The State of Social Safety Nets 2015 The State of Social Safety Nets 2015 © 2015 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000; Internet: www.worldbank.org Some rights reserved 1 2 3 4 18 17 16 15 This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Nothing herein shall constitute or be considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved. Rights and Permissions This work is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 IGO license (CC BY 3.0 IGO) http://creativecommons.org/licenses /by/3.0/igo. Under the Creative Commons Attribution license, you are free to copy, distribute, transmit, and adapt this work, including for commercial purposes, under the following conditions: Attribution—Please cite the work as follows: World Bank. 2015. The State of Social Safety Nets 2015. Washington, DC: World Bank. doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-0543-1. License: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0 IGO Translations—If you create a translation of this work, please add the following disclaimer along with the attribution: This translation was not created by The World Bank and should not be considered an official World Bank translation. The World Bank shall not be liable for any content or error in this translation. Adaptations—If you create an adaptation of this work, please add the following disclaimer along with the attribution: This is an ad- aptation of an original work by The World Bank. Views and opinions expressed in the adaptation are the sole responsibility of the author or authors of the adaptation and are not endorsed by The World Bank. Third-party content—The World Bank does not necessarily own each component of the content contained within the work. The World Bank therefore does not warrant that the use of any third-party-owned individual component or part contained in the work will not infringe on the rights of those third parties. The risk of claims resulting from such infringement rests solely with you. If you wish to re-use a component of the work, it is your responsibility to determine whether permission is needed for that re-use and to obtain permission from the copyright owner. Examples of components can include, but are not limited to, tables, figures, or images. All queries on rights and licenses should be addressed to the Publishing and Knowledge Division, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. ISBN (paper): 978-1-4648-0543-1 ISBN (electronic): 978-1-4648-0544-8 DOI: 10.1596/978-1-4648-0543-1 Cover photo: © Gary Yim / Shutterstock.com. Used with the permission of Gary Yim / Shutterstock.com. Further permission required for reuse. Page 6: © Robin Nieuwenkamp / Shutterstock.com. Used with the permission of Robin Nieuwenkamp / Shutterstock.com. Further permission required for reuse. Page 20: © 1,000 Words / Shutterstock.com. Used with the permission of 1,000 Words / Shutterstock.com. Further permission required for reuse. Page 32: © Zvonimir Atletic / Shutterstock.com. Used with the permission of Zvonimir Atletic / Shutterstock.com. Further permission required for reuse. Page 42: © Gail Palethorpe / Shutterstock.com. Used with the permission of Gail Palethorpe / Shutterstock.com. Further permission required for reuse. Page 62: © Malgorzata Kistryn / Shutterstock.com. Used with the permission of Malgorzata Kistryn / Shutterstock.com. Further permission required for reuse. Page 72: © Jayakumar / Shutterstock.com. Used with the permission of Jayakumar / Shutterstock.com. Further permission required for reuse. Cover and interior design: Karol A. Keane, Keane Design, Inc. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data has been requested. Contents Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Structure of the Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Section 1. Inventory of Social Safety Net Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Types and Coverage of Safety Net Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Highlight 1. Safety Nets in Fragile and Conflict-Affected Situations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Section 2. Spending on Social Safety Nets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Spending Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Spending Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Highlight 2. The Growing Role of Social Pensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Section 3. Policy, Institutions, and Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Policies and Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Administration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Highlight 3. Climate Change, Poverty, and the Importance of Leveraging Social Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Section 4. Results and Evidence about Social Safety Nets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Performance of Social Safety Net Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Evidence from Impact Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Highlight 4. Using Cash Transfers to Promote Early Childhood Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Section 5. Social Safety Nets in Urban Areas: Emerging Issues and Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Highlight 5. Understanding Urban Poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 v Appendixes A Definitions, Methodology, and Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 B Countries, Economies, and Territories Included in the Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 C Program Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 D Spending on Social Safety Net Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 E Policies, Institutions, and Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 F Performance Indicators (All Social Safety Nets) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 G Coverage of Social Safety Nets, by Program Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Boxes 1.1 Types of Safety Nets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1.2 What “Conditionality” Really Implies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1.3 Response to the Ebola Outbreak in West Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.1 Spending on Fuel Subsidies Is Often Greater than Spending on Social Safety Nets . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 4.1 ASPIRE Indicators Based on Household Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 A.1 Coverage Considered from an Insurance or Actuarial Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Figures 1.1 How social safety nets fall within social protection and labor systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1.2 Social safety net programs have been rising steadily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1.3 School feeding programs are the most prevalent type of social safety net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1.4 Enrollment rates in social safety net programs vary by country, with over half not enrolling even the bottom fifth of the population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.1 Countries and territories spend 1.6 percent of GDP on social safety net programs, on average, although the level varies by region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 2.2 Variations in social safety net spending are higher in lower-income countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2.3 Spending on social safety nets is weakly associated with income levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2.4 The composition of social safety net spending varies by income level and the enabling environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 2.5 Spending composition varies by program type across regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 2.6 Old-age social pensions make up the highest share of worldwide spending on cash transfers . . . 25 B2.1.1 Fuel subsidies exceed social safety net spending in some countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 2.7 Half the world spends more on subsidies than on social safety nets, on average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 2.8 Lower-income countries devote a higher share of their social safety net budgets to targeted programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 2.9 Many countries are below the cost-efficiency frontier of social safety nets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 3.1 Status of social protection policies or strategies as of 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 3.2 Existing social protection policy or strategy as of 2014, by type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 3.3 Most countries use one lead coordinating ministry to coordinate social protection policies . . . . 35 3.4 Many countries lack social protection and labor system administration tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 4.1 Results chain of a safety net system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 4.2 Coverage of the poor differs greatly by different types of safety nets and income groups . . . . . . . 45 4.3 Coverage by different components of the social protection system varies by region . . . . . . . . . . . 46 4.4 Higher coverage of the poor is associated with higher enrollment in social safety nets . . . . . . . . 47 4.5 The average transfer size does not fill the poverty gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 4.6 The adequacy of transfers for the poor varies by program type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 4.7 Conditional cash transfers are among the best targeted type of safety net. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 4.8 The poverty reduction effects of social safety nets depend on both the coverage of the poor and the adequacy of social safety net transfers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 4.9 Selected impacts of social safety nets on school enrollment rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 4.10 Selected impacts of social safety nets on school attendance rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 4.11 The proportion of social safety net beneficiary households owning a productive asset has grown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 4.12 Social safety nets have high multiplier effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 vi Contents 5.1 Coverage of social safety nets is lower in urban areas than in rural settings, but urban dwellers are better covered by social insurance and labor market programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 5.2 The urban poor are less covered by social safety nets than are the rural poor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 5.3 Problems with the initial enrollment process of the Familias Program in Bogotá prevented most people from enrolling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Map 5.1 The Programa de Apoyo Temporal al Ingreso (PATI) in El Salvador is implemented in precarious urban settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Tables 1.1 Number of Countries with at Least One Type of Social Safety Net Program, by Region. . . . . . . . 11 1.2 Number of Countries with at Least One Type of Social Safety Net Program, by Country Income Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1.3 Top Five Social Safety Net Programs, by Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1.4 Top Five Social Safety Net Programs, Share of Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.1 Social Protection Policy/Strategy as of 2014, Low- and Middle-Income Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 3.2 Type of Policy/Strategy for Countries with Active Social Protection Policy/Strategy as of 2014, Low- and Middle-Income Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 3.3 Key Coordination Bodies of Social Protection as of 2014, Low- and Middle-Income Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 3.4 Social Protection and Labor System Administration Tools as of 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 3.5 Selected Examples of Operational Social and Beneficiary Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 3.6 Selected Examples of Operational Social and Beneficiary Registries Being Developed. . . . . . . . . 39 4.1 Enrollment and Coverage of the Poor Rates, by Country Income Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 4.2 Impact Evaluations, 1999–2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 4.3 Selected Recent Impact Evaluations of Social Safety Net Programs, 2014–15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 A.1 Classification of Social Safety Net Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 A.2 Alternative Definitions of Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 A.3 New Countries Included in the 2015 Edition (Household Surveys for 44 Countries) . . . . . . . . . . 79 A.4 Household Surveys Used in the Report (105 Countries, Economies, and Territories) . . . . . . . . . 