P Strategy Name Year Comment Comment Comment Colombia Y National 2010 The Ministry of Social The government is working Development Plan Protection operated to better align two major form 2002 to 2012. It was information systems, subsequently divided namely RUAF (registry of into the Ministry of Labor beneficiaries) and SISBEN and Ministry of Health (targeting identification and Social Protection. system). Comoros Y Social Protection 2007 A SP strategy had been     Strategy drafted by the Ministry of Labor in 2007 but it is limited in scope to private sector workers. Congo, Dem. Rep. P Efforts are underway A Social Protection to develop a Social Thematic Group has Protection Note as been established and an initial building meets regularly under the block toward a leadership of the Ministry comprehensive policy. of Social Affairs and the Ministry of Employment. Congo, Rep. Y National Social 2012   Ministry of Social Affairs In line with the PNAS, a Protection Action provides the core framework for monitoring Plan (PNAS) institutional home for SP. and evaluation of programs 2012–2016 performance is in place. Costa Rica Y Plan Nacional 2010 SP programs are mainly Beneficiaries are all captured de Desarrollo implemented by IMAS by a unique registry (SIPO). 2010–2014  (Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social) for the social assistance component, and Caja del Seguro Social for social insurance. Cote d’lvoire P   The SP strategy has     been finalized but is still waiting to be adopted in the Council of Ministers. Currently, the Strategy is being reviewed by the Ministry of Economics and Finance, the last step before the Council. Croatia Y Strategy of 2011 The Department of The contributory and Social Welfare Social Policy is leading non-contributory programs Development  the SP coordination and have separate beneficiary proposing policy reforms. registries. Significant benefits have been availed with their interconnection at the national level. Czech Republic Djibouti Y Social Protection 2012 In 2012 the Government Given the cross-sectorial MIS not yet fully operational, Strategy formulated a Social nature of the programs, data entry is slow due to Protection Strategy. the Djiboutian Social internet connectivity and The Government is Development Agency limited staff, computerized currently working (ADDS ) coordinates MIS in rural areas is more on scaling-up the with other partners, challenging. The social existing social safety including the Ministry of registry will rely on biometric net through ADDS Health and Ministry of information to reduce double and on designing new Education. counting and misuse of programs based on a resources. M&E systems at the forthcoming Poverty program level have recently and Social Impact collected a vast number of Analysis. different household data. A new social assistance project includes an MIS and a rigorous impact evaluation. POLICIES, INSTITUTIONS, AND ADMINISTRATION 67   Policy and Strategy Institutions Administration Country Y/N/P Strategy Name Year Comment Comment Comment Dominica Y Growth and 2012 The GSPS lacks There are limited The National Beneficiary Social Protection comprehensiveness mechanisms for Information System (NBIS) Strategy (GSPS) and attention to coordination across still provides the Ministry of improvements in ministries, although Social Services, Community the SP system. This there are some efforts Development and Gender is being partially to address this through Affairs with an internal tool addressed through the ISPS currently being for program monitoring. The the development of worked on. ISPS seeks to address these an Integrated Social challenges by laying out a Protection Strategy framework for revising and (ISPS). rolling out the NBIS and for developing M&E systems for main social assistance programs. Dominican Republic P     The current In 2009–2010, Intra-sectoral coordination administration is important institutional mechanisms between the calling for a new social improvements were conditional cash transfer, the protection strategy made in terms of targeting system SIUBEN, in order to accelerate creating new cross- and the Transfers Institution results in terms of sectoral coordination ADESS were established. poverty reduction, mechanisms with Rigorous evaluations have coordination, coverage, education and health been completed for the and results-orientation. services to help identify conditional cash transfer The process for and monitor the and youth employment designing such strategy reduction of supply-side programs. 2014 should is beginning. gaps in basic social see the development of services. expected results and targets for the Agreements between the Social Cabinet and other Institutions. Ecuador Y National Plan 2013 The Constitution and The Ministry Coordinator The MCDS is leading the 2013–2017 the new National of Social Development monitoring process through Plan for the second (MCDS) is who lead the two main Information period of the current institutional framework Systems: the Social Registry administration, in charge of the Social (proxy mean test); and reinforces access to Protection Policy, and the Registry of the Social social security without jointly with the National Programs (RIPS). In terms discrimination and Secretary for Planning of evaluation the MCDS extends its coverage (SENPLADES) leads the and SENPLADES share the to additional groups. National Strategy for responsibility to evaluate Such extensions have Poverty Reduction. the main programs and the served to underline second impact evaluation of the needed reform to the BDH. establish a coherent and sustainable contributory and noncontributory social insurance system. Egypt, Arab Rep. N     El Salvador Y Universal Social 2013 As part of the National Technical Secretariat of The STP is also strengthening Protection System Development Plan the Presidency (STP) its M&E system: the 2010–2014, the oversees the SP system conditional cash transfer Government has already has an impact set up the Universal evaluation, as well as the Social Protection Temporary Income Support System (SPSU) as the Program (PATI). cornerstone of its social policy strategy. A new legislation is currently being discussed in Congress, the Ley de Desarrollo y Proteccion Social. 68 POLICIES, INSTITUTIONS, AND ADMINISTRATION   Policy and Strategy Institutions Administration Country Y/N/P Strategy Name Year Comment Comment Comment Equatorial Guinea Y Horizon 2020 2011 The National Economic Development Plan: Horizon 2020 seeks to reduce poverty and diversify the economy. The Plan includes three strategic objectives related to social protection (no. 21–23). Eritrea N Ethiopia Y Social Protection 2013 The Social Protection MoARD and Food In the design of the next Policy Policy was submitted Security Bureau have safety nets, significant work to parliament in a range of institutional is undertaken to develop November 2013. This mechanisms to ensure Management Information Strategy will translate coordination and Systems for social protection the commitments scale-up in case of crises. and safety nets in Ethiopia. documented in the Policy into a concrete road map that will guide the design and implementation of social protection programs. Fiji N In 2013, a Poverty Benefit The monitoring Scheme (PBS) replaced arrangements are in place the Family Assistance to track the number and Program and the Food type (category) of programs Voucher Programme. beneficiaries and budgets. Conditions for the PBS The Government has been include that able bodied taking steps in modernizing individuals in the family the system, including the undergo skills training, transition from the E-Welfare search for employment to E-Gov system. or engage in income generating activities. Trainings are provided by the Ministry of Social Welfare. Gabon Y National Social 2013 The government The NSPP is a framework The Monitoring and Protection Policy is implementing for harmonization and Evaluation systems are able the National Social consolidation of the to track, collect and collate Protection Policy, main cash transfer basic data. However, the approved in 2012. In programs. The NSPP will capacity for the systems 2013 a Social Assistance form the basis for fully to do this consistently and Bill was submitted to coordinated SP system. comprehensively is still the National Assembly. lacking. Recent evaluations There now exists a exist for programs in the Social Assistance health insurance, social Law. The draft Social security, labor market Protection Sessional and social assistance sub Paper and Social sectors. The NSPP programs Protection Council Bill have recently developed will further provide a broad M&E framework a legal and policy for the main cash transfer framework for SP, programs. This will provide and are scheduled regular and comprehensive for discussion in the administrative data, and will National Assembly. include quasi-experimental impact evaluations for some programs. Gambia N POLICIES, INSTITUTIONS, AND ADMINISTRATION 69   Policy and Strategy Institutions Administration Country Y/N/P Strategy Name Year Comment Comment Comment Georgia Y Poverty Reduction 2013 There has been A new MIS is designed to Strategy significant progress, integrate Social Assistance relative to many other with the pension database. countries in the region, Georgia does periodic in streamlining different monitoring and evaluations social benefit schemes, of its SP programs, and targeting to the poor, makes changes to the and maintaining a approach on a semi-regular fiscally sustainable basis. family of SP programs. Ghana Y National Social 2012 The government is In 2013 the ministry The new Ministry for Social Protection laying the roadmap in charge of social Protection is also initiating Strategy towards strengthening protection in Ghana was discussions on designing a the coordination created: the Ministry of results framework and M&E capabilities of the Gender, Children and system for SP in the country. Ministry of Gender, Social Protection is It has adapted the Common Children and Social mandated to coordinate Targeting Mechanism as a Protection. and oversee social basis to create a National protection. Targeting System. Grenada Y Social Safety Net 2013 This framework builds The cross-sectoral Monitoring and evaluation Policy Framework on the 2009 Social technical coordination systems are in the process Safety Net Assessment. committee for the SEED of being developed. M&E This framework has Program has been is a critical area stressed been approved by the revived. Its composition under the new Social Safety Governments cabinet in includes officials from Net Policy Framework, thus August 2013. health, education, allowing policy makers housing, finance and to make more informed social protection and decisions about existing taking an active role programs. in decision-making about SEED and social programs as well. Guatemala N Guinea N     The Ministry of Social Affairs and Promotion of Women and Children is in charge of interventions for the protection of poor and vulnerable people. Guinea-Bissau N Guyana N     The presence of an MIS system enables data capture for monitoring purposes. Haiti N There is limited coordination and planning mechanisms across programs to ensure systematic coverage of the poor and vulnerable. The Ministry with the institutional mandate for social protection is the Ministry of Social Affairs (MAST). Honduras Y National Social 2013 The Government A Unique Registry of Protection Policy approved in March Beneficiaries of social 2012 a comprehensive programs will help rationalize National Social interventions and focus Protection Policy. targeting on priority groups. Hungary 70 POLICIES, INSTITUTIONS, AND ADMINISTRATION   Policy and Strategy Institutions Administration Country Y/N/P Strategy Name Year Comment Comment Comment India N India has a strong Initiatives such as the Unique legal framework, Identification (UID) hold including Right to the potential of improving Food and MGNREGS coverage, implementation acts. It also includes and coordination across Directive Principles of programs in the future. In State Policy, although addition, there are many a coherent SP policy state-level initiatives aimed framework is lacking. at increasing performance of social protection programs utilizing information technology and innovations in administration. Indonesia N     The National Team for the Acceleration of Poverty Reduction (TNP2K) Secretariat established an M&E Working Group in 2010. This is responsible for establishing a single monitoring system with data from poverty reduction programs. It also created a national registry. Iraq Y National 2013 The GoI began to The Secretary General Development Plan reform the social of the Cabinet oversees protection policies in coordination and alignment with the implementation of the National Development Poverty Reduction Strategy and Strategy (PRS) and implementation of works across several these reforms through ministries in coordination ESPP project. The with the Ministry of reforms included Planning. expanding the Social Safety Net programs. Jamaica Y Social Inclusion 2013 The Government of Systems to monitor Policy Jamaica developed performance across all main over the past year SP programs are in place, a social protection including number and types strategy. of beneficiaries, budgets and periodic progress, and impact evaluations. Jordan Y National Agenda 2007 The GoJ has developed Institutional mechanisms There are systems to monitor a comprehensive are planned as part of performance of safety nets