80 Contents vii Foreword T he need for social safety nets is a critical concern for governments across the globe and for the billions of men, women, and children striving to improve their livelihoods. As interest in and the use of social safety nets keep growing, countries struggle to make social safety net interventions more effective and to integrate them better in their overall social protection and labor systems. This report documents the state of the social safety net agenda in low- and middle-income countries. In recent years, a true policy revolution has been under way. The statistics in this report capture this revolution and reveal it in many dimensions at the country, regional, and international levels. This latest edition of a periodic series draws heavily on the survey and administrative data in the World Bank’s Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of Resilience and Equity (ASPIRE), a comprehensive international database. The effort to collect data through ASPIRE has resulted in capturing and bringing together a large body of data that was not previously available. Today, 131 countries out of 157 in the ASPIRE database have in-kind transfers, specifically in the form of school feeding. This fundamental transfer, ubiquitous in low-income countries, is quite important in middle-income countries as well. But while school feeding programs have been around for a long time, the emerging trend for many countries is to increasingly move toward cash-based assistance. Cash transfers are present in 130 countries, with the most rapid growth occurring in Africa. There, 40 countries now have unconditional cash transfer programs in place—almost double the number in 2010. Why this growth? Why this commitment to make social safety nets part of the development policy architecture in low- and middle-income countries alike? Because social safety nets work. Their value has been demonstrated not from anecdotal evidence, but from extensive and robust evaluations often conducted with the same rigorous standards guiding, for example, medical research. Importantly, an increasing share of these evaluations is being undertaken in some of the most challenging and lowest-income contexts around the world. How much do social safety nets cost? Costs range between 1.5 percent and 1.9 percent of gross domestic product in low- and upper-middle-income countries, respectively. Total spending on social safety nets in 120 developing countries is US$329 billion—approximately twice the amount needed to lift people out of extreme poverty. Different countries have made different choices in terms of financing their social safety nets for different social, economic, historical, and political reasons. Differences in budgetary choices tend to translate into differences in program performance across contexts; thus, for the same amount of resources, countries can achieve differing impacts. Therefore, one important question to explore is what countries are doing to improve the efficiency of social safety net programs as a system. This report provides an attempt to set realistic benchmarks for countries to assess the performance of their social safety nets in terms of coverage, spending, and impacts on reducing poverty. Many countries have made strides in connecting poor and vulnerable people to different programs—with respect to not only social protection, but also jobs and other social interventions ix such as health and education. The agenda has become one of unlocking countries’ potential, with the building of systems playing a big role. However, overlaps among programs persist and coordination remains limited in most cases. Establishing effective management, information, and evaluation systems; introducing accurate registries of beneficiaries; devising a proper way of verifying people’s identity; adopting reliable payment mechanisms; ensuring appropriate institutional arrangements; and handling other administrative concerns all stand between an array of programs and effective interventions. Yet the system’s agenda is very dynamic—not only because it is underpinned by ever-improving technologies, but also because of the way economies are evolving and increasingly urbanizing, among other trends. How social safety nets are implemented in response to urban poverty and what are the special features of social safety nets in urban areas are some key questions that this report starts to explore, as informed by ongoing analytical and practical work by the World Bank and by various governments. We are excited to offer you the full range of data and analysis that inform this report, and we look forward to producing, sharing, and disseminating the latest global, regional, and country- level developments in the crucial field of social safety nets, through this 2015 edition and the ones to come. Arup Banerji Senior Director, Social Protection and Labor Global Practice The World Bank Group x Foreword Acknowledgments T his report was prepared by a team led by Maddalena Honorati, together with Ugo Gentilini and Ruslan Yemtsov. The other members of the core team were Veronica Silva and Philip O’Keefe. Overall guidance was provided by Arup Banerji, Senior Director of the Social Protection and Labor Global Practice; Anush Bezhanyan, Practice Manager, Social Protection and Labor Global Practice; and Omar Arias, Lead Economist, Social Protection and Labor Global Practice. We gratefully acknowledge the research assistance provided by Marina Novikova and Wouter Takkenberg. We thank Raiden Dillard, Alies van Geldermalsen, and Ngoc-Dung Thi Tran for support on design, layout, and formatting. The team is grateful to Francesca Bastagli,  Margaret Grosh, Phillippe Leite, Cem Mete, and Edmundo Murrugarra, who contributed feedback and suggestions throughout the process. The special highlights featured in the report were produced with inputs from Mook Bangalore, Carlo Del Ninno, Marianne Fay, Stéphane Hallegatte, Matthew Hobson, Suleiman Namara, Mirey Ovadiya, Robert Palacios, Patrick Premand, Nina Rosas Raffo, Adrien Vogt-Schilb, and Giuseppe Zampaglione. The ASPIRE team—including Stefanie Brodmann, Paula Cerutti, Aylin Isik-Dikmelik, Oleksiy Ivaschenko, Ana Sofia Martinez, Cem Mete, Victoria Monchuk, Claudia Rodriguez Alas, Joana Silva, and Frieda Vandeninden—offered valuable technical support.  Special thanks to country teams for validating program data on spending and number of beneficiaries, including Pablo Ariel Acosta,  Afrah Alawi Al-Ahmadi, Ghassan N. Alkhoja, Colin Andrews, Diego Angel-Urdinola, Philippe Auffret, Ashiq Aziz, Shrayana Bhattacharya, Andras Bodor, Gbetoho Joachim Boko, Hugo Brousset Chaman, Lucilla Maria Bruni, Robert S. Chase, Aline Coudouel, Benedicte Leroy De La Briere, Carlo del Ninno, Rony Djekombe, Heba Elgazzar, Randa G. El-Rashidi, Lire Ersado, Endashaw Tadesse Gossa, Melis Guven, Samira Ahmed Hillis, Oleksiy Ivaschenko, Quanita Ali Khan, Silvana Kostenbaum, Dima Krayem, Phillippe Leite, Rene Antonio Leon Solano, Emma Mercedes, Emma Mistiaen, Khalid Ahmed Ali Moheyddeen, Victoria Monchuk, Monsalve Montiel, Claire V. Morel, Fitsum Z. Mulugeta, Michael Mutemi Munavu, Suleiman Namara, Nga Nguyet Nguyen, Surat F. Nsour, Philip O’Keefe, Foluso Okunmadewa, Azedine Ouerghi, Jyoti Maya Pandey, Peter Pojarski, Aleksandra Posarac, Aneeka Rahman, Jasmine Rajbhandary, Laura B. Rawlings, Setareh Razmara, Dena Ringold, Nina Rosas Raffo, Haneen Ismail Sayed, Anita M. Schwarz, Ahmad Shaheer Shahriar, Oleksiy A. Sluchynskyy, Julia Smolyar, Carlos Soto, Victoria Strokova, Shalika H. Subasinghe, Fanta Toure, Maurizia Tovo, James Tumwine, John Van Dyck, Rashiel Velarde, Andrea Vermehren, Giuseppe Zampaglione, and Eric Zapatero. The External and Corporate Relations Publishing and Knowledge Division coordinated the design, typesetting, printing, and dissemination of the print and electronic versions of this report. Special thanks go to Steve Pazdan, Nancy Morrison, Paola Scalabrin, and Karol Keane. Thanks also to Muhamad Al Arief, our senior communications officer. xi Structure of the Report T his report is the second edition of a series of periodic publications that monitor the state of safety nets. It does so by presenting key global safety net statistics on coverage, spending, policies, institutions, administration, and a range of performance-based dimensions. The 2015 edition of The State of Social Safety Nets presents a richer and more comprehensive set of data compared with the 2014 edition. The two editions are not strictly comparable because of different methods and data (see appendix A). The report is structured around five sections: • Section 1 reviews key global safety net features based on the report’s inventory of programs. • Section 2 presents levels and patterns in countries’ social safety net spending. • Section 3 takes stock of key policy, institutional, and administrative developments. • Section 4 discusses results on a range of performance indicators, including a snapshot of main results related to coverage and adequacy of safety net transfers and impact evaluations. • Section 5 explores several emerging issues and practices of social safety nets in urban contexts—this year’s special feature. Each section contains a highlight that focuses on a special topic, and a set of seven appendixes presenting inventories, data, statistics, and resources complete the report. xiii Abbreviations ADB Asian Development Bank ASPIRE Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of Resilience and Equity (World Bank) AUP asentamiento urbano precario (precarious urban settlement) CCT conditional cash transfer CIT conditional in-kind transfer EAP East Asia and Pacific ECA Europe and Central Asia ECD early childhood development ECLAC Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (United Nations) ESSPROS European System of Integrated Social Protection Statistics database (European Union) HIC high-income country ILO International Labour Organization LAC Latin America and the Caribbean LIC low-income country LMIC lower-middle-income country MENA Middle East and North Africa MIC middle-income country MIS management information system OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PMT proxy-means-testing PPP purchasing power parity PSNP productive safety net program SAR South Asia region SOCX Social Expenditure Database (OECD) SP social protection SPL social protection and labor SSA Sub-Saharan Africa SSN social safety net UCT unconditional cash transfer UIT unconditional in-kind transfer UMIC upper-middle-income country UN United Nations WFP World Food Programme xv Executive Summary T he objective of The State of Social Nets is to compile, analyze, and disseminate data and developments at the forefront of the social safety net agenda.1 This series of periodic reports is part of broader efforts to monitor progress in the implementation of the World Bank 2012–22 Social Protection and Labor Strategy against the strategic goals of increasing coverage, especially among the poor, and enhancing integrated social protection and labor systems.2 This second edition of The State of Social Safety Nets examines trends in coverage, spending, and program performance based on the World Bank Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of Resilience and Equity (ASPIRE) updated database. The report documents the main safety net programs that exist globally and the ways countries use them to alleviate poverty and build shared prosperity. Expanding on the 2014 edition, the analysis based on household survey data covers 44 additional countries and includes updated administrative information on spending and number of beneficiaries for 136 countries. This edition also includes a new section featuring a special theme, urban safety nets. Interest in and use of social safety nets keep growing. Today’s world of social safety nets is complex: an average developing country now has about 20 social safety net programs. As of 2015, every country in the world has at least one social safety net program in place. In the 136 countries for which beneficiary data are available in the World Bank’s ASPIRE database, 1.9 billion people are on beneficiary rolls of social safety net programs, of which 44 percent receive in-kind transfers, 37 percent receive cash-based transfers, and 19 percent receive fee waivers. While the number of countries with traditional social safety net programs—school feeding and in-kind transfers—remains stable, cash transfers are becoming more popular. In the past year, new information has become available for 11 countries with unconditional cash transfers (UCTs). In Africa, 40 countries (out of 48 in the region) have UCTs, a doubling since 2010. Twelve more countries have introduced the more institutionally demanding conditional cash transfer (CCT) programs. CCTs are now present in 64 countries, a dramatic increase from 2 countries in 1997 and 27 in 2008. Public works aimed at income transfers have been implemented in 94 countries—many of them are in conflict-affected and fragile states. Despite remarkable progress over the past half decade, most of the poor remain outside the social safety net system, especially in lower-income countries. Low- and lower-middle-income countries have the lowest coverage levels of poor people in their societies, and the least ability to direct resources to those most in need. Only one-quarter of the poorest quintile are covered by social safety net programs in those contexts. The proportion grows to 64 percent in upper-middle-income countries. The coverage gap is particularly acute in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, where most of the global poor live. In these regions, only one-tenth and one-fifth of the poorest 20 percent have access to social safety nets, respectively. Urban areas have serious gaps in coverage, at all income levels. While 285 million poor people live in cities in developing countries, reaching them presents special challenges, including identifying, targeting, communicating with, and enrolling perspective beneficiaries. 