strategy for SP as part the development of a and labor market programs. of its National Agenda, National Unified Registry. The GoJ is developing a as well as subsequent National Unified Registry updates and strategies which ultimately will be including the recent the main coordinating Poverty Reduction mechanism for SSNs and Strategy (2013) and subsidy reform in the the adopted National country. Employment Strategy (2012). Kazakhstan Y Strategic 2010 The government has Existing monitoring systems Development Plan a strategy for social are able to track numbers, 2020 protection integrated types of beneficiaries, in a set of documents spending, average benefit, covering employment, etc. The Household pensions, safety nets Budget Survey is used for and services. analysis of SP programs. An M&E framework for SP was developed and is reported on. POLICIES, INSTITUTIONS, AND ADMINISTRATION 71   Policy and Strategy Institutions Administration Country Y/N/P Strategy Name Year Comment Comment Comment Kenya Y National Social 2012 The government In the operationalization NSNP programs have Protection Policy is implementing of the policy there recently developed a the National Social is a framework for broad M&E framework for Protection Policy which harmonization and the main CT programs. was approved by consolidation of main This will provide regular Cabinet in 2012. cash transfer programs. and comprehensive administrative data, and will include quasi-experimental impact evaluations in some programs. Kiribati N       Kosovo N     A White Paper (Social Existing monitoring systems Protection Strategy) are able to track the number, was developed in 2008, types of beneficiaries but never adopted and budgets. New social officially. assistance and employment registries were introduced in early 2012. Kyrgyz Republic Y National Social 2011 The Strategy lays down Existing monitoring systems Protection measures to strengthen are able to track numbers, Development the social safety net, types of beneficiaries, Strategy and reform the system of spending, average benefit, Action Plan social care, step up etc. The Kyrgyz Integrated 2012–2014  child protection and to Household Survey is used for improve social security analysis of SP programs. The for the elderly. Government is in the process of rolling out a registry of beneficiaries of social protection programs. Latvia Lao PDR N     Lebanon Y National Social 2011 The government has Development poverty reduction Strategy among its declared objectives and has developed a Social Sector Strategy and certain policies have been implemented from the strategy including its National Poverty Targeting Program (NPTP). Lesotho P Social Protection   Building on the National The Ministry of Social The National Information Strategy Social Development Development will lead System for Social Assistance Policy, the Government and coordinate the social (NISSA) serves as a national intends to prepare protection agenda. registry for beneficiaries of a Social Protection Social Safety Net programs. Strategy. Liberia Y Social Protection 2012 The Social Protection In 2013, a single-set of Strategy and Policy provides a indicators for a common Policy solid framework MIS was developed and for addressing populated with beneficiary vulnerabilities over the information from the next years covered by countrys largest social safety the country’s long-term net programs (excluding plan. school feeding). 72 POLICIES, INSTITUTIONS, AND ADMINISTRATION   Policy and Strategy Institutions Administration Country Y/N/P Strategy Name Year Comment Comment Comment Macedonia, FYR Y National Strategy 2010 The Government has The Inter Ministerial A Cash Benefits for Alleviation developed the National working group is Management Information of Poverty and Strategy for Alleviation responsible for System (CBMIS), a unique Social Exclusion of Poverty and Social preparation of the annual registry of social cash (2010–2020) Exclusion, as an overall programs, coordination beneficiaries, was developed strategy for social and reporting on and is an important tool in protection, and a set implementation of defining policies to improve of programs which aim the Strategy to the the functioning of the to improve resilience, Government. The system. opportunity and equity infrastructure in the for large groups of the Ministry of Labor and population. Social Policy and the Centers for Social Works were upgraded to allow more efficient workflow in the sector. Madagascar N Malawi Y Social Support 2012 The Government The coordination is The Government has a Policy  approved the Social under the Ministry of central M&E Department in Support Policy in July Economic Planning and the Ministry of Economic 2012, and by April 2013, Development within its Planning and Development the National Social Directorate of Poverty which captures information Support Programme Reduction and Social from the district level was also endorsed Protection. where the programs are to operationalize the implemented. Policy. Malaysia N Existing monitoring systems are able to track the number, types of beneficiaries and budgets of individual programs. Maldives P Social Protection   The government has The major agencies Most programs have Act been codifying its delivering social functioning monitoring overall strategy for protection and mechanisms to track the the social protection labor programs are number and types of sector through a Social the National Social beneficiaries as well as Protection Act, which Protection Agency expenditure. There has been following ratification (NSPA), the Maldives efforts to develop shared provides a stronger Pension Administration administrative systems legal framework for Office (MPAO), and including common and building more coherent Ministry of Youth and improved targeting and and better coordinated Sports (MoYS). A monitoring systems. social protection coordination mechanism systems. are yet to be formalized. Mali Y National Action 2008 In August 2011, the Plan for the Government of Mali Extension of adopted a National Social Protection Action Plan for the Extension of Social Protection which aims at improving resilience, equity, and opportunity for large groups of the population. Marshall Islands N     Mauritania Y National Social 2013 The strategy was The Government has Protection adopted by the Council also established a special Strategy of Ministers in June Technical Advisor for 2013. Social Protection in the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Development, who is in charge of leading the efforts to implement the national strategy. POLICIES, INSTITUTIONS, AND ADMINISTRATION 73   Policy and Strategy Institutions Administration Country Y/N/P Strategy Name Year Comment Comment Comment Mauritius N     The Government is rolling out a single registry for Mauritius (the Social Register of Mauritius, SRM), which started by integrating databases for Social Aid and NEF programming, with the aim of improving integrated service delivery and coordination. The NEF is currently developing a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation framework. Mexico Y National 2013 Mexico has a well- Effective monitoring systems Development Plan defined national policy are in place for major for social development, social protection programs together with a in Mexico. The National comprehensive strategy Council for the Evaluation to reduce poverty. of Social Development Policy (CONEVAL) regularly conducts an independent evaluation of social programs. Micronesia, Fed. Sts. N     Moldova N A management information system is being developed for the social assistance benefits. Once completed, it will be able to track performance. Mongolia N     There are some Monitoring arrangements institutional are in place to track the arrangements that number and type (category) promote coordination of programs beneficiaries, of programs and as well as budgets. An policies within the social intersectoral database of protection system. poor households and registry of beneficiaries is being developed. Montenegro Y Strategy for 2008 Montenegro Existing monitoring systems Social and Child implemented are able to track the number, Protection Strategy for Social types of beneficiaries and (2008–2012) and Child Protection budgets. Evaluations are (2008–2012), and is available for some programs. now implementing a Strategy for Integration of People with Disabilities (2008–2016), a National Action Plan for Gender Equality and a set of programs which deliver the basic elements of prevention, protection and promotion for vulnerable population groups. Morocco N     74 POLICIES, INSTITUTIONS, AND ADMINISTRATION   Policy and Strategy Institutions Administration Country Y/N/P Strategy Name Year Comment Comment Comment Mozambique Y National 2010 The National Strategy A Council for The Government is in the Strategy for Social for Social Protection Coordination of Basic process of developing a Protection  was initially defined SP system is Chaired by comprehensive management for a 5-year period the Ministry of Women information system for social (2010–2014). The and includes the Ministry safety net programs. Government has of Education, Ministry already started an of Planning, Ministry of evaluation process Agriculture, Ministry of for the Strategy that Public Works, Ministry will facilitate the of Labor, Ministry of development of the State Administration. A Strategy for 2015–2019. Support Group for SP programs is chaired by the National Institute of Social Action and includes WB, World Food Programme, UNICEF, International Labour Organization, Dutch Cooperation, DFID. A Social Protection Partners Group is chaired by the Dutch Cooperation (Co-chaired by UNICEF) and includes UN agencies, WB, USAID, EU, DFID, Dutch Cooperation, Swedish Cooperation, Platform for Civil Society and several NGOs. Namibia Y Vision 2030 2004 The government’s Basic data are tracked (e.g., Strategy overall social spending, services delivered, protection strategy numbers of beneficiaries). is articulated in the Evaluations are conducted long-term Vision 2030 for some programs. Strategy, which sets goals for protecting the vulnerable (e.g., orphans, elderly, disabled) and promoting welfare of youth and women in the context of poverty reduction. Nepal P     In 2011, the Government Different government In 2013, the Ministry of prepared a ten entities, are working Federal Affairs and Local year national social together, under the Development (MoFALD) protection strategy/ auspices of the Ministry established a Management framework. of Finance, to ensure Information System for its the coordination of cash transfer programs, which social protection was rolled out in 2 districts. schemes across different Work is underway to expand ministries. it to an additional 12 districts. Nicaragua P The government The national welfare The MIFAN continues developed the National system in Nicaragua is to advance in creating Human Development overseen by the Social interphases with the MIS Plan 2009–2012 and Cabinet for the Family of the Minisry of Health to created the National and Solidarity consisting share information about Social Welfare System of a coordinator and beneficiaries. in 2008. In 2013, the the Ministers of Finance, government undertook Health, Education, and a review for these two the Family, Youth and instruments to align Children. different approaches into a systemic social assistance strategy. This strategy is expected for mid-2014. POLICIES, INSTITUTIONS, AND ADMINISTRATION 75   Policy and Strategy Institutions Administration Country Y/N/P Strategy Name Year Comment Comment Comment Niger Y National Social 2011 In October 2013, the The consultative inter- The system in place is able Protection Government of Niger ministerial committee to monitor and evaluate the Strategy held its first national on social protection impact of the main Social social protection forum was created in August Safety Nets programs. aimed to operationalize 2013 to coordinate SP the national social interventions and is still protection strategy. in place. Nigeria P National Social The National Planning The SP policy framework There are M&E Systems for Protection Policy Commission is now is expected to bring the all targeted intervention Framework (draft) revisiting the Social current Social Safety of Government currently Protection Policy Nets interventions in the instituted in the National framework in Nigeria. country into a better Planning Commission. coordinated system. There is a planned introduction of a National Identity Card system also expected to be coordinated with the targeting and identification system for the SP administrative and coordinating system. Pakistan Y National Social 2007 In 2007, the Most social protection Protection Government of Pakistan programs are able to track Strategy approved its National the number, types and Social Protection benefits received by their Strategy. beneficiaries. Palau Panama N MIDES has implemented a Unified Registry of Beneficiaries (RUB) of MIDES programs which is functional. Papua New Guinea P Social Protection   A first draft of The GoPNG is currently Policy the SP Policy has implementing PNGInfo. been submitted to It is expected to improve the Department provincial database systems. for Community An integrated electronic Development (DfCD) system (like the EID Card with the elderly and Project) is currently being disabled as the initial developed and may help target beneficiaries. with data collation. As of November 2013, the Prime Minister announced that GoPNG would implement the Social Pension in 2015. Paraguay N Peru Y Crecer para Incluir 2011 Implementation of the Ministry of Development (Growth for strategy has continued and Social Inclusion Inclusion) with revisions of (MIDIS) has been tasked some programs and with coordinating the expansions of others. implementation of the 5 most important social protection programs. MIDIS started the development of a National System for Development and Social Inclusion (SINADIS): the country’s platform for inter-sectorial and inter-governmental coordination on social policy interventions. 76 POLICIES, INSTITUTIONS, AND ADMINISTRATION   Policy and Strategy Institutions Administration Country Y/N/P Strategy Name Year Comment Comment Comment Philippines Y Social Protection 2012 The Social Protection In 2009, the Social All major agencies Operational strategy was approved Development Committee involved in the design and Framework and by the National (SDC) of the National implementation of social Strategy Economic and Economic and protection policies have Development Authority Development Authority established monitoring NEDA in 2012. (NEDA) approved the systems. A new poverty creation of a sub-committee targeting assessment is on social protection. planned nationwide. This sub-committee is co-chaired by Department of Social Welfare and Development and NEDA. Poland Y Social Assistance 2004 The government has The Ministry of Labor The ministry has a Law an overall strategy for and Social Policy sophisticated administrative SP and a well-designed is responsible for system to administer its set of programs, both developing policy in programs and track results of on the contributory and social assistance, social the main programs. the non-contributory insurance and labor side. In the last year, the market policies Ministry made a number of important reforms. Qatar Romania Y Social Assistance 2011 In early 2011, Romania The Ministry of Labor All the SP sectors have Reform Strategy approved a new Law on coordinates effectively well developed IT systems Pensions, Labor Code, the delivery of most of which allow a good M&E and Social Assistance. the Social Safety net (beneficiaries and funds). Tthe programs, social services performance indications started and labor market policies. being regularly monitored. Russian Federation N     Rwanda Y National Social 2011 A national social A sector working group A basic MIS was completed Protection protection strategy (SWG) established in 2012. Strategy (NSPS) was developed in 2008 has fostered through a consultative increased coordination of process the SP sector. S. Sudan Samoa N   The Ministry of Women, Community and Social Development remains as the main coordination agency for social protection programs in Samoa. Sao Tome and Principe P  The Government has developed a first draft of Social Protection Strategy. Senegal Y National Social 2005 The government has The Délégation Générale In terms of Monitoring and Protection developed an overall à la Protection Sociale Evaluation, the Délégation Strategy strategy for social et la Solidarité Nationale Générale has been tasked protection, which was is responsible for the with the overall monitoring recently approved coordination of the and evaluation of the sector and endorsed by the sector. and a unique registry of different sectors and programs. development partners. Serbia Y Social Welfare 2005 The Government of Systems are in place to Development Serbia has strategies monitor performance across Strategy and action plans for all main SP programs, the basic elements of including number and types social protections social of beneficiaries and budgets. insurance, labor market policy, social assistance and social services, including the National Strategy for Development of Social Protection POLICIES, INSTITUTIONS, AND ADMINISTRATION 77   Policy and Strategy Institutions Administration Country Y/N/P Strategy Name Year Comment Comment Comment Seychelles N     SP Strategy and Policy The Agency for Social The Government intends Seychelles has a Protection (ASP) was to integrate other benefits comprehensive social created in 2012 by into the MIS to improve the protection system. merging Social security efficiency of the overall social Fund and Social Welfare assistance system and for Agency to improve more effective monitoring of the efficiency and programs. governance of the social protection system. Sierra Leone Y National Social 2013 The Social Protection In 2012, a National Social The quality of M&E Protection Policy agenda in Sierra Protection Authority was systems continues to vary Leone is detailed in created by Parliament to across programs, though the country’s third lead coordination in the information on number generation PRSP sector. and types of beneficiaries (2013–2018) dubbed and budgets is generally Agenda for Prosperity. available. A growing number of impact evaluations are being carried out. Solomon Islands N     South Africa Y White Paper for 1997 South Africa has put in A new electronic biometric Social Welfare place a well-developed card payment system publicly provided social successfully rolled out this protections system year to all social benefit that consists of two beneficiaries. main pillars of social assistance and social insurance. South Sudan P South Sudan   The South Sudan The government Development Plan Development Plan has created a Social (SSDP) 2011–2013 Protection Core Team includes Social led by the Ministry Protection interventions of Gender, Child and under the Social and Social Welfare to Human Development coordinate and facilitate Pillar. the development of a comprehensive social protection policy. Sri Lanka P  The Government The Government has The existing programs has embarked on been interested in are able to track basic developing a Social coordinating several administrative information, Protection strategy. social assistance including the number and programs and schemes types of beneficiaries and using the Divineguma payments. program. The Divineguma Act was presented and debated at the Parliament and now certified into law. St. Kitts and Nevis Y National Social 2011 SKN provides numerous The recent approval The SP strategy will facilitate Protection social assistance, social of the SP strategy improved M&E through the Strategy insurance benefits and and a move to its development of information labor market programs, implementation systems and capacity now guided by an phase is expected to building. overall Social Protection place coordination Strategy that has been mechanisms. approved by Cabinet. St. Lucia P  The Social Protection M&E of SPL programs will Policy will be validated also improve once the MIS by Cabinet in October for social programs has been 2013. developed under the current reform. A proxy means test, Saint Lucias National Eligibility Test (SL-NET) has been developed. 78 POLICIES, INSTITUTIONS, AND ADMINISTRATION   Policy and Strategy Institutions Administration Country Y/N/P Strategy Name Year Comment Comment Comment St. Vincent and the N     Grenadines Sudan N The Ministry of Welfare and Social Security is in charge of the overall coordination of Social Protection initiatives. Suriname Swaziland P      The Government The Department of Social intends to establish Welfare has been housed an inter-ministerial in the Deputy Prime committee to oversee Ministers Office since the development of a 2009, is responsible for Safety Net Strategy. Swazilands largest cash transfer programs and is also responsible for overseeing social care services. Syria Tajikistan P  While objectives of the The Government The new MIS Registry reform in the sector is establishing a system when developed and have been formulated, consolidated Registry implemented is expected a broad and consistent for social protection to substantially improve SP strategy is still in the programs. It is expected capacity of the Government process of formulation. that the system will be to plan and monitor launched in late 2014. implementation of its key The social protection poverty related interventions. function is being The social protection transfered to a new function is being transfered Ministry. to a new Ministry. Tanzania P      The Government A national monitoring is finalizing a draft system exists for capturing of a National Social performance of the National Protection Framework Strategy for Growth and (NSPF) which aims to Reduction of Poverty improve coordination (NSGRP II). Social protection and speed up the indicators have been implementation of developed and incorporated social protection policies in the national monitoring designed to improve system. Most programs are the lives of the poor and able to track budgets and most vulnerable groups. numbers of beneficiaries. The process includes the preparation of an Action Plan for operationalizing the Framework. Thailand Y Eleventh national 2012 The government has The Ministry of Social Existing monitoring economic an overall strategy for Development and Human systems track the number and social Social Protection and Security (MOSDHS) is in of beneficiaries, the type of development plan a set of programs that charge of coordinating beneficiaries and budgets deliver prevention, the implementation of devoted to programs. protection and the different schemes. promotion services for large groups of the population. The Thai government is working toward developing a universal social protection system by 2017, called the Welfare Society. Timor-Leste N     The Ministry of Social Solidarity will incorporate a M&E module into its MIS, which is currently under development. POLICIES, INSTITUTIONS, AND ADMINISTRATION 79   Policy and Strategy Institutions Administration Country Y/N/P Strategy Name Year Comment Comment Comment Togo P  A Social Protection The National Social Monitoring & Evaluation strategy and a Protection Promotion systems exist for most of the budgeted action plans Committee provides programs. have been validated directions and in November 2013 coordinates all social by main national protection activities in stakeholders. This Togo. In October 2013, strategy document is the Government created yet to be adopted by a Ministry of Public Policy the Government. Evaluation to oversee and assess the results of public policies. Tonga N     Trinidad and Tobago P  National Poverty For fiscal year The main SP programs Reduction 2013–2014, the Ministry have monitoring and Strategy of the People and information systems and Social Development collect main information. has set as objectives The country implements a the Development of Multiple Indicator Cluster a National Poverty Survey to monitor Millenium Reduction Strategy. Development Goals. It also implements a periodical Survey of Living Conditions. The latest version was conducted in 2013. Tunisia N     Tunisia has taken steps In 2012, while the toward consolidating its Government has launched main social assistance a new project to develop a programs under a single unified registry and improved Directorate of Social monitoring of beneficiaries. Promotion, but a number of programs are operated by other ministries, and greater coordination is necessary to ensure equitable distribution of safety net programs overall. Turkey N The Social Security Institution (SSI) and Ministry of Family and Social Policies (MFSP) established systems to monitor performance across all main SP programs. MFSP established the integrated Social Assistance Information System (SAIS) to target SA benefits more effectively. Turkmenistan Y Social Protection 2012 The government has an   of the Population overall framework for Code social protection (2012 Code) Tuvalu N The Department of Community Affairs in the Ministry of Home Affairs and Rural Development (MHARD) focuses on monitoring and developing a social policy to address poverty and hardship. The Department also coordinates the activities of other departments within MHARD and other stakeholders. 