1 The outreach to the poor is increasing mostly through cash transfer programs. CCTs are playing a key role in expanding social safety net coverage of the poor in upper-middle-income countries, while school feeding programs and public works provide the greatest coverage in lower-income countries—although limited. Countries at all levels of income are investing in social safety nets. Low-income and middle- income countries devote approximately the same level of resources to social safety nets (1.5 and 1.6 percent of gross domestic product [GDP], respectively), while richer countries spend 1.9 percent of GDP on them. However, some lower-income countries allocate more funds than the global average. For example, Sierra Leone commits 4.8 percent of GDP to safety nets and Lesotho spends 6.6 percent, while Georgia, a lower-middle-income country, spends 7 percent of GDP. This suggests that spending on safety nets reflects not just income, but policy priorities, history, composition of the overall social protection systems, and contextual factors (such as being a fragile state). Cash transfers constitute the highest share of spending in all regions except Sub-Saharan Africa, where food and in-kind transfers are the dominant component (comprising 27 percent of total safety net spending, on average). Among cash-based transfers, social pensions account for the highest share of expenditures, followed by poverty-targeted transfers. Countries are investing in social safety nets to reap the benefits of human capital development and income-generating activities. Empirical evidence based on rigorous impact evaluations keeps growing and offering new insights on the transformational role of social safety nets. Since 2014, an additional 23 impact evaluations (building on 145 reviewed until then) have been published. More than half of them focus on Sub-Saharan Africa. Newer studies confirm the positive and significant impacts of cash transfers on school enrollment and attendance; increased live births in safer facilities; improved prenatal and postnatal care; regular growth monitoring of children during critically important early ages; and enhanced food security. The studies also delve deeper into the productive impacts of cash transfers, demonstrating how predictable cash transfers enhance households’ investment in activities to generate agricultural and nonagricultural income. Cash transfers also have major positive spillover effects on the local economy of target communities. Evidence collected from the “From Protection to Production Project” in Africa shows that these programs have a nominal income multiplier ranging from US$1.34 to US$2.52 for each US$1.00 transferred. Impacts on reducing the poverty gap depend on how well the poor are covered and on the adequacy of benefits, among other factors. Countries typically strike a balance within a given budgetary framework between expanding coverage and providing more adequate transfers to a smaller group of beneficiaries. For example, Mauritius and Hungary achieve the same poverty reduction effect with quite different combinations of adequacy and coverage. Higher levels of spending are typically associated with higher impacts on poverty; however, even within similar budgets, some countries do better than others at each level of spending. This pattern allows performance to be benchmarked against countries at the cost-effectiveness “frontier.” Successful countries are reducing the poverty gap by more than 50 percent compared to income levels before the transfer. When countries are spending less than the global average on their safety nets, they find that impacts on poverty reduction are lower, with only 10–20 percent of the poverty gap eliminated. In most countries, the size of safety net transfers is not adequate to close the poverty gap, particularly in low-income countries. The average level of cash benefits is only 10 percent of the 2 The State of Social Safety Nets 2015 poor’s consumption across low-income countries. It represents 21 percent of the poor’s consumption in lower-middle-income countries and 37 percent in upper-middle-income countries. Transfer amounts represent approximately one-fifth of the income needed to close the poverty gap in low- income countries and half the income needed in lower-middle-income countries. On average, they are adequate to lift a poor person out of poverty only in upper-middle-income countries. The targeting of social safety nets is generally pro-poor, but there is room for improvement. CCTs are the best targeted programs, devoting as much as 50 percent of benefits to the poorest quintile in the case of the large-scale CCT programs in Latin America and 46 percent in the case of more recently established programs (such as the Pantawid in the Philippines). Social pensions and UCTs are less well targeted to the poor, although by design a number of them are categorical programs (or programs that use specific categories or population groups to define benefit eligibility, such as children allowances or universal social pensions for all citizens above a certain age). To increase the efficiency of safety nets, better-coordinated systems are required. Protecting the poor and the vulnerable and allowing them to avail themselves of opportunities requires integrated systems, necessitating multiple social protection programs to work together. A coherent system starts with a plan and a policy framework to guide multiple social protection interventions. In recent years, the number of countries with a solid social protection framework in place has grown considerably. As of 2015, 77 countries have a social protection policy in place, while 31 countries are currently planning or formulating one. This planning and policy work is key to ensuring a coherent strategic framework that can guide multiple social protection interventions. The adoption of social and beneficiary registries is growing steadily. At least 21 countries have a fully institutionalized social registry. An additional 26 countries, including many in Sub-Saharan Africa, are in the process of building registries. At least 26 countries have fully operational beneficiary registries, while another 16 are currently developing theirs. These registries range from serving a single program to 80 different programs, as in Chile. Spending efficiency can be improved by strengthening the institutional capacity, coordination, and programs’ administration and evaluation. The efficient implementation of social protection systems requires tools that facilitate the selection of beneficiaries, service delivery, and monitoring of both processes and outcomes. Countries are increasingly investing in management information systems and targeting approaches of varying complexity and sophistication, allowing more efficient management of safety net programs. There is growing interest in the role that safety nets can play in urban areas, including the emergence of a first generation of urban programs. At least a dozen countries are undergoing an iterative process of experimentation, learning, and organic adaptation of programs to urban areas, in terms of both operational “nuts and bolts” (or basic elements for a program to be implemented) and strengthening integration to other sectors. For example, in Mexico, about 40 percent of the beneficiaries of Prospera (formerly Oportunidades) live in urban and peri-urban areas, up from 7 percent at the early stages of roll-out in 1997–98. In China, urban Dibao beneficiaries rose from 0.85 million in 1996 to 21.4 in 2013. Lessons from the first years of introduction and scale-up will help inform learning within and across countries in cutting-edge areas for the social protection agenda. Future editions of The State of Social Safety Nets series will continue to stay up to date with the latest innovations and progress in the ever-changing landscape of social safety nets around the world. Executive Summary 3 As countries continue to roll out, expand, and refine their social safety nets and integrate them into social protection systems, there will be new developments in policy, program design, administration, and evaluation. New and updated data—from both surveys and administrative data—will provide ongoing snapshots of the latest available information on the efficiency and effectiveness of safety nets in reducing poverty and building shared prosperity. Notes 1. Social safety nets are noncontributory measures designed to provide regular and predictable support to poor and vulnerable people. These are also referred to as safety nets, social assistance, or social transfers and are a component of larger social protection systems. 2. The World Bank 2012–2022 Social Protection and Labor Strategy (www.worldbank.org/spstrategy) states that the “overarching goals of the strategy are to help improve resilience, equity, and opportunity for people in both low- and middle-income countries through integrated social protection and labor systems, increasing coverage of social safety net programs, especially in lower-income countries, and improved evidence.” 4 The State of Social Safety Nets 2015 Section 1. Inventory of Social Safety Net Programs T his section examines the coverage the resulting types of social safety net programs The use of of social safety nets, both across the considered in the analysis. total population and among the poor. Based on such an approach, the report identi- social safety net To do so, the analysis is based on the fied 589 programs in 145 developing countries, instruments most recently available administrative data economies, and territories (out of the 157 sur- keeps growing in the World Bank Atlas of Social Protection: veyed, of which 136 have detailed program-level Indicators of Resilience and Equity (ASPIRE) data on number of beneficiaries enrolled) around the database and on updated coverage indicators (see appendixes A and B).5 For each program, world, especially from household surveys. The analysis starts appendix C reports the number of beneficiaries the use of cash- with the definition of social safety net programs and the program-specific source of information. based programs. of various forms and presents their distribu- tion across regions and income groups. This Types and Coverage of Safety Net is followed by an examination of enrollment Programs rates and coverage rates. Enrollment rates are The use of social safety net instruments keeps defined as the number of beneficiaries on the growing around the world, especially the use of rolls of all social safety net programs, as a per- cash-based programs (see box 1.2). The expan- cent of the population. Coverage rates refer to sion of cash transfers is particularly evident the actual number of recipients of social safety in Sub-Saharan Africa. For example, in 2010, nets in cash, in-kind, or near-cash as percent about half the countries in the continent (21) of total population.1 The analysis chiefly draws had some form of unconditional cash trans- from administrative data on program numbers fers (UCTs) in place; by 2014, new information of beneficiaries in the ASPIRE database and is had become available showing that the number complemented by data from other international of countries implementing UCTs had almost agencies. doubled to 40. Globally, the number of coun- tries with conditional cash transfers (CCTs) Definitions increased dramatically from 27 in 2008 to 64 in Social safety nets are noncontributory measures 2014. Public works have been implemented in designed to provide regular and predictable 94 countries—many of them fragile and con- support to poor and vulnerable people. They flict-affected situations (figure 1.2). are also referred to as safety nets, social assis- Every country has at least one social safety tance, or social transfers, and are a component net program in place. School feeding programs of larger social protection systems. and UCTs are the most prevalent type of trans- In general, social protection2 also includes fer: they are present in 131 and 130 countries, social insurance, such as health insurance, as respectively. In almost one-quarter of the cases, well as labor market programs. Figure 1.1 posi- or 37 countries, the cash transfers are in the tions social safety nets within this group of form of social pensions. Public works are the programs and transfers and provides examples of programs that fall under the remit of social safety nets and possible areas of overlap with Main Messages for Section 1 other social protection components. In this report, social safety net programs • The portfolio of social safety net programs is large and have been examined in line with international diverse. A developing country runs about 20 different standards as noncontributory programs in cash safety net programs, on average. Cash transfers and school or in kind3 meant to support the poor and vul- feeding programs are present in almost all countries. nerable. However, because of the way countries • Worldwide, 1.9 billion people are enrolled in social safety may define their safety net universe, the review net programs. also considers measures that provide access • The world’s five largest social safety net programs are all to various essential public services, including in middle-income countries and reach over 526 million basic services such as health, education, and people. housing through fee waivers.4 • Cash transfers are becoming more popular and increas- The review does not consider generalized ingly complex. Conditional cash transfer programs are subsidies as part of safety nets, which in most now present in 64 countries, a dramatic increase from cases include regressive interventions tied to 2 countries in 1997 and 27 countries in 2008. fuel and energy consumption. Box 1.1 defines 7 Figure 1.1 How social safety nets fall within social protection and labor systems Outside social Social protection and labor protection (such as microcredit) Public works Labor market measures (such as active labor market programs, like job skills training) Social safety nets (noncontributory transfers, fee waivers, programs to increase access to social Social insurance services for education, health, and nutrition) (such as social health insurance) Social care services Contributory pensions Social pensions Box 1.1 Types of Safety Nets This report considers six types of social cash transfer programs targeted to particu- safety net programs: conditional cash lar categories of people, such as the elderly transfers, unconditional cash transfers, (also known as social pensions); family school feeding programs, unconditional allowances, including birth grants and sup- in-kind transfers, public works, and fee plements for adult dependents; and cash waivers. transfers specifically targeted to children, including orphan and foster family allow- Conditional cash transfers (CCTs) are peri- ances. The Hunger Safety Net Program in odic monetary benefits to poor house- Kenya is an example. Although sometimes holds that require beneficiaries to comply similar, UCTs differ from CCTs since they with specific behavioral requirements to are not conditioned on pre-established encourage investments in human capital behavioral requirements. (such as school attendance, immuniza- tions, and health checkups). The report School feeding programs. Like CCTs, includes under the category of CCTs any school feeding requires forms of com- cash transfer program that has a con- pliance, such as ensuring a certain level ditionality component in its operation of monthly school attendance. However, manual, even if it is weakly conditioned the form of transfer is in kind. Sometimes or weakly enforced (soft conditionalities). these programs also include “take-home” Examples include programs that combine food rations for children’s families. An one or more conditions, such as ensuring example is Brazil’s Programa Nacional de a minimum level of school attendance Alimentacao Escola. by children, undertaking regular visits to health facilities, or attending skills train- Unconditional in-kind transfers allow ing programs. CCTs also include school the distribution of food or other in-kind stipend programs to cover school fees transfers without any form of conditional- and other costs of schooling. The Philip- ity or co-responsibility. Examples include pines’ Pantawid program falls under this the provision of fortified food supple- category. ments to malnourished pregnant women and children. The Programa Nacional de Unconditional cash transfers (UCTs) provide Reabilitação Nutricional in Mozambique cash without particular co-responsibilities provides a comprehensive nutrition reha- for beneficiaries; they may spend the cash bilitation program for children and adults as they wish. Examples embrace various who are severely malnourished. (continued) 8 The State of Social Safety Nets 2015 Box 1.1 (Continued) Public works programs (PWs) engage Fee waivers assist households in meeting participants in manual, labor-oriented the cost for a defined class of services, activities such as building or rehabili- particularly related to education, health, tating community assets and public in- and housing. Waivers can apply to either frastructure. Examples include seasonal partial or discounted fees, as well as to labor-intensive works for poor and food other charges or expenditures. The Cap- insecure populations. Public works imple- itation Grant Program in Ghana, which mented under the Productive Safety Net helps households access primary health Program in Ethiopia illustrate this type of care services at no cost for them, epito- safety net. mizes this category. next most common type of assistance and are in type. Almost all countries in Europe and Cen- place in 94 countries. CCTs continue to expand. tral Asia—29 out of 30—have a UCT program. They are present in almost half the countries Unconditional in-kind transfers and public (64) in the sample (figure 1.3). works are most prevalent in Africa, where 42 There is great diversity in program portfolios. and 39 countries (out of 49), respectively, have In particular, 62 percent of countries (98) have such programs. CCTs, historically a trademark at least four program types; 33 countries have of the Latin America region, are expanding two or three types; and 26 countries have only in all regions, especially in Africa, where soft one or none of the types (appendix C). Diversi- conditionalities in the form of sensitization fication is greater in Latin American and Carib- campaigns to encourage access to social ser- bean, Eastern European, and Central Asian vices and community-based trainings to pro- countries, while the portfolio of programs tends mote positive behavioral changes have been to be more concentrated on two or three inter- introduced within cash transfer programs, as vention types in East Asia and Pacific and the in Burkina Faso, Cameroon, the Republic of Middle East and North Africa. Congo, Ghana, Niger, Tanzania, and Togo. The prevalence of program types varies by The prevalence of program types differs by regions and by countries’ income levels. Table countries’ income levels. Both conditional and 1.1 reports the number of countries in each unconditional in-kind transfers are equally region with at least one program of a given prevalent among low-income countries, middle- Box 1.2 What “Conditionality” Really Implies The dichotomy between unconditional minimal enforcement (examples are and conditional cash transfers is not Brazil’s Bolsa Familia and Mexico’s sharp; rather, there is a great deal of vari- PROSPERA); (3) explicit conditions with ation in the intensity of the condition- monitoring and enforcement of enroll- ality. Conditional cash transfers (CCTs) ment condition (an example is Cambo- may vary considerably in terms of level of dia’s CESSP Scholarship Program); and planning, monitoring, and enforcement of (4) explicit conditions with monitoring compliance. For example, Baird, De Hoop, and enforcement of attendance condi- and Özler (2013) distinguish four cate- tion (examples are Malawi’s SIHR CCT gories of conditionalities with respect to arm and China’s Pilot CCT program). education-related conditions: (1) explicit conditions on paper and/or encour- Their main finding is that programs that agement of children’s schooling, but no are explicitly conditional, monitor com- monitoring or enforcement (an example pliance, and penalize noncompliance is Ecuador’s Bono de Desarollo Humano); have substantively larger effects on chil- (2) explicit conditions, monitored with dren’s school enrollment. Source: Baird, De Hoop, and Özler 2013. Inventory of Social Safety Net Programs 9 Figure 1.2 Social safety net programs have the world are concentrated in low-income and been rising steadily lower-middle-income countries (table 1.2). a. Unconditional cash transfers, Sub-Saharan Africa By 2014, more than 1.9 billion people in the developing world—about a third of the popu- 45 40 lation in these countries—were beneficiaries 40 37 Number of countries of social safety net programs, according to the 35 administrative data at the program level for 30 136 countries analyzed in this report. This large 25 21 number is driven in part by very large programs 20 in the largest countries such as China and India. 15 Cash transfers are the largest programs 10 worldwide in terms of flagship programs. How- 5 ever, in terms of combined beneficiary numbers, 0 2010 2013 2014 in-kind assistance and fee waivers continue to Year dominate. Almost one-third of the global cli- ent load of safety net programs, or around 600 b. Conditional cash transfers, all developing countries million people, is accounted for by in-kind and 70 food transfers; 14 percent by school feeding 64 (reaching 276 million people); and another 19 60 percent by fee waivers and targeted subsidies 52 Number of countries 50 (reaching 381 million people). UCT and CCT programs, including public works, combined 40 reach 718 million people, 36 percent of global 30 27 capacity. Again, this result is driven by several 20 very large in-kind programs. However, when looking at the largest programs only by type, 10 cash transfer programs account for over 50 per- 0 cent of the beneficiaries in social safety net pro- 2008 2013 2014 grams as of 2014. Year The five largest social safety net programs in the world account for about half of global cover- c. Public works, all developing countries age, reaching over 435 million people. They are 100 94 all in middle-income countries. The Chinese 90 84 Dibao is the largest UCT program, reaching Number of countries 80 about 75 million individuals. With more than 70 62 60 70 million beneficiaries, Bolsa Familia in Bra- 50 zil is the largest CCT in the world. Two Indian 40 programs are among the largest in each of the 30 20 types: the School Feeding Program (reaching 10 105 million people) and the Mahatma Gandhi 0 National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme 2011 2013 2014 Year (reaching 58 million people) are the largest- scale social safety nets globally. The Child Sup- Sources: World Bank for 2013–14 based on ASPIRE database; see port Grant in South Africa is the largest social appendix C of this report for specific sources. For unconditional cash transfers in 2010, see Garcia and Moore 2011. Data for 2008 for safety net in Africa, followed by Ethiopia’s Pro- conditional cash transfers are from Fiszbein and Schady 2009. For public works up to 2011, the number refers to countries as reported ductive Safety Nets Program (table 1.3). in Subbarao and others 2013. The coverage of individual flagship programs varies greatly, ranging from less than 1 percent income countries, and upper-middle-income of the population in some countries to over 40 countries. Among other instruments, in-kind percent in Malaysia, Moldova, Turkey, and El assistance and public works are concentrated at Salvador (table 1.4). the lower part of the country income spectrum: In most countries, some beneficiaries of social two-thirds of public works programs around safety net programs benefit from multiple forms 10 The State of Social Safety Nets 2015 Figure 1.3 School feeding programs are the most prevalent type of social safety net 140 131 130 120 Number of countries 100 94 92 80 64 60 49 40 20 0 School feeding Unconditional Public works Unconditional Conditional cash Fee waivers cash transfers in-kind transfers transfers Type of transfer Source: ASPIRE; see appendix C. Table 1.1 Number of Countries with at Least One Type of Social Safety Net Program, by Region Number of countries Region Latin Total of East America Middle East countries Asia and Europe and and the and North South with at least Program type Africa Pacific Central Asia Caribbean Africa Asia one program Conditional cash transfers 18 7 7 22 5 4 63 Unconditional cash transfers 41 11 29 28 14 7 130 Unconditional in-kind transfers 42 7 8 24 7 4 92 School feeding 45 12 23 28 16 7 131 Public works 39 9 17 17 7 5 94 Fee waivers 12 7 14 10 3 3 49 Total number of countries in 48 21 30 29 19 8 157 respective region Source: ASPIRE, appendix C. of social safety nets. The provision of different may signal gaps and inefficiencies (as in Geor- benefits can be measured through enrollment gia, Latvia, Moldova, Sri Lanka, and Turkey). rates of beneficiaries to different programs.6 This issue is discussed further in section 4. Globally, over 68 countries (about half of those Cash transfer programs account for about included in the analysis) have low enrollment half the total social safety net beneficiary rolls. rates—including programs with well below 20 They range from being the predominant form percent of their total population (figure 1.4). of social safety net (in Malaysia, Moldova, Trin- This means that, by definition, they cannot idad and Tobago, and Vietnam) to being prac- include all of the poorest in at least one of their tically absent in safety net systems with both programs (an example is Senegal). Conversely, extensive (Mozambique, Niger, Sri Lanka) and countries whose rate is above 100 percent pro- low coverage (Bhutan, Cambodia, Guinea). vide some form of double benefit to their citi- Despite these extremes, most countries rely on zens. Those multiple benefits can be a desirable both cash and noncash forms of social safety and positive feature when interventions respond nets to reach their beneficiaries. Fragile and to different household needs or provide path- conflict-affected situations tend to rely on social ways to graduation. In other cases, such overlaps safety net programs more than other areas. In Inventory of Social Safety Net Programs 11 Table 1.2 Number of Countries with at Least One Type of Social Safety Net Program, by Country Income Group Number of countries Income group Total of Upper- countries Low- Lower-middle- middle- High- with at least Program type income income income income one program Conditional cash transfers 14 22 21 6 63 Unconditional cash transfers 28 42 44 16 130 Unconditional in-kind transfers 29 33 25 5 92 School feeding 31 42 42 16 131 Public works 30 35 23 6 94 Fee waivers 8 17 19 5 49 Total number of countries in respective 33 50 53 21 157 income group Source: ASPIRE, appendix C. these settings, social safety nets help prevent Social safety nets can counteract shocks common and damaging coping strategies, such if programs can be scaled up rapidly after as selling assets, which affected populations a shock. In 2014–15, a range of countries resort to in time of stress (see highlight 1, on have used those interventions as a first-line fragile and conflict-affected situations). response to large natural disasters. Growing Table 1.3 Top Five Social Safety Net Programs, by Scale Conditional cash transfers Country Program name Beneficiaries (millions) Brazil Bolsa Familia 49 Mexico Prospera 26 Philippines Pantawid 19 Colombia Familias en Acción 12 Bangladesh Stipend for primary students 8 Unconditional cash transfers Country Program name Beneficiaries (millions) China Di-Bao 75 Indonesia Bantuan Langsung Sementara Masyrakat (BLSM) 61 India IG National Old Age Pension Scheme 21 Malaysia BR1M 15 South Africa Child Support Grant 11 Unconditional in-kind/near-cash transfers Country Program name Beneficiaries (millions) Turkey Gida Yardimi 9 Mexico Milk grant benefit 6 China Wubao 6 Sudan General food distribution program 5 Ghana Free uniforms/books 5 (Table continues next page) 12 The State of Social Safety Nets 2015 Table 1.3 Top Five Social Safety Net Programs, by Scale (Continued) School feeding Country Program name Beneficiaries (millions) India School feeding 105 Brazil Program de Alimentacao Escolar 47 China School feeding 26 South Africa School feeding 9 Egypt, Arab Rep. School feeding 7 Public works programs Country Program name Beneficiaries (millions) India MGNREG 58 a Ethiopia PSNP 7 Morocco INDH 4 Russian Federation Regional public works 2 Bangladesh EGPP 1 Fee waivers Country Program name Beneficiaries (millions) Indonesia Jamkesmas, including Jampersal 86 China Medical assistance 42 Philippines PhilHealth 39 Turkey Green card 36 Ukraine Housing and utility allowances 5 Source: ASPIRE, appendix C. Note: Numbers refer to individual beneficiaries. In cases where number of beneficiaries data are reported at the household level, the official average household size is used to approximate an individual beneficiary: Brazil = 3.47; Indonesia = 3.9; Malaysia = 3 (approximate); Philippines = 4.6; Turkey = 3.8; Ukraine = 2.7. a. About 80 percent of Productive Safety Nets Program (PSNP) beneficiaries participate in public works. Table 1.4 Top Five Social Safety Net Programs, Share of Population Percent of total population Conditional cash transfers Country Program name Percent of population Honduras Bono 10,000 29 Colombia Familias en Acción 25 Brazil Bolsa Familia 24 Mexico Prospera 21 Philippines Pantawid 21 Unconditional cash transfers Country Program name Percent of population Malaysia BR1M 51 Yemen, Rep. Social Welfare Fund 31 Azerbaijan Targeted social assistance 29 Georgia Targeted social assistance 25 Estonia Subsistence benefit 24 (Table continues next page) Inventory of Social Safety Net Programs 13 Table 1.4 Top Five Social Safety Net Programs, Share of Population (Continued) Unconditional in-kind/near-cash transfers Country Program name Percent of population El Salvador Programa de Agricultura Familiar 42 Niger Saving Lives 23 Senegal CSA 21 Ghana Free exercise books 18 Yemen, Rep. Emergency Food and Nutrition Support 18 School feeding Country Program name Percent of population Swaziland School meal program 26 Timor-Leste School feeding program 24 Brazil Program de Alimentacao Escolar 24 El Salvador Alimentacion Escolar 23 Lesotho School feeding program 21 Public works programs Country Program name Percent of population Sierra Leone Rural Public Works 13 Morocco INDH 12 South Sudan Food-for-assets 8 Malawi Public works program 8 Somalia Cash for Work Program 7 Fee waivers Country Program name Percent of population Turkey Green card 48 Moldova Heating allowance 46 Philippines PhilHealth 40 Indonesia Jamkesmas, including Jampersal 34 Latvia Housing benefit 22 Source: ASPIRE, appendixes B and C. Note: Numbers refer to program individual beneficiaries as percent of total population, as reported in appendix B. In cases where data on number of beneficiaries are reported at the household level, the official average household size is used to approximate an individual beneficiary: Azerbaijan = 5.0; Brazil = 3.47; Ecuador = 5.0; El Salvador = 5.0; Estonia = 2.3; Georgia = 2.66; Latvia = 2.4; Malawi = 5.0; Moldova = 3.0; Niger = 5.0; Philippines = 4.6; Turkey = 3.8; Yemen = 5.0. investments are being made to embed ex ante in nature, with safety nets responding to new disaster prevention into safety net approaches, and complex forms of widespread epidemics, especially in areas prone to recurrent covariate such as in the case of Ebola in West Africa shocks. In other cases, crises are also evolving (box 1.3). 14 The State of Social Safety Nets 2015 Figure 1.4 Enrollment rates in social safety net programs vary by country, with over half not enrolling even the bottom fifth of the population 120 Enrollment in social safety net programs, percent of population 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 Countries ranked by enrollment in social safety net programs (as a percentage of population) CASH TRANSFERS ALL SOCIAL SAFETY NET PROGRAMS Source: ASPIRE (administrative data for 136 countries). Note: Enrollment rates are defined as the number of beneficiaries on the rolls of all social safety net programs, as a percent of the population. Beneficiary rolls are based on administrative data. Enrollment rates include double counting of beneficiaries; as such, they should not be interpreted as a measure of coverage (hence totals may add up to more than 100 percent). Box 1.3 Response to the Ebola Outbreak in West Africa In 2014, the most widespread epidemic of been forced to take short-term actions to the Ebola virus disease in history spread cope, which can have substantial long- across several West African countries. term effects on welfare. The World Bank It struck Guinea in December 2013 and Group estimates that these countries will then crept into Liberia and Sierra Leone. lose at least US$1.6 billion in forgone eco- By February 2015, the World Health Orga- nomic growth in 2015 as a result. Guinea, nization (WHO) reported a total of 23,729 Liberia, and Sierra Leone are being sup- confirmed, probable, and suspected cases ported with immediate responses to the of Ebola, and 9,604 deaths. Sierra Leone health and food security concerns. Provi- endured the worst impact. Since the out- sions have been made for treatment and break, more than 1,300 foreign medical care to contain and prevent the spread of personnel have been deployed in these infections, help communities cope with countries. The outbreak has severely crip- the economic impact, and improve public pled the health system and is having dras- health systems. tic economic impacts, with continued job losses, and schools were not set to re- Ebola Impact, Recovery, and Scaling Up open until early 2015. Fear of Ebola has of Social Protection hampered trade, shuttered businesses, Like other epidemics, the main impacts and restricted travel in the affected coun- of the Ebola crisis are indirect economic tries. As a result, many households have (continued) Inventory of Social Safety Net Programs 15 Box 1.3 (Continued) impacts as people have changed their surveillance, and data collection systems behaviors (a behavioral response). For to monitor the socioeconomic impacts of instance, many people stopped working the disease to inform the Ebola response because they were afraid or they faced going forward. restrictions on movements. Liberian and In Liberia and Sierra Leone, existing Sierra Leonean households surveyed in delivery mechanisms for safety net pro- late 2014 and January 2015 report having grams, including e-payments, will be sold assets, sold or slaughtered livestock, used to scale up and deliver targeted cash borrowed money, sent children to live transfers in affected areas. Since February with relatives, drawn down savings, or de- 2015, the Sierra Leone government, with layed investments in order to cope (World World Bank Group support, has been scal- Bank 2015). Declines in employment are ing up complementary cash transfer inter- evident both among wage workers and ventions to mitigate the socioeconomic the nonfarm self-employed in urban impacts of Ebola. Some 5,000 youth have areas, especially in Free Town. participated in public works, and more To mitigate the negative impacts, gov- than 10,000 beneficiaries have been en- ernments of the affected countries, with rolled in two cash transfer programs. In support from many international donors, February 2015, the Liberian government are improving food security in the worst launched a public works project to reach affected areas and are rapidly scaling up over 10,000 poor youth, plus a cash trans- existing safety net programs, particularly fer program targeting 10,000 extremely cash transfers and public works programs. poor labor-constrained individuals and The World Bank Group has supported households affected by Ebola. In Guinea, efforts to rapidly expand delivery of cash the cash-for-work activity of the Produc- transfers in all three countries, total- tive Safety Nets Project has continued op- ing US$14 million. It is devoting another erating throughout the Ebola epidemic, US$32 million to scaling up safety nets, providing 12,000 temporary jobs as of Jan- with a continued emphasis on building uary 2015. The United Nations, together the administrative and delivery capacity with other development partners, includ- of systems, especially in Liberia and Sierra ing the World Bank Group, is initiating an Leone. Beyond safety nets, substantial Ebola Recovery Assessment (ERA) cover- World Bank Group resources in the three ing Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. The worst-affected countries and Guinea- assessment aims to identify a post-Ebola Bissau have been redirected toward lo- recovery agenda connecting and building gistics, community sensitization, disease upon the ongoing response effort. Source: World Bank 2015. Notes clusion throughout their life cycles, with a particular 1. In-kind transfers provide additional resources to bene- emphasis on vulnerable groups. Social protection can ficiary households by making food or other goods and be provided in cash or in kind, through noncontrib- services available to them at no cost when they need utory schemes, providing universal, categorical, or it most, in such forms as food rations, supplementary poverty-targeted benefits such as social assistance and school feeding programs, and emergency food or social safety nets, contributory schemes with so- distribution. Near-cash transfers include food stamps, cial insurance being the most common form, and coupons, or vouchers that may be used by households by building human capital, productive assets, and access to productive jobs. The definition in the re- to purchase food (or other commodities or services port is consistent with the definition from the World that are subsidized through this mechanism) at the au- Bank Social Protection Strategy 2012–2022: “So- thorized retail locations or providers. cial protection and labor systems, policies, and pro- 2. Definitions of social protection abound. Generally, grams help individuals and societies manage risk social protection and labor refer to the set of policies and volatility and protect them from poverty and and programs aimed at preventing or protecting all destitution—through instruments that improve resil- people against poverty, vulnerability, and social ex- ience, equity, and opportunity.” 16 The State of Social Safety Nets 2015 3. Although vouchers or near-cash transfers have a num- References ber of commonalities and differences with cash and in- Baird, S., J. De Hoop, and B. Özler. 2013. “Income Shocks kind modalities, vouchers are considered in the report and Adolescent Mental Health.” Journal of Human Re- as part of a broader set of in-kind transfers. sources 48 (2): 370–403. 4. Fee waivers may involve a partial or full reduction in Fiszbein, A., and N. Schady. 2009. “Conditional Cash a fee or price, hence requiring beneficiaries to cover Transfers: Reducing Present and Future Poverty.” part of the service or commodity cost (in cases of ex- World Bank Policy Research Report, World Bank, treme hardship, the service or commodity is provided Washington, DC. for free). In a strict sense, therefore, those measures are not entirely noncontributory (beneficiaries must Garcia, M., and C. M. T. Moore. 2011. The Cash Dividend: contribute by paying part of the price in most cases). The Rise of Cash Transfer Programs in Sub-Saharan Af- However, they are commonly considered part of the rica. Directions in Development Series. Washington, national safety net portfolio in this report. DC: World Bank. 5. See appendix A for a description of the methodology Subbarao, K., C. del Ninno, C. Andrews, and C. Rodrí- used and definitions of social protection concepts and guez-Alas. 2013. Public Works as a Safety Net: Design, programs. See appendix B for the sample of countries, Evidence, and Implementation. Directions in Develop- economies, and territories analyzed in this report, ment Series. Washington, DC: World Bank. and their income group according to the most recent World Bank. 2015. The Socio-Economic Impacts of Ebola: World Bank classification (2015). Results from a High Frequency Cell Phone Survey in Si- 6. The measure clearly includes multiple instances of erra Leone and Liberia. Washington, DC: World Bank. double-counting of beneficiaries; as such, it cannot be interpreted as a measure of coverage. Inventory of Social Safety Net Programs 17 Highlight 1. Safety Nets in Fragile and Conflict-Affected Situations L ess than one-fifth of the world’s population lived in fragile and conflict-affected situations in 2010, yet these areas were home to about one-third of the world’s poor (World Bank 2011).1 The prevalence of poverty in fragile situations is double that in nonfragile situations. This high prevalence is both a by-product and a cause of fragility. It is important to recognize “fragility” as a dynamic and multidimensional concept. Fragility extends over a broad spectrum of circumstances that manifest in a range of countries, economies, and territories, including the Arab Republic of Egypt, Iraq, Myanmar, Sierra Leone, Timor-Leste, and the Republic of Yemen. Perhaps a better way of approaching fragility is to differentiate among contexts by considering an entity’s level of resilience, as suggested in the literature. Resilience is defined as the capacity of a political and social system to adapt to shocks (see OECD 2008 and World Bank 2011). Unlike the more amorphous concept of fragility, this is a highly useful concept, in that it is more aligned with the process any entity—a person, a family, a community, or a coun- try—needs to go through when facing multiple challenges. Safety net programs and policies in fragile and conflict-affected situations have a particularly difficult role of balancing short-term emergency needs (in response to conflict or natural disaster) with longer-term needs of reducing chronic poverty and inequality. Beyond the income support function, safety net schemes also have an important social stability function. By establishing regular and predictable support, these schemes are able to initiate or reestablish a form of social contract between the authorities and the people, and reinstate some level of trust and mutual confidence between citizens and government. Social safety nets are among the main instruments for building resilience and for protecting the poor in fragile, conflict-, and violence-affected situations. Though interest exists in building safety net systems, most interventions in fragile and conflict- affected situations remain somewhat ad hoc and opportunistic. The most prevalent types of pro- grams are school feeding, food, in-kind, and near-cash transfers, followed by public works pro- grams. In weak enabling environments—which are prone to frequent emergencies and sporadic and/or regional violence, and must contend with weak governments—social safety nets often make use of community structures, particularly to facilitate access to services and to implement public works, livelihood support, or school feeding programs. Three main