80 POLICIES, INSTITUTIONS, AND ADMINISTRATION   Policy and Strategy Institutions Administration Country Y/N/P Strategy Name Year Comment Comment Comment UAE Uganda Y Social Protection 2012 The Ministry of Social Assistance The national monitoring Strategy, within Gender Labor and Programs are system exists for capturing the Uganda Social Development, coordinated under the performance of the National National with support of Ministry of Gender, Labor Development Plan. Most of Development Plan development partners, and Social Development the programs are able to has launched Social with the exception of the track budgets and numbers Protection sector Public Sector Pension of beneficiaries. Evaluations review to develop an Fund and the Armed are carried out in large effective and efficient Forces Pension Fund. programs like NUSAF. social protection system and strengthen the strategy. Ukraine Y National Poverty 2010 Reduction Strategy 2010–2015  Uruguay Y The Social Equity 2007 The Social Cabinet The National Social The two main institutions, Plan coordinates policies, Policies Council unites BPS and MIDES, have strong within the framework of the Ministries of monitoring systems that the “Social Equity Plan,” Finance, Labor, Social produce and disseminate that aims at eliminating Development, Health, performance indicators on extreme poverty and Education, and the a regular basis. MIDES also increase equality Banco de Previsión oversees the implementation Social. This council holds of all social policies and inter-ministerial meetings produces impact evaluation and also has operational reports. The new SIIAS committees that work on system will also produce implementation issues. cross-sector monitoring reports. Uzbekistan Y Welfare 2012 The government has an A lot of processes remain Improvement overall policy for social decentralized and lack Strategy for protection as part of automation. Produced M&E 2012–2015 its broader strategy to information is basic and improve well-being of could improve to capture the population. standard performance indicators such as coverage, targeting, poverty impact, etc. Vanuatu N     Venezuela, RB N Vietnam Y National Social 2011 In 2012, the GoV   Protection adopted a resolution Strategy on social protection. (2011–2020) The resolution will guide government policy for the period until 2020 and covers labor market policy, social insurance, social assistance, social services and poverty reduction policy. West Bank & Gaza POLICIES, INSTITUTIONS, AND ADMINISTRATION 81   Policy and Strategy Institutions Administration Country Y/N/P Strategy Name Year Comment Comment Comment Yemen, Rep. P  A new legal and The major safety net policy framework is programs have a well- being implemented. developed database and The GoY has initiated MIS which are supporting an overall social management processes protection strategy and decision making. This and accompanying information was instrumental policies for protection in making the safety net of the population and program more responsive was able to deliver on to the recent political and elements of prevention, economic crisis. protection and promotion during the crisis. Zambia P  National Social   In August, 2013, The National Social Protection Policy, government revised Protection Policy should chapter in the the chapter on Social provide a basis for Fifth National Protection in the draft harmonization of programs Development Plan RSNDP (2013–2016). and also a comprehensive However, the chapter is Monitoring and Evaluation yet to be aligned with system. the National Social Protection Policy being prepared. Zimbabwe N A N N E X 5 ASPIRE PERFORMANCE I N D I C ATO R S B A S E D O N H O U S E H O L D S U R V E YS 84 ASPIRE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS BASED ON HOUSEHOLD SURVEYS Benefit Poverty Coverage Adequacy Incidence Gini Inequality Headcount Poverty Gap Survey (Poorest (Poorest Reduction % Reduction % Reduction % Country Year (Poorest 20%) (Total) 20%) 20%) (Total) (all hh) (all hh) (all hh) Afghanistan 2007 21.775 14.514 8.245 25.69 22.423 0.106 0.63 1.611 Albania 2008 22.526 9.656 19.514 18.303 25.66 2.253 6.399 18.541 Algeria Angola Antigua and Barbuda Argentina 2010 24.167 9.702 53.98 19.828 10.36 0.823 2.689 7.443 Armenia 2009 25.819 16.369 32.678 33.718 17.965 5.185 12.626 31.8 Azerbaijan 2008 40.071 31.133 27.166 37.645 16.729 7.801 20.146 42.518 Bahrain Bangladesh 2010 27.382 17.95 22.888 6.959 5.436 1.391 5.586 10.953 Belarus 2010 66.937 58.279 28.912 22.259 8.77 9.219 22.267 40.907 Belize Benin Bhutan 2007 2.033 1.01 14.12 2.303 3.51 0.053 0.097 0.205 Bolivia 2007 10.346 13.717 8.893 37.178 8.26 1.072 8.795 10.024 Bosnia and 2007 11.424 6.489 30.586 16.858 7.762 0.618 1.338 4.742 Herzegovina Botswana Brazil 2009 53.189 21.131 33.159 24.12 14.544 1.992 10.073 22.077 Bulgaria 2007 56.928 38.384 29.33 2.175 1.066 0.579 2.05 3.323 Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia 2008 0.171 0.523 0.128 0.702 13.101 –0.12 0 0.004 Cameroon Cabo Verde Central African Republic Chad Chile 2009 89.716 70.581 21.395 15.525 7.484 2.655 13.514 23.136 China Colombia Comoros Congo, Dem. Rep. Congo, Rep. Costa Rica 2009 67.813 44.279 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Cote D’ivoire Croatia 2008 44.813 25.226 40.554 21.826 10.385 4.289 11.105 25.585 Czech Republic Djibouti Dominica Dominican 2009 35.222 23.746 25.732 10.932 4.96 0.963 5.681 8.724 Republic ASPIRE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS BASED ON HOUSEHOLD SURVEYS 85 Benefit Poverty Coverage Adequacy Incidence Gini Inequality Headcount Poverty Gap Survey (Poorest (Poorest Reduction % Reduction % Reduction % Country Year (Poorest 20%) (Total) 20%) 20%) (Total) (all hh) (all hh) (all hh) Ecuador 2010 84.247 61.406 28.17 24.622 11.131 3.03 13.124 23.38 Egypt, Arab 2008 54.861 44.878 17.578 4.996 3.555 1.354 5.778 11.689 Rep. El Salvador 2009 78.613 66.575 47.758 9.075 4.905 0.178 0.404 1.725 Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Fiji Gabon Gambia, The Georgia 2007 21.043 13.832 41.71 65.012 8.462 17.184 46.871 Ghana 2005 2.214 4.929 1.565 13.177 16.802 –0.303 1.506 2.546 Grenada Guatemala 2006 52.399 41.948 18.763 6.945 2.553 0.539 3.115 5.65 Guinea Guinea- Bissau Guyana Haiti Honduras Hungary India 2009 25.374 18.071 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Indonesia 2009 65.814 42.436 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Iran Iraq 2006 99.948a 99.886a 17.931 3.557 2.149 1.861 8.601 14.118 Jamaica Jordan Kazakhstan 2007 42.162 29.123 22.9 16.488 10.893 4.349 15.068 27.94 Kenya 2005 30.46 16.64 16.921 3.864 2.99 0.123 1.387 2.399 Kiribati Kosovo 2006 26.868 10.934 43.386 3.812 2.638 0.426 1.564 3.151 Kuwait Kyrgyz 2006 27.931 17.156 34.911 10.139 5.826 1.427 4.004 11.583 Republic Lao PDR 2008 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Latvia 2008 65.942 54.173 20.605 15.275 7.219 5.008 15.295 28.712 Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Lithuania Macedonia, 2005 15.819 14.87 15.324 25.925 9.713 1.482 7.38 11.354 FYR 86 ASPIRE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS BASED ON HOUSEHOLD SURVEYS Benefit Poverty Coverage Adequacy Incidence Gini Inequality Headcount Poverty Gap Survey (Poorest (Poorest Reduction % Reduction % Reduction % Country Year (Poorest 20%) (Total) 20%) 20%) (Total) (all hh) (all hh) (all hh) Madagascar Malawi 2010 21.233 20.671 6.444 7.077 5.608 –0.077 0.233 0.476 Malaysia 2008 19.569 8.753 20.183 14.764 12.738 0.799 3.677 8.41 Maldives Mali 2009 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Marshall Islands Mauritania Mauritius 2006 37.083 38.238 11.907 30.255 17.253 5.966 24.163 38.497 Mexico 2010 54.935 32.409 28.881 42.186 17.807 5.066 18.573 36.12 Micronesia, Fed. Sts. Moldova 2010 41.908 32.274 21.493 26.386 15.264 6.317 16.606 37.229 Mongolia 2007 91.482 83.216 22.465 15.875 6.746 6.632 23.696 37.629 Montenegro 2007 43.438 26.455 24.545 37.497 25.918 8.944 21.296 44.552 Morocco Mozambique 2008 7.676 5.655 2.6 254.216 144.17 0.368 1.172 3.628 Namibia Nepal 2010 50.23 40.143 15.764 3.369 2.292 0.633 3.576 6.079 Nicaragua 2005 70.662 60.216 2.278 30.433 23.742 1.799 13.042 19.07 Niger Nigeria 2010 1.688 1.752 12.727 4.504 2.159 0.009 0.115 0.313 Oman Pakistan 2010 13.73 12.62 11.441 12.148 12.326 1.112 6.682 11.833 Panama 2008 79.126 52.021 52.466 16.967 4.521 0.589 2.656 8.065 Papua New Guinea Paraguay 2009 45.592 33.539 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Peru 2009 85.024 56.955 56.423 17.078 11.402 0.751 3.373 9.026 Philippines 2006 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Poland 2005 64.139 32.154 36.998 28.682 18.374 8.655 21.215 44.85 Qatar Romania 2008 78.1 55.436 29.703 33.859 16.14 14.444 30.469 55.366 Russian 2007 46.793 28.095 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Federation Rwanda 2005 0.432 1.427 0.866 3.626 5.13 –0.021 0.069 0.048 S. Sudan Samoa Sao Tome and Pr. Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia 2007 43.438 26.455 24.545 37.497 25.918 8.944 21.296 44.552 Seychelles Sierra Leone Slovakia ASPIRE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS BASED ON HOUSEHOLD SURVEYS 87 Benefit Poverty Coverage Adequacy Incidence Gini Inequality Headcount Poverty Gap Survey (Poorest (Poorest Reduction % Reduction % Reduction % Country Year (Poorest 20%) (Total) 20%) 20%) (Total) (all hh) (all hh) (all hh) Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa Sri Lanka 2008 52.215 29.749 32.431 6.663 4.016 1.252 5.888 12.16 St. Kitts and Nev. St. Lucia St. Vincent Sudan Suriname Swaziland Syria Tajikistan 2011 12.465 8.733 13.682 1.01 1.123 0.055 0.354 0.512 Tanzania 2009 78.549b 77.441b 4.237 4.65 6.776 –0.119 0.745 0.965 Thailand 2009 82.6 63.913 23.607 7.842 2.539 1.091 5.616 11.185 Timor-Leste 2007 26.84 26.269 1.391 1.725 11.941 2.912 9.91 23.571 Togo Tonga Trinidad and Tob. Tunisia Turkey 2008 55.529 37.052 42.338 0.847 0.22 0.117 0.279 0.953 Turkmenistan Tuvalu UAE Uganda 2010 75.242c 66.255c n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Ukraine 2006 46.317 39.454 25.071 18.187 7.99 4.788 14.133 29.416 Uruguay 2009 82.813 42.23 40.138 11.406 5.6 2.053 7.838 16.683 Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, 2006 4.996 4.739 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. RB Vietnam 2006 37.016 18.062 13.798 20.519 16.481 1.839 6.714 13.979 West Bank 2007 30.352 11.49 63.66 7.609 3.154 0.4 0.876 3.732 and Gaza Yemen, Rep. 2005 27.598 21.868 19.088 5.258 2.883 0.634 3.887 5.834 Zambia 2010 0.801 0.571 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Zimbabwe Note: Indicators are calculated using national representative household surveys and available at www.worldbank.org/aspire. When interpreting Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of Resilience and Equity indicators , it is important to note that the extent to which information on specific transfers and programs is captured in the household surveys can vary a lot across countries. As a consequence, Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of Resilience and Equity indicators are not fully comparable across program categories and countries; however, they provide approximate measures of social protection systems performance. Numbers in red represent increase in inequality due to all social safety nets transfers. a The coverage number includes food ration cards. b The coverage number mostly refers to school feeding program. c The coverage number mostly refers scholarships and/or education benefits. A N N E X 6 REFERENCES 90 REFERENCES Adato, M., and J. Hoddinott, eds. 2010. Conditional Cash Transfers in Latin America. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press. African Union. 2008. “Social Policy Framework for Africa.” Report number CAMSD/EXP/4(I), First Session of the AU Conference of Ministers in Charge of Social Development, Windhoek, Namibia, October 27–31. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: African Union. Ahmed, A., A. R. Quisumbing, M. Nasreen, and J. F. Hoddinott. 2010. Comparing Food and Cash Transfers to the Ultra Poor in Bangladesh. Research Monograph 163. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. Ahmed, S. 2013. “The Egyptian Experience about Subsidy and Its Distribution System.” Paper presented at the Subsidy System in Egypt Workshop, Sustainable Development Day at the World Bank, Washington, DC. Alam, A., J. E. Baez, and X. Del Carpio. 2011. “Does Cash for School Influence Young Women’s Behavior in the Longer Term? Evidence from Pakistan.” Discussion paper series/Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit. No. 5703, IZA, Bonn, Germany. Alderman, H., and D. Bundy. 2011a. “School Feeding Programs and Development: Are We Framing the Question Correctly?” World Bank Research Observer 27: 204–221, World Bank, Washington, DC. Alderman, H., and R. Yemtsov. 2011b. “Productive Role of Safety Nets.” Background Paper for the World Bank 2012–2022 Social Protection and Labor Strategy, World Bank, Washington, DC. Alderman, H. and J. Hoddinott. 2009. “Growth-Promoting Social Safety Nets.” In The Poorest and Hungry: Assessments, Analyses, and Action, edited by von Braun, J., R. Vargas Hill, and R. Pandya- Lorch. Washington, DC: IFPRI. Alderman, H., and T. Haque. 2006. “Countercyclical Safety Nets for the Poor and Vulnerable.” Food Policy 31(4): 372–383. Alderman, H., D. Gilligan, and K. Lehrer. 2013. “The Impact of Food for Education Programs on School Participation in Northern Uganda.” Working Paper, World Bank, Washington, DC. Alderman, H., H. Kazianga, and D. de Walque. 2009. “Educational and Health Impacts of Two School Feeding Schemes Evidence from a Randomized Trial in Rural Burkina Faso.” Policy Research Working Paper 4976, World Bank, Washington, DC. Andrews, C., A. Lopez, and J. Baez. 2014. “What Are We Learning on Safety Net Impacts? Reviewing Evidence from 2010–2013.” Draft, Social Protection Discussion Paper Series, World Bank, Washington, DC. Andrews, C., M. Das, J. Elder, M. Ovadiya, and G. Zampaglione. 2012. “Social Protection in Low Income Countries and Fragile Situations: Challenges and Future Directions.” Social Protection and Labor Discussion Paper No. 1209, World Bank, Washington, DC. ADB (Asian Development Bank). 2009a. “Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste: Updating and Improving the Social Protection Index.” Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines. ———. 2009b. “Independent State of Samoa: Updating and Improving the Social Protection Index.” Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines. ———. 2009c. “Kingdom of Bhutan: Updating and Improving the Social Protection Index.” Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines. ———. 2009d. “Kingdom of Thailand: Updating and Improving the Social Protection Index.” Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines. ———. 2009e. “Malaysia: Updating and Improving the Social Protection Index.” Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines. ———. 2009f. “Mongolia: Updating and Improving the Social Protection Index.” Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines. ———. 2009g. “Nepal: Updating and Improving the Social Protection Index.” Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines. ———. 2009h. “Papua New Guinea: Updating and Improving the Social Protection Index.” Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines. ———. 2009i. “People’s Republic of Bangladesh: Updating and Improving the Social Protection Index.” Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines. REFERENCES 91 ———. 2009j. “Republic of Fiji: Updating and Improving the Social Protection Index.” Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines. ———. 2009k. “Republic of Indonesia: Updating and Improving the Social Protection Index.” Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines. ———. 2009l. “Republic of Maldives: Updating and Improving the Social Protection Index.” Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines. ———. 2009m. “Republic of Palau: Updating and Improving the Social Protection Index.” Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines. ———. 2009n. “Republic of the Philippines: Updating and Improving the Social Protection Index.” Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines. ———. 2009o. “Republic of Vanuatu: Updating and Improving the Social Protection Index.” Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines. ———. 2009p. “Socialist Republic of Viet Nam: Updating and Improving the Social Protection Index.” Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines. ———. 2009q. “Solomon Islands: Updating and Improving the Social Protection Index.” Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines. ———. 2009r. “The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka: Updating and Improving the Social Protection Index.” Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines. ———. 2009s. “The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan: Updating and Improving the Social Protection Index.” Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines. ———. 2009t. “The Islamic Republic of Pakistan: Updating and Improving the Social Protection Index.” Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines. ———. 2009u. “The Kingdom of Cambodia: Updating and Improving the Social Protection Index.” Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines. ———. 2009v. “The Lao People’s Democratic Republic: Updating and Improving the Social Protection Index.” Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines. ———. 2009w. “The People’s Republic of China: Updating and Improving the Social Protection Index.” Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines. ———. 2009x. “The Republic of Marshall Islands: Updating and Improving the Social Protection Index.” Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines. ———. 2009y. “India: “Updating and Improving the Social Protection Index.” Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines. Baddini Curralero, C. 2012. “Technology for Implementation: Management Information System Unified Registry for Social Programs, Brazil.” Presentation at the South-South Learning Forum 2012, “Building Resilience and Opportunity,” Hyderabad, India, October 30–November 3. Baez, J., and A. Camacho. 2011. “Assessing the Long-Term Effects of Conditional Cash Transfers on Human Capital: Evidence from Colombia.” Policy Research Paper No. 5681, World Bank, Washington, DC. Baird, S., C. McIntosh, and B. Özler. 2011. “Cash or Condition? Evidence from a Cash Transfer Experiment.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 126(4): 1709–1753. Baird, S., F. Ferreiral, B. Ozler, and M. Woolcock. 2013. “Relative Effectiveness of Conditional and Unconditional Cash Transfer for Schooling Outcome in Developing Countries: Systematic Review.” Campbell Systematic Reviews 2013:8. Banerji, A., and U. Gentilini. 2013. “Social Safety Nets: Lessons from Global Evidence and Practice.” World Bank, Washington, DC. Barham, T., K. Macours, and J. Maluccio. 2013. “Boys’ Cognitive Skill Formation and Physical Growth: Long-Term Experimental Evidence on Critical Ages for Early Childhood Interventions.” American Economic Review 103(3): 467–71. Barrett, C., M. Carter, and M. Ikegami. 2008. “Poverty Traps and Social Protection.” Social Protection Discussion Paper No. 0804, World Bank, Washington, DC. Barrientos, A. 2013. Social Assistance in Developing Countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 92 REFERENCES Barrientos, A., and D. Hulme, eds. 2008. Social Protection for the Poor and Poorest. London: Palgrave. Baulch, B., J. Wood, and A. Weber. 2006. “Developing a Social Protection Index for Asia.” Development Policy Review 24(1): 5-29. Behrman, J., J. Hoddinott, R. Flores, J. Maluccio, and R. Martorell. 2008. “Effect of a Nutrition Intervention during Early Childhood on Economic Productivity in Guatemalan Adults.” The Lancet 371 (9610). Berhane G., J. Hoddinott, N. Kumar, and A. Seyoum Taffesse. 2011. “The Impact of Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Nets Programme and Household Asset Building Programme: 2006-2010.” IFPRI, Washington, DC. Bhutta, A. R. 2012. “Update of SSN Registry: Problems and Prospects, a Case of Pakistan.” Presentation at the World Bank Core Course on Safety Nets 2012, “For Protection and Promotion: Design and Implementation of Effective Social Safety Nets,” Washington, DC, December 3-14. Blattman, C., and J. Annan. 2011. “Reintegrating and Employing High Risk Youth in Liberia: Lessons from a Randomized Evaluation of a Landmine Action Agricultural Training Program for Ex-Combatants.” Policy Report 2011.1, Innovations for Poverty Action, Washington, DC. Blattman, C., N. Fiala, and S. Martinez. 2012 “Employment Generation in Rural Africa: Mid-Term Results from an Experimental Evaluation of the Youth Opportunities Program in Northern Uganda.” Discussion Paper No. 1201, DIW, Berlin. Boone, R., K. Covarrubias, B. Davis, and P. Winters. 2013. “Cash Transfer Programs and Agricultural Production: The Case of Malawi.” Agricultural Economics 44: 365–378 Bundy, D., C. Burbano, M. Grosh, A. Gelli, M. Jukes, and L. Drake. 2009. Rethinking School Feeding: Social Safety Nets, Child Development and the Education Sector. Washington DC: World Bank. CaLP (Cash Learning Partnership). 2011. “3W Review of Cash and Voucher Programs in Zimbabwe: 2011 Update Report.” Harare: CaLP. Caneiro, P., E. Galasso, and R. Ginja. 2009. “The Impact of Providing Psycho-Social Support to Indigent Families and Increasing Their Access to Social Services: Evaluating Chile Solidario.” enGender Impact: the World Bank’s Gender Impact Evaluation Database, World Bank, Washington, DC. Castel, P. 2010. “Fiscal Space Social Protection Policies in Viet Nam.” Paper for the 3rd China-ASEAN Forum on Social Development and Poverty Reduction, 4th ASEAN+3 High-Level Seminar on Poverty Reduction, and Asia-wide Regional High-level Meeting on The Impact of the Global Economic Slowdown on Poverty and Sustainable Development in Asia and the Pacific, Department for International Development, Hanoi. CER (Center for Economic Research). 2014. “Transformative Social Protection in a Transforming Economy and Society.” Development Dialogue. http://transformation.cer.uz/2014/02/ transformative-social-protection-in-a-transforming-society-and-economy/ Cerutti, P., A. Fruttero, M. Grosh, S. Kostenbaum, M. L. Oliveri, C. Rodriguez-Alas, and V. Strokova. 2014. “Social Assistance and Labor Market Programs in Latin America.” Draft, World Bank, Washington, DC. Chioda, L., J. de Mello, and R. Soares. 2012. “Spillovers from Conditional Cash Transfer Programs: Bolsa Familia and Crime in Urban Brazil.” Working Paper 024, Rede de Economia Aplicada, Sao Paulo. Chronic Poverty Research Centre. 2008. Chronic Poverty Report 2008-09: Escaping Poverty Traps. Manchester: Chronic Poverty Research Centre. Coady, D., M. Grosh, and J. Hoddinott. 2004. Targeting of Transfers in Developing Countries: Review of Lessons and Experience. Washington, DC: IFPRI and World Bank. Conway, T., and A. Norton. 2002. “Nets, Ropes, Ladders and Trampolines: The Place of Social Protection within Current Debates on Poverty Reduction.” Development Policy Review 20(5): 533-540. Covarrubias, K., B. Davis, and P. Winters. 2012. “From Protection to Production: Productive Impacts of the Malawi Social Cash Transfer Scheme.” Journal of Development Effectiveness 4(1): 50-77. Davies, M. 2009. “DFID Social Transfers Evaluation Summary Report.” Research Report No. 60, IDS, Brighton. REFERENCES 93 Davies, M., and J. Leavy. 2009. “Connecting Social Protection and Climate Change Adaptation.” Focus Issue No.2. Brighton: IDS. Davies, S., and J. Davey. 2008. “A Regional Multiplier Approach to Estimating the Impact of Cash Transfers on the Market: The Case Of Cash Transfers in Rural Malawi.” Development Policy Review 26(1): 91-111. Davis B., M. Gaarder, S. Handa, and J. Yablonski. 2012. “Evaluating the Impact of Cash Transfer Programmes in Africa (Sub-Saharan): An Introduction to the Special Issue.” Journal of Development Effectiveness 4(1): 1-8. Davis, B. 2013. “From Protection to Production: Measuring the Impact of Social Cash Transfers on Local Economic Development in Africa.” Presentation at the Scoping Conference: The Links between Social Inclusion and Sustainable Growth in Africa, The Hague, October 30-31. Davis, B., B. de la Brière, and A. Zezza. 2010. “The Impact of Social Cash Transfers on Household Economic Decision Making and Development in Eastern and Southern Africa.” African Economic Conference, pp. 27-29. De Haan, A. 2013. “Social Policy of Emerging Economies: Growth and Welfare in China and India.” Working Paper No. 110, IPC-IG, Brasilia. de la Briere, B., and K. Lindert. 2005. “Reforming Brazil’s Cadastro Unico to Improve the Targeting of Bolsa Familia Program.” Social Protection Discussion Paper 0527, World Bank, Washington, DC. De Neubourg, C., J. Castonguay, and K. Roelen. 2007. “Social Safety Nets and Targeted Social Assistance: Lessons from the European Experience.” Social Protection Discussion Paper No.0718. Washington, DC: World Bank. Devereux, S., W. Barth Eide, J. Hoddinott, N. Lustig, and K. Subbarao. 2012. “Social Protection for Food Security.” High Level Panel of Experts Report No. 4, Committee on World Food Security, Rome. Devereux, S., and R. Sabates-Wheeler. 2007. “Editorial Introduction: Debating Social Protection.” IDS Bulletin 28(3): 1-7. DSD, SASSA and UNICEF. 2012. The South African Child Support Grant Impact Assessment: Evidence from a Survey of Children, Adolescents and Their Households. Pretoria: UNICEF South Africa. Dunn, S., M. Brewin, and A. Scek. 2013. Final Monitoring Report of the Somalia Cash and Voucher Transfer Programme, Phase 2: April 2012–March 2013. London: Overseas Development Institute. Ellis, F., S. Devereux, and P. White. 2009. Social Protection in Africa. Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Elgar Publishing. Evans, D., S. Hausladen, K. Kosec, and N. Reese. 2014. Community-Based Conditional Cash Transfers in Tanzania: Results from a Randomized Trial. World Bank Study. Washington, DC: World Bank. FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization). 2013. “Cash-Based Transfers in FAO’s Humanitarian and Transition Programming.” Guidance Note, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Fiszbein, A., R. Kanbur, and R. Yemtsov. 2013. “Social Protection, Poverty and the Post-2015 Agenda.” Policy Research Working Paper No. 6469, World Bank, Washington, DC. Fiszbein, A., and N. Schady. 2009. “Conditional Cash Transfers: Reducing Present and Future Poverty.” World Bank Policy Research Report, World Bank, Washington, DC. Friemdan, E, E. Gallova, M. Herczog, and L Surdu. 2009. “Assessing Conditional Cash Transfers as a Tool for Reducing the Gap in Educational Outcomes between Roma and non-Roma.” REF Working Paper 4, Roma Education Fund, Budapest. Galluzzi, C., and S. Natsheh. 2010. “Market-based Food Assistance in Protracted Crisis: Vouchers in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.” In Revolution: From Food Aid to Food Assistance, edited by S. Omamo, U. Gentilini and S. Sanstöm. Rome: World Food Programme. Garcia, M., and C. Moore. 2012. The Cash Dividend: The Rise of Cash Transfer Programs in Africa (Sub- Saharan). Washington, DC: World Bank. Gelb, A., and J. Clark. 2013. “Identification for Development: The Biometrics Revolution.” Working Paper No. 315, CGD, Washington, DC. Gentilini, U. 2007. “Cash and Food Transfers: A Primer.” Occasional Paper No. 18, World Food Program, Rome. 94 REFERENCES Gentilini, U., and S. W. Omamo. 2011. “Social Protection 2.0: Exploring Issues, Evidence and Debates in a Globalizing World.” Food Policy 36(6): 329–340. Gertler, P., J. Heckman, R. Pinto, A. Zanolini, C. Vermeersch, S. Walker, S. M. Chang, and S. Grantham- McGregor. 2013. “Labor Market Returns to Early Childhood Stimulation: a 20-year Follow up to an Experimental Intervention in Jamaica.” NBER Working Paper No. 19185, NBER, Cambrige, MA. Gertler, P., S. Martinez, and M. Rubio-Codina. 2012. “Investing Cash Transfers to Raise Long-Term Living Standards.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 4(1): 164-92. Glewwe, P., and A. Kassouf. 2012. “The Impact of the Bolsa Escola/Familia Conditional Cash Transfer Program on Enrollment, Dropout Rates and Grade Promotion in Brazil.” Journal of Development Economics, 97(2): 505-517. GoA (Government of Argentina). 2007. “Programa Plan Nacional de Seguridad Alimentaria.” Ministerio de Desarrollo Social—Secretaría de Educación, Presidencia de la Nacion Argentina. http://www.presidencia.gob.ar/sitios-de-gobierno/planes-de-gobierno/2669 GoC (Government of Cambodia), World Food Programme, and World Bank. 2009. “Safety Nets in Cambodia: Concept Note and Inventory.” Policy Note, World Bank, Washington, DC. GoC (Government of Colombia). 