lessons can be drawn from recent experience. First, institutional/human capacity is a main determinant of the design of social protection and labor (SPL) programs in fragile and conflict-affected situations. Despite continued social and security unrest, for instance, the Republic of Yemen has rapidly and successfully scaled up its Social Welfare Fund. From an initial coverage of 100,000 beneficiaries in 2001, it expanded to 1.5 million households during the 2011 political crisis, while its budget grew from US$4 million at the onset (2001) to around US$300 million in 18 The State of Social Safety Nets 2015 2012. This program clearly shows that with moderate capacity and an average enabling environ- ment, rapid scale up is possible, provided there is political will. Second, building programs by utilizing existing social institutions or community-based approaches can help ensure program success, impact, and sustainability. In fragile and conflict-affected situations, service delivery channels can be replaced with a less formal organization/body. This approach has been successful in different contexts, including Angola, Rwanda, Togo, and the Republic of Yemen. When designing and delivering SPL policies/programs, these realities should be taken into account, particularly the interface between the government and other actors. Appropriate roles should be assigned to existing social and institutional structures such as community, religious, and nongovern- mental organizations. All have valuable links to hard-to-reach groups. Villages in Togo, for instance, have long-standing school feeding programs that made use of femmes-mamans, female vendors who prepare food for beneficiary school children. Using this existing informal social mechanism has been a successful approach for a low-capacity setting—and has reached a large number of beneficiaries. A nutritional assessment has shown that the school meals being served are providing between 60 and 90 percent of the daily caloric intake needed for primary school–age children. Third, an incremental approach to building cohesive social assistance policies appears to work even in the most fragile environments. Many fragile and conflict-affected situations have nascent programs that have built on experience, such as starting reforms around a single program in West Bank and Gaza, and building administrative systems around it. Moreover, administrative reforms are often easier and less controversial than policy-related ones, and help build evidence about effi- ciency gains and impact. Making use of technology to improve coverage and governance also helps, such as using smart cards, mobile technology, and banking systems effectively for monitoring and payments, as in Lebanon and Sierra Leone. Focusing on building registries and management infor- mation system platforms is crucial and provides large efficiency gains in the face of shocks. The World Bank supported such efforts in Kosovo and the Republic of Yemen. Focusing on moving toward poverty-based targeting and consolidating social assistance benefits to be targeted through one mechanism, as done in the Republic of Yemen, has the potential to yield good results. Note 1. This highlight is based on Ovadiya and others 2015. References OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2008. Concepts and Dilemmas of State Building in Fragile Situations: From Fragility to Resilience. Paris: OECD. Ovadiya, M., A. Kryeziu, S. Masood, and E. Zapatero Larrio. 2015. “Social Protection in Fragile and Conflict-Affected Countries: Trends and Challenges.” Social Protection and Labor Discussion Paper 1502, World Bank Group, Wash- ington, DC. World Bank. 2011. World Development Report 2011: Conflict, Security, and Development. Washington, DC: World Bank. Inventory of Social Safety Net Programs 19 Section 2. Spending on Social Safety Nets T his section presents key patterns in to social safety nets (1.5 and 1.6 percent of Spending on aggregate social safety net spending GDP, respectively), while richer countries and its composition by program type. spend 1.9 percent of GDP on average. However, social safety nets In a departure from last year’s edition, there is considerable variation across countries, in 120 developing total social safety net spending is derived from especially among lower-income countries (fig- countries totaled program-level data. To enhance comparisons ure 2.2). Despite having fewer resources for across countries, program data on spending are social safety nets, some lower-income coun- US$329 billion— aggregated in harmonized categories based on tries allocate considerably more funds than the twice the amount classifications and methodology in the World 1.6 percent average for developing countries. needed to Bank Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of For example, the maximum social safety net provide every Resilience and Equity (ASPIRE) database. The spending in low-income countries is 4.8 per- definition of social safety net spending extends cent of GDP in Sierra Leone and 6.6 percent person living in to conditional and unconditional cash trans- in Lesotho; it is 7 percent of GDP in Georgia, extreme poverty fers; food and in-kind transfers; school feeding; among lower-middle-income countries. These with an income public works; fee waivers; and other forms of levels greatly exceed the highest level among social safety nets, including social care services. the high-income countries in the sample: 3.6 of US$1.25 a day. General subsidies for energy, electricity, and percent, in Croatia. food are excluded. Country income levels only partly explain The analysis is based on data drawn from the higher spending levels; various other factors a total of 120 countries. The most recent data shape the pattern of spending on safety nets, on spending generally span 2010 to 2014 (see including policy preferences, fragile contexts, appendix D for a complete summary of spend- reliance on social insurance schemes, and legal ing data, years, and data sources by country).1 provisions. Figure 2.3 shows a weak relation- Program-level data in ASPIRE presented here ship between spending and country income, are based primarily on data collection efforts by suggesting that resources spent on social safety the World Bank, but also rely on international nets may reflect policy choices instead of pure databases maintained by the Asian Develop- economic factors and level of development. ment Bank, the United Nations Economic Countries with similar GDP per capita may Commission for Latin America and the Carib- spend very different shares of GDP on social bean (ECLAC), HelpAge, and the World Food safety nets; conversely, countries with similar Programme (WFP). levels of social safety net spending may have different GDP per capita. For example, the Arab Spending Patterns Republic of Egypt spends one-fifth as much on Developing countries spend an average of 1.6 per- social safety nets of what a country with a sim- cent of gross domestic product (GDP) on social ilar income such as Georgia spends, Mongolia safety net programs; the median country spends spends six times more than Indonesia, while 1.1 percent. Considerable resources are com- Burundi spends five times more than Burkina mitted globally to fight extreme poverty world- Faso. On the other hand, Kenya, a low-income wide, as revealed by an examination of aggregate spending on social safety nets (excluding general price subsidies) in a sample of 120 countries with Main Messages for Section 2 available data. Safety net spending is higher than the global average in Europe and Central Asia • Safety nets are affordable at all levels of income. Low- and in Sub-Saharan Africa, where some coun- income and middle-income countries devote about the tries exceed the average spending level of the same level of resources to social safety nets (1.5 and members of the Organisation of Economic Co- 1.6 percent of GDP, respectively), while richer countries operation and Development (OECD) (figure spend 1.9 percent of GDP. 2.1).2 The combined spending on social safety • Cash transfer programs constitute the highest share of nets amounted to about US$329 billion between spending in all regions except in Sub-Saharan Africa, 2010 and 2014. This sum is twice the amount where food and other in-kind transfers dominate. needed to provide every person living in extreme • The efficiency of spending can be improved by strength- poverty with an income of US$1.25 a day. ening institutional capacity, coordination, program ad- Low-income and middle-income countries ministration, and evaluation. devote approximately the same level of resources 21 Figure 2.1 Countries and territories spend 1.6 percent of GDP on social country, spends as much on social safety nets as safety net programs, on average, although the level varies by region Slovenia, a high-income country. Sudan Average = OECD = The limited coverage of social insurance Senegal Cameroon Tanzania 1.60% 2.92% instruments (such as contributory pensions, Nigeria Benin Zimbabwe and health and unemployment insurance) Ghana Mali explains the greater use of universal noncon- Sub-Saharan Africa Zambia Togo Burkina Faso tributory pensions and government-sponsored Cabo Verde Gambia, The Uganda health insurance schemes. Social pensions— Madagascar Ethiopia Botswana regular cash transfers paid by governments Mozambique Mauritania to older members of the population and not Niger Swaziland Rwanda directly linked to prior contributions—are Liberia Seychelles Eritrea becoming important elements of public pension Kenya Namibia policy in varied forms in a growing number of Mauritius South Africa Burundi countries and contribute to increasing safety Sierra Leone Lesotho Papua New Guinea net spending in cases such as Georgia, Mon- golia, Lesotho, and Timor-Leste (see highlight East Asia and Pacific Vanuatu Lao PDR Philippines Thailand Vietnam 2, on social pensions). Georgia does not have Indonesia China Cambodia a contributory public pension scheme and pro- Malaysia Fiji vides a flat universal pension to all elderly citi- Samoa Marshall Islands Kiribati zens, financed with general revenues, together Timor-Leste Mongolia Tajikistan with disability benefits. Within Georgia’s social Azerbaijan protection system, spending on social pensions Region/country or economy Lativa Kazakhstan Bulgaria represents almost 90 percent of overall expen- Europe and Central Asia Macedonia, FYR Kosovo Turkey Armenia ditures.3 In Mongolia, since 2010 the Human Moldova Albania Development Fund has provided assistance to Poland Montenegro Serbia all citizens for pensions and health care. The Lithuania Slovak Republic Belarus very high level of spending in Lesotho is almost Slovenia Kyrgyz Republic entirely due to its universal pension program, Estonia Romania Russian Federation which provides generous benefits to the elderly. Hungary Ukraine Croatia Similarly in Timor-Leste, the universal social Bosnia Georgia pension provided to all citizens over the age of Paraguay 60 accounts for a large share of social safety net Latin America and the Caribbean St. Lucia Guatemala Mexico Costa Rica Panama spending. Dominican Republic Peru El Salvador Countries recovering from conflict or rec- Colombia Honduras ognizing the need to rebalance social dynam- Jamaica Guyana Uruguay ics may have more generous social safety Bolivia Argentina St. Kitts net systems (see highlight 1, on fragile and Suriname Trinidad conflict-affected situations). Despite their Ecuador Belize Chile diversity in terms of institutional capacity and St. Vincenta Brazil Nicaragua economic development, Bosnia, Burundi, Kiri- Egypt, Arab Rep. bati, Sierra Leone, Timor-Leste, and West Bank and North Africa Djibouti Tunisia Middle East Jordan Saudi Arabia and Gaza are all facing ongoing political con- Kuwait Syrian Arab Republic Lebanon flict and fragility. As shown in figure 2.3, these Bahrain Yemen, Rep. countries share high levels of social safety net Morocco West Bank and Gaza Iraq spending compared to their GDP, as govern- Bhutan India ments have relied on social safety net instru- South Asia Bangladesh Maldives Nepal ments to foster social cohesion and recovery Pakistan 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 after periods of civil strife and turmoil. In Social safety net spending, percent of GDP Timor-Leste, the growing fiscal space from oil- fund revenues explains the rapid increase in the Source: ASPIRE, based on most recent spending data available between 2010 and 2014 (appendix D). social assistance budget. Sierra Leone, another Note: Average spending on social safety nets for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and post-conflict country with considerable natu- Development (OECD) countries is based on the Social Expenditure Database (SOCX) by combining “family” and “other social policy functions” as the closest approximation to noncontributory safety nets, ral wealth, has a similar social safety net pro- as defined in this report. Bars report country total social safety net spending as a percent of GDP in the gram, although it is mostly financed by external respective year. a. Data for St. Vincent include data for the Grenadines. donors. In the West Bank and Gaza, spending 22 The State of Social Safety Nets 2015 on the main safety net, the cash transfer pro- Figure 2.2 Variations in social safety net spending are higher in lower- gram, has increased substantially over the past income countries four years, reflecting the strong political will to 8 Social safety net spending, percent of GDP set up a well-targeted program able to respond 7 7.0 effectively to poor people’s emergencies in a context of violence and instability. 