2013. “Informe de Gestion 2013.” Ministerio de la Protección Social, Bogota. GoCH (Governemnt of Chile). 2013. “Logros y Cifras.” Subsecretaria del Trabajo. http://www.subtrab .trabajo.gob.cl/?page_id=121 GoCR (Government of Costa Rica). 2012. “Total de personas registradas en SIPO.” Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social, Costa Rica, Estadisticas. http://www.imas.go.cr/biblioteca/estadisticas_sipo.html GoDR (Government of Dominican Republic). 2012. “Country Profile Dominican Republic.” http://www .pro-savings.org/sites/default/files/perfil_paises/2Dominican%20Republic.pdf. GoE (Government of Egypt). 2008. “Ministry of Social Solidarity 2008.” In Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics, Statistical Yearbook 2008. Cairo: Government of Egypt. GoE (Government of Ethiopia). 2009. “Food Security Programme 2010-2014: Productive Safety Net.” Addis Ababa. GoES (Government of El Salvador). 2013. “Sistema de Proteccion Social Universal,” San Salvador. GoGB (Government of Guinea-Bissau). 2007. Guinea Bissau—Protecção Social. Presentation. VIII Reuniao dos Ministros do TAS da CPLP-Conferencia de Peritos. GoL (Government of Lithuania), UNDP, and European Commision. 2009. “Inclusive Lithuania: Though Analysis-Based Policy Dialogue Towards Effective Decision Making.” Assessment Report, UNDP, Vilnius. GoM (Government of Mozambique). 2013. “Transfercias Sociais Para Populacoes Vulneraveis: Uma reflexão sobre as modalidades de pagamento nos Programas de Segurança Social Básica.” Maputo. GoP (Government of Pakistan). 2013. “Alternate Payment Mechanisms and Targeted Subsidies– International Experience.” Presentation, December 12. GoT (Government of Turkey). 2012. “ALMP in Turkey.” Turkish Employment Agency Presentation, April 2012. http://www.iza.org/conference_files/ALMP2012/keskin_a7966.pdf GoU (Government of Uganda). 2014. “Expanding Social Protection.” Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development. http://www.socialprotection.go.ug/what%20we%20do.php GoU (Government of Uruguay). 2013. “Informe MIDES: Seguimiento y Evaluacion de actividades y programass 2011-2012.” Direccion nacional de Evaluation y Monitoreo, Ministerio de Desarrollo Social. Gourlay, D. 2011. 3W Review of Cash and Voucher Programs in Zimbabwe: 2011 Update Report. Oxford: The Cash Learning Partnership. Grigoras, V., and E. Tesliuc. 2012. “Staying Warm in a Cold Fiscal Climate: How Romania Used PSIA to Eliminate Heating Subsidies.” World Bank, Washington, DC. Grosh, M., and C. Weigand. 2008. “Levels and Patterns of Safety Net Spending in Developing and Transition Countries.” Social Protection Discussion Paper No. 0817, World Bank, Washington, DC. Grosh, M., A. Fruttero, and M. Oliveri. 2013. Understanding the Poverty Impact of the Global Financial Crisis in Latin America and the Caribbean. LCR Regional Study, “The Role of Social Protection.” Washington, DC: World Bank. REFERENCES 95 Grosh, M., C. Del Ninno, E. Tesliuc, and A. Ouerghi. 2008. For Protection and Promotion: The Design and Implementation of Effective Social Safety Nets. Washington, DC: World Bank. Handa, S., and B. Davis. 2006. “The Experience of Conditional Cash Transfers in Latin America and the Caribbean.” Development Policy Review 24(5): 513-536. Hanlon, J., A. Barrientos, and D. Hume. 2010. Just Give Money to the Poor: The Development Revolution from the Global South. Sterling, VA: Kumarian Press. Harvey, P., ed. 2009. “Making Economic Growth More Pro-Poor: The Role of Employment and Social Protection.” In Promoting Pro-Poor Growth: Social Protection. Paris: OECD. Harvey, P., ed. 2009. “Social Protection in Fragile States: Lessons Learned.” In Promoting Pro-Poor Growth: Social Protection. Paris: OECD. Hidrobo, M., J. Hoddinott, A. Peterman, A. Margolies, and V. Moreira. 2012. “Cash, Food, or Vouchers? Evidence from a Randomized Experiment in Northern Ecuador.” Discussion Paper 01234, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC. Hobson, M., and L. Campbell. 2012. “How Ethiopia’s PSNP is Responding to the Current Humanitarian Crisis in the Horn.” Humanitarian Exchange 53: 9-11. Hoddinott, J., G. Berhane, D. O. Gilligan, N. Kumar, and A. Taffesse. 2012. “The Impact of Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net Programme and Related Transfers on Agricultural Productivity.” Journal of African Economies, 21(5): 761-786. Holmes, R., and N. Jones. 2009. “Putting the ‘Social’ Back into Social Protection: A Framework for Understanding the Linkages between Economic and Social Risks for Poverty Reduction.” ODI Background Note, Overseas Development Institute, London. Honorati, M., and L. Rodriguez. 2013. “What Do We Know about Social Protection and Labor Systems? Lessons from Country Assessments Reports.” Working Paper, World Bank, Washington, DC. ILO (International Labour Office). 2009. “Mexico Extended Temporary Employment Programme Programa de Empleo Temporal Ampliado (PETA).” ILO Notes on the Crisis, International Labor Organization, Geneva. ILO (International Labour Office). 2013a. “Rationalizing Social Protection Expenditure in Ghana.” Draft, International Labor Organization, Geneva. ILO (International Labour Office). 2013b. Labour and Social Trends in Indonesia 2013: Reinforcing the Role of Decent Work in Equitable Growth. Geneva: International Labor Organization. IEG (Independent Evaluation Group). 2011. Evidence and Lessons Learned from Impact Evaluations on Social Safety Nets. Washington, DC: World Bank. International Monetary Fund. 2013. Energy Subsidy Reform: Lessons and Implications. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund. Isik-Dikmelik, A. 2012. “Do Social Benefits Respond to Crises? Evidence from Europe and Central Asia during the Global Crisis.” Social Protection and Labor Discussion Paper 1219, World Bank, Washington, DC. Kanbur, R. 2009. “Systemic Crises and the Social Protection System: Three Proposals for World Bank Action.” Food and Nutrition Policy Working Paper No. 235, Cornell University, Ithaca. Kozek, M., M. Zielenska, and J. Kubisa. 2012. National Report: Poland. Work Package 5: The National Arena for Combating Poverty, FP7 Project ‘Combating Poverty in Europe: Re-organising Active Inclusion through Participatory and Integrated Modes of Multilevel Governance,’ funded by the European Union under the 7th Framework Programme. Larrañaga, O. 2005. “Focalizacion de Programas en Chile: El Sistema CAS.” Social Protection Discussion Paper 0528, World Bank, Washington, DC. Lavigne, M. 2013. Social Protection Systems in Latin America and the Caribbean: Peru. Santiago: ECLAC. Leite, P. 2013. “Stages in the Process and the Backbone: MIS.” Presentation at the World Bank Core Course on Social Safety Nets, “For Protection and Promotion: The Design and Implementation of Effective Social Safety Nets, December 2-13, World Bank, Washington, DC. Leite, P., C. Costella, and R. Quintana. 2011. “Building Blocks of Social Safety Net Systems: Core Elements Registry and MIS.” World Bank, Washington, DC. Leroy, J., P. Gadsden, S. Rodriguez-Ramirez, and T. G. de Cossio. 2010. “Cash and In-Kind Transfers in Poor Rural Communities in Mexico Increase Household Fruit, Vegetable, and Micronutrient Consumption but Also Lead to Excess Energy Consumption.” Journal of Nutrition 140: 612–617. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC: 96 REFERENCES Levy, S. 2007. Progress against Poverty: Sustaining Mexico’s PROGRESA-Oportunidades Program. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Lim, S., L. Dandona, J. A. Hoisington, S. L. James, M. C. Hogan, and E. Gakidou. 2010. “India’s Janani Suraksha Yojana, a Conditional Cash Transfer Programme to Increase Births in Health Facilities: an Impact Evaluation.” The Lancet 2010(375): 2009-23, June 5, www.thelancet.com. Lokshin. M. 2012. “Implementing the New System of Social Assistance in Georgia.” Presentation at the ECA Communities of Practice Meeting, DECRG, World Bank, Washington, DC. Macours, K., N. Schady, and R. Vakis. 2012. “Cash Transfers, Behavioral Changes, and Cognitive Development in Early Childhood: Evidence from a Randomized Experiment.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 4(2): 247-273. McCord, A. 2009. “Cash Transfers: Affordability and Sustainability.” Project Briefing No. 30, Overseas Development Institute, London. McCord, A. 2013. “ODI Shockwatch: Review of the Literature on Social Protection Shock Responses and Readiness.” Overseas Development Institute, London. Minasyan, A. 2012. “Technology of Management of Information System of Armenia: Family Benefit Program.” Presentation at the South-South Learning Forum 2012, “Building Resilience and Opportunity,” Hyderabad, India, October 30-November 3. ODI (Oversee Development Institute). 2012. “Livelihoods, Basic Services and Social Protection in Nepal.” Secure Livelihoods Research Consortium, Working Paper 7, ODI, London. OPM (Oxford Policy Management). 2013. “Qualitative Research and Analyses of the Economic Impacts of Cash Transfer Programmes in Africa (Sub-Saharan): Zimbabwe Country Case Study Report.” Paper prepared for FAO, Oxford Policy Management, Oxford. Ortakaya, A. F. 2012. “Use of ICT in Macro Projects in Poverty Alleviation (Integrated Social Assistance Services Project).” Presentation at the ECA Communities of Practice Meeting, Turkey’s General Directorate of Social Assistances. Pal, K., C. Behrendt, F. Leger, M. Cichon, and K. Hagemejer. 2005. “Can Low-Income Countries Afford Basic Social Protection? First Results of a Modelling Exercise.” Social Protection Discussion Paper No. 13, International Labor Organization, Geneva. Perfetti, J. J., J. C. Gallego, and M. C. Perfetti. 2010. “Programa ReSA: Fortalecimiento de las Bases de la Seguridad Alimentaria en el Sector Rural.” Cuadernos de Fedesarrollo 009283, Fedesarrollo, Bogota. Ravallion, M. 2006. “Transfers and Safety Nets in Poor Countries: Revisiting the Tradeoffs and Policy Options.” In Understanding Poverty, edited by A. Banerjee, R. Benabou, and D. Mookerjee. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ravallion, M. 2008. “Bailing out the World’s Poorest.” Policy Research Working Paper No. 4763, World Bank, Washington, DC. Ravallion, M. 2009. “Do Poorer Countries Have Less Capacity for Redistribution?” Policy Research Working Paper No. 5046, World Bank, Washington, DC, Ribe, H., D. Robalino, and I. Walker. 2010. From Rights to Reality: Achieving Effective Social Protection for All in Latin America and the Caribbean. Washington, DC: World Bank. Russian Federal State Statistics Service. 2010. “Social Status and Standard of Living of the Russian Population.” http://pub.stat.ee/px-web.2001/I_Databas/Social_life/15Social_protection/ 02Social_assistance/05Subsistence_benefits/05Subsistence_benefits.asp. Seidenfeld, D., S. Handa, B. Davis, G. Tembo. 2013. “Zambia’s Child Grant Programme: 24-Month Impact Report.” American Institute for Research, Washington, DC. Silva, J., V. Levin, and M. Morgandi. 2013. Inclusion and Resilience: The Way Forward for Social Safety Nets in the Middle East and North Africa. Washington, DC: World Bank. Silva, V., G. Blanco, and L. Bassett. 2010. “Management Information Systems for CCTs and Social Protection Systems in Latin America: A Tool for Improved Program Management and Evidence- Based Decision-Making.” Working Paper, World Bank, Washington, DC. Slater, R., and A. McCord. 2009. “Social Protection, Rural Development and Food Security: Issues Paper on the Role of Social Protection in Rural Development.” Overseas Development Institute, London. REFERENCES 97 Subbarao, K., C. del Ninno, C. Andrews, and C. Rodríguez-Alas. 2013. Public Works as a Safety Net: Design, Evidence, and Implementation. Washington, DC: World Bank. Sultanov, E. 2012. Management of the Information System. Presentation ECA Communities of Practice Meetings. Ministry of Labor and Social Protection of the Population of Azerbajan Republic. Sundaram, R., V. Strokova, and B. Gotcheva. 2012. “Protecting the Poor and Promoting Employability: An Assessment of the Social Assistance System in the Slovak Republic.” World Bank, Washington, DC. Taylor, J. Edward, Karen Thome, and Mateusz Filipski. 2013. Evaluating Local General Equilibrium Impacts Lesotho’s Child Grants Program. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization. Tesliuc, E, L. Pop, M. Grosh, and R. Yemtsov (2014). Last-Resort Income Support for the Poorest: A Review of Experience in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. (Directions in Development). Washington, DC: World Bank. Tirivayi, N., M. Knowles, B. Davis. 2013. The Interaction between Social Protection and Agriculture: A Review of Evidence. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Todd, J., P. Winters, and T. Hertz (2010). “Conditional Cash Transfers and Agricultural Production: Lessons from the Oportunidades Experience in Mexico.” Journal of Development Studies, 46(1): 39-67. Umapathi, N., D. Wang, and P. O’Keefe. 2013. “Eligibility Thresholds for Minimum Living Guarantee Programs: International Practices and Implications for China.” Social Protection & Labor Discussion Paper No. 1307, World Bank, Washington, DC. UNICEF and USAID. 2010. “Survey of Barriers to Access to Social Services—Georgia.” Survey Report, UNICEF, Tbilisi. UNICEF Bangladesh, Directorate of Primary Education (DPE), and Power and Participation Research Centre. 2013. Bangladesh Primary Education Stipends: A Qualitative Assessment. Dhaka: DPE, PPRC, UNICEF Bangladesh. UNICEF. 2009. “Infant and Young Child Feeding Programme Review—Case Study: Uzbekistan.” Nutrition Section, UNICEF, New York. USAID. 2014. “Food Assistance Fact Sheet—Burundi.” Agriculture and Food Security, USAID. http:// www.usaid.gov/burundi/food-assistance. Weigand, C., and M. Grosh. 2008. “Levels and Patterns of Safety Net Spending in Developing and Transition Countries.” Social Protection Discussion Paper No. 817, World Bank, Washington DC. WFP (World Food Program). 2011. “The World Food Programme and Vulnerable Group Feeding in the Kyrgyz Republic.” World Food Program, Bishkek. WFP (World Food Program). 2012a. “Strengthening Food and Nutrition Security and Enhancing Resilience.” Operation Document, Protracted Relief and Recovery Operation (PRRO)—Somalia 200443, World Food Program, Rome. ———. 2012b. “Food Assistance for Food-Insecure and Conflict-Affected Populations in South Sudan.” Operation Document, Emergency Operation (EMOP) 200338, World Food Program, Rome. ———. 2012c. “Food Assistance to Vulnerable Populations Affected by Conflict and Natural Disasters.” Operation Document, EMOP 200151, World Food Program, Rome. ———. 2012d. “Budget Increase to PRRO Operation Chad 200289: Targeted Food Assistance for Refugees and Vulnerable People Affected by Malnutrition and Recurrent Food Crises,” World Food Program, Rome. ———. 2012e. “Djibouti Protracted Relief and Recovery Operation (PRRO) 200293—Budget Revision No.: 1,” World Food Program, Rome. ———. 2012f. “Honduras Country Programme 200240 (2012-2016),” World Food Program, Rome. ———. 2013b. “Impacts of The Harmonised Social Cash Transfer Programme on Community Dynamics In Zimbabwe,” World Food Program, Rome. ———. 2013c. “Budget Revision to Uganda Country Program 108070: Supporting Government-Led Initiatives to Address Hunger in Uganda,” World Food Program, Rome. ———. 2013d.” Recovering from previous crises and laying the groundwork for resilience for popula- tions affected by food insecurity in Mauritania.” Operations Document, PRRO 200474, World Food Program, Rome. 98 REFERENCES ———. 2013e. “Malawi, Emergency Operation 200608: Budget Revision No.3,” World Food Program, Rome. ———. 2013f. “Ghana Country Programme 200247: Budget Revision No.1,” World Food Program, Rome. ———. 2013g. “Country Programme Egypt 2013-2017,” World Food Program, Rome. ———. 2013h. “Assistance to Food-Insecure and Vulnerable Jordanians Affected by the Protracted Economic Crisis Aggravated by the Syrian Conflict.” Operation Document, PRRO 200537, World Food Program, Rome. ———. 2013i. “Bolivia Country Programme 2013-2017,” World Food Program, Rome. ———. 2014a. “Cambodia Country Program 2011-2016,” World Food Program, Rome. ———. 2014b. “Responding to Humanitarian Needs and Strengthening Resilience to Food Insecurity— Zimbabwe.” Operation Document, PRRO 200453, World Food Program, Rome. ———. 2014c. “Central African Republic—WFP Activities.” World Food Programme, Rome. http://www .wfp.org/countries/central-african-republic/operations ———. 2014d. “Strengthening Emergency preparedness and Resilience—Haiti.” Operation Document, PRRO 200618, World Food Program, Rome. ———. 2014e. “Targeted Food Assistance to Victims of Armed Conflict and other Vulnerable Groups— Democratic Republic of the Congo.” Operation Document, PRRO 200167, World Food Program, Rome. ———. 2014f. “Congo, Rep. of—WFP Activities.” World Food Programme, Rome. http://www.wfp.org/ countries/congo-republic-of/operations ———. 2014g. “Côte D’Ivoire—WFP Activities.” World Food Programme, Rome. http://www.wfp.org/ countries/c%c3%b4te-d-ivoire/operations ———. 2014h. “Ethiopia—WFP Activities.” Operations. World Food Programme. Web. . ———. 2014i.” The Gambia—WFP Activities.” World Food Programme, Rome. http://www.wfp.org/ countries/the-gambia/operations ———. 2014j. “Afghanistan: WFP Activities.” World Food Programme, Rome. http://www.wfp.org/ countries/afghanistan/operations. ———. 2014k. “Guinea—WFP Activities.” World Food Programme, Rome. http://www.wfp.org/ countries/guinea/operations/wfp-activities. Wiseman, W., J. Van Domelen, and S. Coll-Black. 2010. Designing and Implementing a Rural Safety Net in a Low Income Setting: Lessons Learned from Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net Program 2005-2009. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. 2008. “Nicaragua: Social Protection Public Expenditure Review.” Working Paper, World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2009a. “Niger: Food Security and Safety Nets.” Policy Note, World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2009b. “Saint Lucia: Social Safety Net Assessment.” Policy Note, World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2009c. “St. Kitts and Nevis: Social Safety Net Assessment.” Policy Note, World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2009d. “Social Transfers in Bosnia And Herzegovina: Moving Towards A More Sustainable And Better Targeted Safety Net.” Policy Note, World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2009e. “Bulgaria: Social Assistance Programs: Cost, Coverage, Targeting and Poverty Impact.” Policy Note, World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2010a. “Belize: Issues and Options to Strengthen the Social Protection System.” World Bank Policy Note No. 1387-BZ, World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2010b. “St. Vincent and the Grenadines: Social Safety Net Assessment.” Policy Note, World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2010c. “Egypt’s Food Subsidies: Benefit Incidence and Leakages.” Policy Note, World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2010d. “Accessing Good Quality Jobs: Priorities for Education, Social Protection, Science and Technology.” Report No. 56964-GT, World Bank, Washington, DC. REFERENCES 99 ———. 2010e. “Social Safety Nets in the Western Balkans: Design, Implementation, and Performance.” Report No. 54396-ECA, World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2010f. “Bangladesh Poverty Assessment: Assessing a Decade of Progress in Reducing Poverty 2000–2010.” The World Bank Bangladesh Development Series Report Paper No. 31, World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2010g. “Social Assistance in Rural China: Tackling Poverty through rural DIBAO.” Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2010h. “Russian labor Market: Monitoring Trends, Results 2010.” Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2010i. “Iran’s Subsidy Reform Program.” Internal mimeo, World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2011a. “A Diagnostic of Social Protection in Liberia.” Draft, World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2011b. “Botswana: Challenges to the Safety Net.” World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2011c. “Burkina Faso Social Safety Nets.” World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2011d. “Cameroun: Filets Sociaux.” World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2011e. “Europe and Central Asia Social Protection Database.” Last updated Dec. 12, 2011. World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2011f. “Les Filets Sociaux au Bénin.” Working Paper, World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2011g. “Mali: Social Safety Nets.” World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2011h. “Mauritius: Social Protection Review and Strategy.” World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2011i. “Mozambique: SP Assessment.” World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2011j. “Review of Targeting Tools Employed by Existing Social Support Programs in Malawi.” World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2011k. “Tanzania: Poverty, Growth, and Public Transfers.” World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2011l. “Zimbabwe Rapid Social Response—Productive Safety Net—Pilot Public Works Project. World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2011m. Romania Functional Review: labor and Social Protection Sector—Volume II. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2011n. “Project Appraisal Document to the Government of Albania for the Social Assistance Modernization Project.” World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2011o. “Jamaica Social Protection Assessment.” World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2011p. “Kazakhstan: Reforming the Last Resort Safety Net Program in an Upper-Middle-Income Country.” World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2011q. “Armenia: Social Assistance Programs and Work Disincentives.” Report No. 63112-AM, World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2011r. “Improving Targeting Accuracy of Social Assistance Programs in Belarus.” Social Assistance Policy Note 68 791, World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2011s. “Ciblage et protection sociale Note d’orientation stratégique.” Report No. AAA65—MA, World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2011t. Migration and Remittances Factbook 2011. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2012a. “Safety Nets Work: During Crisis and Prosperity.” Development Committee Paper, World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2012b. Resilience, Equity, and Opportunity: The World Bank Social Protection and Labor Strategy, 2012-2022. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2012c. Zambia: Using Productive Transfers to Accelerate Poverty Reduction. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2012d. “Kenya Social Protection Sector Review.” Nairobi: Ministry of State for Planning, National Development and Vision 2030. ———. 2012e. “Lesotho: Inequality, Transfers and Safety Nets.” Draft, World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2012f. “Madagascar—Three Years into the Crisis: An Assessment of Vulnerability and Social Policies and Prospects for the Future.” Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2012g. “Opening the Door to Good Quality Jobs: The Role of Human Capital Investment and Social Protection Policies: Panama.” World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2012h. “Rwanda SSN Assessment.” Draft, World Bank, Washington, DC. 100 REFERENCES ———. 2012i. “Sierra Leone: Social Protection Assessment.” World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2012j. “Swaziland: Public Transfers and the Social Safety Net.” Draft, World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2012k. “Togo: Towards a National Social Protection Policy and Strategy.” Report No. 71936-TG, World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2012l. Georgia Public Expenditure Review: Managing Expenditure Pressures for Sustainability and Growth. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2012m. Malaysia Elderly Protection Study. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2012n. Opening the Door to Good Quality Jobs: The Role of Human Capital Investment and Social Protection Policies: Honduras. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2012o. “Angola: Social Protection Review.” Draft, World Bank, Washington DC. ———. 2012p. “Safety Nets in Sri Lanka: An Overview.” World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2012q. “Social Assistance Cash Transfer Programs in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: A Review in Light of International (Benchmarking) Experience.” Internal Document, World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2012r. “Implementation Completion and Results Report for a Safety Net and Social Sector Reform Program—Latvia.” Implementation Status Report, World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2012s. “Project Appraisal Document to Ukraine—Social Assistance System Modernization.” World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2012t. “Raskin Subsidized Rice Delivery: Social Assistance and Public Expenditure Review.” World Bank, Jakarta. ———. 2012u. “Do School Feeding Programs Help Children?” From Evidence to Policy Note. World Bank, Washington, DC. World Bank. 2013a. “Closing the Gap: The State of Social Safety Nets 2013.” Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2013b. “Building Resilience to Disasters and Climate Change through Social Protection.” World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2013c. “Diagnostic Report of Social Safety Net Interventions in South Sudan.” World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2013d. “Republic of Senegal: Social Safety Net Assessment.” World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2013e. “Europe and Central Asia Social Protection Database.” Last updated Oct. 17, 2013. World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2013f. “Islamic Republic of Mauritania: Summary Analysis of Safety Net Programs and Costs.” World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2013g. “Timor-Leste Social Assistance Public Expenditure and Program Performance Report.” Report No: 73484. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2013h. “Seychelles—Second Sustainability and Competitiveness Development Policy Loan Project.” World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2013i. “Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Credit in the Amount of SDR194.7 Million to the Federal Republic of Nigeria for a Youth Employment and Social Support Operation.” World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2013k. “Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Credit in the Amount of SDR32.5 Million to the Republic of Cameroon for a Safety Net Project.” World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2013l. “Pakistan Towards an Integrated National Safety Net System. Assisting Poor and Vulnerable Households: An Analysis of Pakistan’s Main Cash Transfer Program.” Report No. 66421- PK, World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2013m. “Implementation Status Report: Philippines—PH-Social Welfare and Development Reform (P082144).” Implementation Status Results Report, Sequence 04, World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2013n. “A Diverse and Dynamic Region: Taking Stock of Social Assistance Performance in East Asia and the Pacific.” World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2013o. “Tajikistan Partnership Program Snapshot.” World Bank, Dushanbe. REFERENCES 101 ———. 