6 5 Spending Composition 4.8 4.8 Unconditional cash transfers (UCTs) account 4 4.0 3.6 for most of the total spending on safety nets, 3 ᮡ 2.9 while low-income countries allocate more resources to in-kind transfers and public works 2 ᮡ 1.6 ᮡ 1.9 ᮡ 1.5 ᮡ 1.6 programs.4 Figure 2.4 shows the average spend- 1 1.2 ing as a share of GDP by program category and 0.7 0.3 0.5 income group, reflecting the policy choices on 0 0.0 Low-income Lower-middle- Upper-middle- High-income OECD (32) the portfolio of safety net programs, as well as (16) income (35) income (37) (9) different country capacity to deliver transfers. Low-income countries spend more on aver- Income level ᮡ AVERAGE age on food and in-kind transfers (0.7 percent MAXIMUM MINIMUM of GDP), public works (0.34 percent of GDP), Source: ASPIRE, based on most recent spending data available between 2010 and 2014; see appendix D. Data for OECD countries refer to 2011 and are based on the SOCX database. and school feeding programs (0.22 percent of Note: The number of countries with available data per income group is indicated in parentheses. GDP), compared to other countries. As country Comparisons between ASPIRE and SOCX should be interpreted with caution as the definition of social safety nets is not fully consistent. Social safety net spending for OECD countries here is approximated income grows and capacity increases, uncon- by the sum of the “family” and “other social policy” social protection functions, as defined in the SOCX Database. ditional cash benefits account for higher aver- age levels of spending: 1.16 percent of GDP in lower-middle-income countries; 1.11 percent of GDP in upper-middle-income countries; and (an upper-middle-income country) account for 1.37 percent of GDP in high-income countries. 2.2 percent of GDP. Cash transfers are high in Not surprisingly, fragile countries and small fragile lower-middle-income economies such as states generally have higher spending than aver- Bosnia (4 percent of GDP) and West Bank and age, spending more on food, in-kind, and public Gaza (4.7 percent of GDP). Given the small size works programs (figure 2.4). Food rations in Iraq of their economies and the higher fixed admin- Figure 2.3 Spending on social safety nets is weakly associated with income levels 8 Georgia Social safety net spending, percent of GDP 7 Lesotho 6 West Bank and Gaza Sierra Leone 5 Mongolia Burundi Timor-Leste Bosnia and Herzegovina 4 Croatia Mauritius Kyrgyz Republic Namibia BelarusEstonia 3 Kenya Slovenia Eritrea Nicaragua Morocco Iraq Liberia Seychelles Rwanda Serbia Chile Pakistan Belize Montenegro 2 Niger Moldova Armenia Albania Mauritania Kosovo Botswana Ethiopia Bahrain Burkina Faso Fiji China Malaysia Kuwait 1 Benin Ghana Nigeria Paraguay Sudan Egypt, Arab Rep. 0 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Log (GDP) per capita, U.S. dollars (purchasing power parity) Source: ASPIRE, based on most recent spending data available between 2010 and 2014 (appendix D), and average GDP per capita in terms of purchasing power parity in U.S. dollars during the same period. Spending on Social Safety Nets 23 Figure 2.4 The composition of social safety net spending varies by income level and the enabling environment Social safety net spending, percent of GDP 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 ks T he T W T In T T T he T T ic ind ks fe s g SN rs g he d SN W nd Sc he rs ol SN ic ing ks Sc W N fe s g d ks or ol er r in in in Ot -kin bl kin UC UC UC Ot UC Ot CC CC CC CC S ve Ot ive e or or or i ed ed rS rS ho r S Pu feed rS ed ho aiv ho aiv Pu In-k -k cw ai Pu In- w w w a In fe W i bl ic ol ol bl bl Pu ho Sc Sc Low-income (16) Lower-middle-income (37) Upper-middle-income (37) High-income (9) Income level/type of transfer ALL FRAGILE SMALL STATES AND ISLANDS Source: ASPIRE. Note: The number of countries with available data per income group is indicated in parentheses. Thirteen countries in the sample are defined as “fragile,” based on the World Bank 2015 Harmonized List of Fragile Situations. Nineteen are small states, defined by the World Bank as those countries with total population below 1.5 million. Fourteen are small islands, as defined by the World Bank. CCT = conditional cash transfer; SSN = social safety net; UCT = unconditional cash transfer. Figure 2.5 Spending composition varies by program type across regions Percent of total social safety net spending LAC (23) SSA (25) SAR (5) Region EAP (9) MENA (12) ECA (21) 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent of total social safety net spending UCT CCT SCHOOL FEEDING PUBLIC WORKS IN-KIND FEE WAIVERS OTHER SSN Source: ASPIRE. Note: The number of countries with available data in each region is indicated in parentheses. CCT= conditional cash transfers; SSN = social safety net; UCT = unconditional cash transfers. Regions: EAP = East Asia and Pacific; ECA = Europe and Central Asia; LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean; MENA = Middle East and North Africa; SAR = South Asia; SSA = Sub-Saharan Africa. istration cost relative to their GDP, small states gram types. Spending in Europe and Central and islands tend to spend more on safety nets Asia is more concentrated on cash transfers than average, as do Namibia (2.4 percent) and (unconditional), which account for more than Seychelles (1.9 percent). 70 percent of safety net budgets. By contrast, Spending composition varies by region, with spending is most diversified across different different degrees of diversification across pro- program types in Latin America and the Carib- 24 The State of Social Safety Nets 2015 Figure 2.6 Old-age social pensions make up budget in Djibouti, Morocco, and the Repub- the highest share of worldwide spending on lic of Yemen). Their relative spending share cash transfers is also considerable in South Asia and Sub- Percent of spending on unconditional cash transfers Saharan Africa, where public works are most 4.68 0.83 commonly implemented. 6.73 Old-age social pensions account for the high- 24.20 est share of cash transfer expenditures globally, 6.87 followed by poverty targeted cash transfers. Programs that provide UCTs in cash have the similar characteristics of allowing recipients to use the cash transfer to purchase the goods pre- 8.46 ferred; however, they differ in their eligibility conditions, benefit size, and periodicity. Nine types of UCTs are defined in the ASPIRE data- base: noncontributory old-age pensions (both 13.18 19.47 means-tested and universal); poverty-based cash transfers (mostly means-tested); family 15.57 and children allowances (including birth grants OLD-AGE SOCIAL PENSION DISABILITY BENEFITS and universal benefits for children below a cer- POVERTY-TARGETED EMERGENCY SUPPORT tain age); education benefits (scholarships) in FAMILY AND CHILD ALLOWANCES HOUSING/UTILITY ALLOWANCES cash; veterans benefits; disability benefits; emer- EDUCATION BENEFITS FUNERAL GRANTS gency cash support (often one-time); housing/ VETERAN PENSIONS utility allowances in cash; and funeral grants. Source: ASPIRE. Figure 2.6 shows the relative average shares of Note: Average country spending on each type of transfer as share of each type of UCT, reflecting the heterogeneity total spending on unconditional cash transfers, based on the latest program spending value available between 2010 and 2014. of country social protection systems. Globally, spending is quite diversified across types, with larger shares of resources going to old-age social bean, Sub-Saharan Africa, and South Asia, pensions (24 percent of total cash spending); reflecting regional differences in program port- poverty-targeted cash transfers (19.5 percent); folios (figure 2.5). UCTs constitute the highest categorical family and child allowances—which share of spending in all regions except Sub- are most common in Eastern Europe and for- Saharan Africa, where food and in-kind trans- mer Soviet Union countries (15.6); and educa- fers persist (as in 2014) as the dominant com- tion benefits (13.2 percent). Veteran benefits ponent (making up 27 percent of total safety net (8.5 percent), disability benefits (6.9 percent), spending on average). Conditional cash trans- and emergency support (6.7 percent) account fers (CCTs) are becoming increasingly larger in for slightly less than equal shares. safety net budgets outside Latin America and Energy and electricity subsidies crowd out the Caribbean, where they were pioneered. On social safety net spending in several countries. average, CCTs account for about 20 percent of General price subsidies5 play a key redistrib- total spending in Latin America; 16 percent utive role and often represent the main form in East Asia, driven by the at-scale Pantawid of safety net (box 2.1). In many Middle East- Pamilyang Pilipino Program (accounting for ern and North African countries, spending 67 percent of budget) in the Philippines, and on energy subsidies (over 4 percent of GDP, Decree 43 in Vietnam (38 percent of the bud- on average) is greater than spending on social get in 2010). Fee waivers, in the form of dis- safety net programs (around 1.4 percent of counted education and health services, rep- GDP) (see figure 2.7). Spending on energy resent the second largest share of total spending subsidies is more than three times higher than in East Asia (24 percent), and the third largest safety net spending in Nigeria, Cameroon, and share in Latin America and the Caribbean (16 Ecuador. Electricity subsidies also account for percent). Public works represent the second a substantial portion of government spending. highest spending share in the Middle East Lower-income countries such as the Kyrgyz after UCTs (more than 40 percent of the total Republic, Mozambique, and Zambia spend Spending on Social Safety Nets 25 Box 2.1 Spending on Fuel Subsidies Is Often Greater than Spending on Social Safety Nets Several countries have fuel subsidies that In oil-exporting countries, fuel subsi- account for a substantial portion of gov- dies are used as policy instruments to dis- ernment spending (data on energy and tribute oil revenues across the citizenry. electricity subsidies spending are avail- Energy subsidies benefit the population able for about 65 countries). Regardless through reduced prices of energy for of the level of income, spending on fuel heating, transport, and lighting, and subsidies is highest in the Middle East and through lower prices of energy-intense North Africa region and may crowd out goods and services. However, energy public spending on social safety nets and subsidies are often highly inequitable, pro-poor policies. as they yield greater benefits to the Even lower-income countries such upper-income groups in the population as the Kyrgyz Republic, the Republic of (IMF 2013). Studies from several countries Yemen, and Cameroon spend about 9.0, have shown that fuel subsidies are re- 6.0, and 4.0 percent of GDP, respectively, gressive and ineffective in terms of pro- on energy and electricity subsidies, com- tecting the poorest (Silva, Levin, and pared to 3.0, 1.0, and 0.2 percent of GDP Morgandi 2013). on social safety net programs (figure B2.1.1). Figure B2.1.1 Fuel subsidies exceed social safety net spending in some countries Ghana Bangladesh Cameroon Lebanon Jordan Yemen, Rep. Ecuador Kyrgyz Republic Egypt, Arab Rep. Iraq 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Spending, percent of GDP SSN SPENDING (% OF GDP) ENERGY AND ELECTRICITY SUBSIDIES (% OF GDP) Sources: ASPIRE; IMF 2013. Note: SSN = social safety net. more on electricity subsidies (5.4, 4.9, and 4.8 tively, on food subsidies, compared to social percent of GDP, respectively) than on safety safety net spending of 1.3 and 0.5 percent of net programs (3.0, 1.3, and 0.5 percent of GDP, GDP, respectively. In Asia, the food public dis- respectively). While smaller in size than energy tribution system (PDS) in India and the Raskin subsidies, spending on food subsidies balances food subsidy scheme in Indonesia account for out safety net spending. Iraq, the Syrian Arab 0.6 and 0.3 percent of GDP, respectively, com- Republic, and Egypt spend 3.3, 2.8, and 2.4 per- pared to 0.73 and 0.65 percent spending on cent of GDP, respectively, on food subsidies, safety nets, respectively. compared to 2.6, 1.0, and 0.2 percent on social The share of social safety net spending de- safety nets, respectively. In Africa, Mauritania voted to poverty-targeted programs6 decreases and Zambia spend 1.9 and 1.5 percent, respec- as countries get richer. Figure 2.8 shows that in a 26 The State of Social Safety Nets 2015 subsample of  67 countries for which informa- Figure 2.7 Half the world spends more on subsidies than on social tion on program targeting methods is available, safety nets, on average low-income countries spend on average 75 per- 5 Social safety net spending, percent of GDP cent of the budget allocated to social safety nets on targeted programs; lower-middle-income 4 countries spend 70 percent; upper-middle- income countries spend 58 percent; and high- income countries equally share the budget 3 between targeted and nontargeted programs.  This trend may reflect the combination of lim- 2 ited budgets and high needs in poorest coun- tries, with the consequent policy choice of prior- 1 itizing the poorest of the poor and channeling resources through targeted programs. On average, higher safety net spending 0 ECA SSA MENA LAC EAP SAR increases redistribution; however, the effec- Social safety net spending or subsidies/region tiveness of spending also depends on how well SOCIAL SAFETY NETS ENERGY ELECTRICITY FOOD programs are targeted to the poor. Figure 2.9 plots countries’ benefit spending as a percent- Sources: ASPIRE; IMF 2013; Sdralevich and others 2014. Note: Data on food subsidies are not available for all countries. Regions: EAP = East Asia and Pacific; age of household consumption against poverty ECA = Europe and Central Asia; LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean; MENA = Middle East and North Africa; SAR = South Asia; SSA = Sub-Saharan Africa. reduction achieved as a result of social safety net transfers (assuming household consump- tion falls by the transfer amount in the absence Figure 2.8 Lower-income countries devote a higher share of their social of safety nets).7 Higher levels of spending are safety net budgets to targeted programs typically associated with greater impacts on 100 poverty; however, poverty-reducing effects 90 depend on the adequacy of benefits and on how 80 well the poor are covered so that resources are Share of budget, percent distributed progressively. Successful countries 70 are reducing the poverty gap by more than 50 60 percent compared to income before the trans- 50 fer. When countries spend less than average on 40 their safety nets, impacts on poverty reduction are less pronounced, with only 10–20 percent 30 of the poverty gap eliminated. Even with sim- 20 ilar budgeted expenditures, some countries do 10 better than the others at each level of spend- ing, allowing for performance benchmark- 0 Low-income Lower-middle- Upper-middle- High-income ing against countries at the cost-effectiveness (13) income (25) income (22) (7) “frontier.” Income levels Hungary tops the chart by having the larg- NONTARGETED PROGRAMS TARGETED PROGRAMS est poverty reduction effects, but it also has the Source: ASPIRE. highest level of spending. Moving from the left Note: Targeted programs refer to programs that by design select beneficiaries using means-tested, to the right (with the same cost of the social proxy-means-tested, community-based, geographical targeting, and self-targeting approaches. Nontargeted programs refer to universal and categorical programs. The number of countries for which safety net), the efficiency of spending improves. data are available is indicated in parentheses. This potential for improvement is marked by arrows. Countries that are furthest to the right represent the “frontier,” or benchmark perfor- also needs to be taken into account while com- mance for their level of spending. paring the efficiency of various programs and However, the analysis in figure 2.9 represents types of spending. For example, both Hungary only part of the budget for the safety nets: the and Mexico do well in terms of the transfer cash transfer component that reaches the final budget, but Mexico achieves that high level of beneficiaries. In addition, all social safety nets transfer while spending 0.7 percent of GDP on have a significant administrative budget, which social safety nets, while Hungary spends more Spending on Social Safety Nets 27 Figure 2.9  Many countries are below the cost-efficiency frontier of social safety nets Poverty gap reduction and cost of SSN benefits as percent of household consumption 9 Mexico Hungary Cost of social safety net, percent of household consumption 8 Swaziland Ecuador 7 Georgia Peru 6 Paraguay Mongolia 5 Bolivia Belarus 4 3 Thailand El Salvador Kosovo 2 Croatia Sri Lanka 1 Bangladesh 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Poverty gap reduction by SSNs, percent Improvements in efficiency of spending Cumul tiv fronti r Source: ASPIRE. Note: The poverty gap reduction and the cost of SSNs are both estimated based on representative household surveys; see appendix F of this report. The cost of SSNs as percent of household consumption is derived by multiplying the average SSN transfer adequacy by the number of beneficiary households. Arrows indicate improving efficiency of spending. The dotted line represents the cost-efficiency frontier for a given level of benefit spending. The countries furthest to the right represent the “frontier,” or benchmark performance for their level of spending. SSN = social safety net. than 1 percent of GDP. This suggests a higher would not be different from other countries with simi- efficiency of the administrative system in Mex- lar income: around 0.6 percent of GDP. ico than in Hungary. Social safety nets can be classified as a transfer in the 4.  form of cash, food, near-cash, and services, and with conditionality of provisions (conditional or noncondi- Notes tional). This report classifies six types of social safety For 21 countries of the 120 included in the analysis in 1.  nets: unconditional cash transfers, conditional cash this section, only aggregate data on safety net spending transfers, food and in-kind, school feeding, cash and are available; for those 21 countries, data are not disag- food-for-work, and fee waivers. For the purpose of the gregated by program. spending analysis in this section, spending on other 2.  Comparisons with the OECD average should be inter- social safety nets not elsewhere classified, including preted with caution, as the definition of social safety social care services, is grouped in a separate “other nets may not be fully consistent across countries. The SSN” category. Unconditional cash transfers include definition of social safety nets in the OECD’s Social means-tested and categorical noncontributory cash Expenditure Database (SOCX) and the European benefits for families, children, and orphans; disability Commission’s European System of Integrated Social benefits; and social pensions to the elderly. Protection Statistics (ESSPROS) database is confined General price subsidies are measures that keep prices 5.  to social protection functions, notably old-age, dis- for consumers below market levels, and thus benefit ability, unemployment, active labor market programs, households through lower commodities prices. Gen- health, family, survivorship, housing, and other social eral subsidies are universal in the sense that all con- policy. Despite the common Classification of the Func- sumers have access to the same commodities at the tions of Government (COFOG) framework for social same price. The analysis focuses on three types of gen- spending, challenges remain comparing ASPIRE with eral subsidies: energy, electricity, and food subsidies. the OECD/European Union classification. Energy subsidies include government interventions If only targeted social assistance was counted as social 3.  and subsidized sales of petroleum products, includ- safety net spending in Georgia, its level of spending ing gasoline and diesel used for transport. Subsidies 28 The State of Social Safety Nets 2015 for electricity lower prices for generating electricity for Sdralevich, M. C. A., M. R. Sab, M. Y. Zouhar, and G. agricultural use, kerosene used for lighting and heat- Albertin. 2014.  Subsidy Reform in the Middle East and ing, and liquefied petroleum gas used for cooking. Uni- North Africa: Recent Progress and Challenges Ahead. versal food subsidies are government interventions to Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund. lower the price the general population pays for staple Silva, J., V. Levin, and M. Morgandi. 2013. Inclusion and foods. Governments may also provide universal access Resilience: The Way Forward for Social Safety Nets in the to food or other commodities through subsidized sales Middle East and North Africa. Washington, DC: World at public distribution centers or designated private out- Bank. lets on a first-come, first-served basis. 6. Targeted programs refer to programs that by design select beneficiaries using means-tested, proxy-means- Weblinks ASPIRE (The Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of Resil- tested, community-based, geographical targeting, and ience and Equity), World Bank, www.worldbank.org self-targeting approaches. Nontargeted programs refer /aspire/. to universal and categorical programs. COFOG (Classification of the Functions of Government), 7. Obviously, immediate impacts on poverty reduction United Nations Statistics, http://unstats.un.org/unsd are not the only benefits of social safety nets; they /cr/registry/regcst.asp?Cl=4. also have significant longer-terms impacts in terms of building human capital and assets. The design of social Database of Conditional Transfer Programs (Programas safety net programs in countries may deemphasize de Transferencias Condicionadas), ECLAC (Economic poverty reduction and concentrate on other param- Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean of eters. Work is continuing to devise and benchmark the United Nations), http://dds.cepal.org/bdptc+/. the effectiveness of social safety nets in their efforts ESSPROS (European System of Integrated Social Protec- to achieve full and longer-term impacts on poverty tion Statistics), European Union, http://ec.europa.eu reduction, while enhancing livelihoods and economic /eurostat/web/social-protection/data/database. growth. Social Pension Database, HelpAge International, http:// www.pension-watch.net. References SOCX (Social Expenditure Database), Organisation for IMF (International Monetary Fund). 2013. Energy Subsidy Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Reform: Lessons and Implications. Washington, DC: http://www.oecd.org/social/expenditure.htm. International Monetary Fund. Spending on Social Safety Nets 29 Highlight 2. The Growing Role of Social Pensions S ocial pensions are regular cash transfers paid by governments to older members of the population. Unlike pensions via social insurance, there is no link between the transfer paid and prior payment contributions, typically payroll tax deductions. The use of the word “social” implies that the objec- tive of these pensions is primarily related to redistribution and addressing poverty, which distinguishes them from other noncontributory pensions, such as special veterans’ pensions and civil service pensions. Within this overarching definition, parameters of social pension design vary considerably, including age of eligibility, citizenship and residency criteria, and whether or not they are means-tested. Despite their long history, social pensions have come to prominence only over the last two decades. Of the 101 countries that have a social pension (according to the HelpAge International Social Pension 2014 database), around half have been introduced since 1990. The pace of introduction is also accelerating. Since 2000, 32 countries have introduced social pensions, compared to 18 in the previous decade. The expansion of social pensions has been characterized by interesting differences across regions. In no other region has the recent interest in social pensions been more marked than in Latin America and the Caribbean (Rofman, Apella, and Vezza 2014). The main social pension in the region initially was the rural pension in Brazil. Argentina, Chile, Guyana, Suriname, Uruguay, and a handful of Carib- bean islands, including Jamaica, also had some form of social pensions, but these (social pensions) were largely means-tested to a small portion of older people. Today, every country in South America has put in place a social pension, as have most Central American countries, with the exception of Honduras and Nicaragua. Social pensions have expanded particularly rapidly in some countries. Ecuador introduced a social pension as part of its Bono de Desarollo Humano program in 2003, which has expanded to cover over half of people aged 65 and above. In Mexico, the introduction of a universal pension in Distrito Federal (Mexico City) in 2003 was expanded to all persons aged 70 and above in rural areas, and more recently to all Mexicans over 65 with no other pension income. Many existing social pensions have also undergone significant reform in recent years. In 2008, Chile transformed its poverty-targeted Pensiones Asistenciales (PASIS) scheme and minimum guarantee for its contributory scheme into a solidarity pen- sion aimed at the bottom 60 percent of the income distribution. In the same year, Bolivia’s universal Bonosol pension evolved into the Renta Dignidad, with a lower eligibility age, increased benefits, and more regular payments. The pace of introducing new social pension programs, and the expansion of programs, has increased greatly. Sub-Saharan Africa, and particularly the southern tip of the continent, is home to some of the largest scale social pension schemes introduced to date. In the early 1990s, following the end of apartheid, the social pension schemes in South Africa and Namibia were reformed so that all older people—regardless of race—would receive benefits on the same terms (Devereaux 2001). These schemes appear to have influenced the neighboring countries of Botswana (1996), Lesotho (2004), and Swaziland (2005) to introduce social pensions that cover all, or most, older people over a set age. In most of these countries, these social pensions are part of wider systems of near-universal grants (including for disability and orphans) that have been described as a “Southern Africa model” of social protection (Niño-Zarazúa and others 2010). Many South Asian countries can be considered to have been pioneers in the recent extension of social pensions. Bangladesh, India, and Nepal all introduced social pensions in the mid- to late-1990s. The programs in Bangladesh and India were originally targeted to a small minority of older people, but have since been gradually expanding coverage (Begum and Wesumperuma 2012; ISSA 2013). Nepal intro- duced a virtually universal pension for older people in 1995 with a high eligibility age of 75 that was reduced to 70 in 2008, with a lower age for specific groups including Dalits (Untouchables) (NEPAN 2011). Nevertheless, these programs still remain modest in terms of coverage and benefit levels. 30 In the East Asia and Pacific region, means-tested social pension schemes exist in Indonesia (essen- tially a pilot), Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam, and universal schemes exist in Brunei Darussalam, Kiribati, and Samoa. Thailand’s scheme has seen one of the most dramatic transformations since 2009, when it was extended from a means-tested program to all older people over age 60 except for government pensioners (Suwaranda and Wesumperuma 2012). Since 2008, Timor-Leste has provided a universal pension to all citizens over the age of 60. The most important extension of pension coverage in the region—and possibly in global history—has been the introduction of a New Rural Social Pension scheme in China since 2009. The program falls within a contributory social insurance scheme in which older people receive a monthly pension on the condition that their own children are contributing to the system. This makes the scheme noncontributory to the extent that it does not require prior contributions from the recipient, but the condition on children’s contributions makes it unique to our knowledge. Since its introduction, 133 million people over the age of 60 have received payments from the scheme—or about 60 percent of the population 60 and over (