2013p. “Consolidation and Transparency: Transforming Tunisia’s Health Care for the Poor.” UNICO Studies Series No. 4, World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2014a. “Zimbabwe Rapid Social Response: Productive Safety Net Pilot Public Works Project.” GRM Completion Report, World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2014b. “Implementation Status & Results: Ghana Social Opportunities Project (P115247).” Implementation Status Results Report: Sequence 07, World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2014c. “Sao Tome and Principe Internal Monitoring Report.” Draft, World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2014d. “Malaysia Internal Monitoring Report.” Draft, World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2014e. “Kyrgyz Republic Public Expenditure Review Policy Notes: Social Assistance.” World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2014f. “World Bank Group—FYR Macedonia Partnership Country Program Snapshot.” World Bank, Washington, DC. WFP (World Food Program). 2013a. The State of School Feeding Worldwide. Rome: World Food Program. WEBLINKS ASPIRE: http://www.worldbank.org/aspire ECLAC, Database of Conditional Transfer Programs (Programas de Transferencias Condicionadas): http://dds.cepal.org/bdptc/ Social Safety Nets in Africa: http://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/ 16256/9781464800948.pdf?sequence=1 HelpAge International (2014) “Social Social Pension Database.” Avaialble at http://www.pension- watch.net Government of India Ministry of Rural Development: http://www.mgnrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspx World Bank website. “Chile: The Integrated System of Social Information (SIIS).” http://go.worldbank .org/WZ5OPUEF40. E N D N OT E S 104 104 ENDNOTES 1 Blanket price subsidies often are not traceable and verifiable in terms of unit of assistance and amounts of support. In some cases, governments provide citizens with access to specified food products at subsidized prices. Many of these programs are large-scale and are undergoing a transition process, including moving from general subsidy measures (e.g., Iraq’s Public Distribution System or Egypt’s Baladi bread subsidy scheme) to more targeted programs (e.g., India’s Targeted Public Distribution Systems). Those reforms often include transitional periods with changes to benefit structures and the reconfiguration of operational procedures (e.g., use of electronic vouchers, etc.). In a number of countries undergoing such process data on beneficiaries may not always be available or consistent. It is expected that as reporting numbers improve, such targeted schemes may be included in the next issues of the State of Social Safety Nets report. 2 Vouchers or near-cash transfers provide access to goods for a given monetary value or quantity in predetermined locations (e.g., stores, fairs, etc.). As such, they are a hybrid form of transfer that shares features with both cash (ultimately, they are market-based) and in-kind transfers (e.g., they may not provide choice when tied to predetermined commodities). Food vouchers are sometimes referred to as “food stamps.” 3 Conditional transfers may vary considerably in terms of level of planning, monitoring and enforcement of compliance. For example, in the context of education-related conditions, Baird et al. (2013) distinguish between four categories of conditionalities: (a) explicit conditions on paper and/ or encouragement of children’s schooling, but no monitoring or enforcement; (b) explicit conditions, monitored with minimal enforcement; (c) explicit conditions with monitoring and enforcement of enrollment condition; and (d) explicit conditions with monitoring and enforcement of attendance condition. 4 In theory, also public works are a form of conditional transfers (i.e., conditioned on labor). Given their peculiar nature and design, however, we considered them as a separate, third class transfers. This is also in line with the general approach followed in the literature. Also, wages in public work programs can be provided in-kind or cash, including food-for-work and cash-for-work programs. Yet, since programs are often reported as “public works,” information on the specific transfer modality may not be available systematically. Also, public works sometimes provide a combination of cash and food transfers, such as in the Ethiopia PSNP. As a result, the report opted to consider public works as a tout court intervention. Just like the conditional transfers, also public works can vary considerably in terms of approach and design parameters. 5 A total of 155 countries were surveyed (including 13 HICs), and for 9 countries information on social safety nets was not available (i.e., Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Micronesia, Libya, Oman, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, United Arab Emirates, and Vanuatu). Note that for Sections 3 and 4, the number of countries for which information was available was smaller, i.e. 107 countries for Section 3 and 135 countries for Section 4. 6 In cases where support is provided to the family or household as a unit of assistance, we estimate the number of individuals using an average household size (standard of 5 individuals). 7 The percentage of poor individuals (living on less than $1.25/day) is calculated from PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm). 8 The percentage of poor individuals (living on less than $1.25/day) covered by social safety nets is estimated based on household survey data from 69 developing countries included in ASPIRE. Since household surveys include questions on coverage by social safety nets, the report was able to estimate how many among the extremely poor receive social safety net support at country level. Population numbers are then used to estimate the weighted average of coverage rates. Applying such average coverage rate of the extremely poor to the absolute number of poor globally we estimate how many extremely poor are covered by social safety nets. 9 This information can be found in detailed country reports on the ASPIRE website, www.worldbank.org/aspire. 10 For an overview, see Gentilini (2007). ENDNOTES 105 11 For the specific purpose of this paragraph, public works were left out of the analysis in line with the rationale set out earlier in the discussion (i.e., in many cases, programs may not report the modality of transfers or may provide a combination of both). Shares were calculated by first calculating the share of a given program type (say UCTs) out of all countries for a given income group (e.g., LICs). Then the same was done for the other program type for the same modality (in this case, CCT). Then the average of the two shares was considered as the share of cash-based programs for a given income group (in this case, LICs). The same was applied to the in-kind programs and the other income groups. 12 Aggregate spending data on social assistance rely on multiple sources: the World Bank Eastern Europe and Central Asia Social Protection expenditure and evaluation Database, European system of integrated social protection statistics, World Bank LAC SP database, country assessment reports for Africa, MENA and LAC countries, ADB country reports for South Asia and East Asia countries, regional , the MENA Social Safety Nets flagship regional report. See Annex 3 for a full list of resources. 13 Social safety net spending in some Eastern Europe and Central Asia countries does not include public works and school feeding programs (see Annex 3). Cross country comparisons should be interpreted with caution because the definitions (such as the scope of social assistance or social insurance) may not be fully consistent across countries. 14 See for example Weigand and Grosh (2008). 15 The definition of safety nets used here is different from the one adopted in a previous cross-country study on social protection spending (e.g., Weigand and Grosh, 2008), limiting the comparability of main findings. 16 The high spending in Georgia is accounted by universal social pension program. 17 External finance in Africa is represented by grants from multilateral international organizations such as the World Bank, WFP and UNICEF as well as several bilateral organizations. 18 See World Bank 2012l 19 See World Bank 2013g. 20 Ahmed, S. 2013, World Bank 2012m, World Bank 2010c 21 Based on the World Bank Easter Europe and Central Asia Social Protection expenditure and evaluation Database, historical spending data of real safety net spending available in 15 countries. 22 In general, the analysis does not account for decrees, laws or other legislation, but rather investigates policy and strategic frameworks that often emanate, elaborate and detail the basic content enshrined in legislation on the matter. 23 These findings are consistent with a recent review of country social protection assessments in 30 countries (Honorati and Rodriguez, 2014). The report finds that while most countries have clear policies and strategies, a key challenge is often to operationalize them. 24 This section largely draws from Leite and Felix (2014) and Palacios (2014). 25 Six countries in the Annex 7 table are high income countries. As the efforts to collect and disseminate surveys lead to greater data availability, ASPIRE will expand its coverage. 26 The indicator is a measure of inequality. 27 It is assumed that, in the absence of the program, the welfare aggregate of a recipient household falls by the value of the transfer. To establish the impact of a social protection program(s) on poverty, one ought to compare poverty without the program(s) (“pre-transfer”), to poverty with it (“post- transfer”). Then the transfer received under the program would need to be subtracted from the welfare aggregate and poverty measure recalculated to get a pre-transfer/program poverty measure. Comparing the two poverty measures gives an estimate of the program’s poverty impact. 28 These figures show the power of social protection in attaining the goal of ending extreme poverty. According to World Bank estimates, over the past 20 years the economic growth in the world was able to lift approximately 35 million people out of extreme poverty each year. 29 See Fiszbein et al. (2013). 30 See Andrews et al. (forthcoming). 106 ENDNOTES 31 In theory, the effects of safety nets on labor supply are mediated by two mechanisms. On one hand, beneficiaries’ behavioral response to transfers may include exchanging part of such additional income for more leisure. This is also known as “income effect.” On the other hand, if the size of the transfer is based on income levels, then those benefits could alter beneficiaries’ effective wage. In other words, such “price effect” would result in introducing an implicit tax on earnings, or a marginal tax rate. For example, means-tested transfers aimed at ensuring a minimum income level could imply that program participants may face a 100 percent marginal tax rate—that is, a small increase in non- program income may result in an equal reduction in program benefits. This dynamic is sometimes referred to as a “policy-induced poverty trap.” 32 See http://www.fao.org/economic/ptop/home/en/. 33 In theory, wages in public work programs can be provided in-kind or cash, including food-for-work and cash-for-work programs. Yet, since programs are often reported as “public works,” information on the specific transfer modality may not be available systematically or transfers are often provided as a combination of cash and food. This publication is the first in a series of monitoring reports on the rich and evolving world of social safety nets in developing countries. Social safety nets, also known as ‘social assistance’ or ‘social transfers’, are part of broader social protection systems, and provide regular and predictable support to poor and vulnerable people. Such support is critical for reducing poverty; for boosting inclusive growth and shared prosperity; for reducing food insecurity and malnutrition; for increasing demand for education and health services; for stimulating local economies and for helping households to better manage risks and cope with shocks. Social safety nets are not just about assistance—they are an important ingredient for building and strengthening social contracts between states and their citizens. This report examines data from 144 countries, including detailed household survey data from 69 countries in the World Bank’s ASPIRE database, it describes key policy and practical developments, distills evidence, and highlights emerging innovations. It focuses on developing countries, although in a few cases reference is made to high-income settings. With new and concisely presented estimates on the scale, type and performance of safety nets in the developing and emerging world, this report aims to be a reference and a benchmark for policymakers, thinkers and practitioners in the world of social safety nets and of social protection more broadly. www.worldbank.org/sp www.worldbank.org/rsr © 2014 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank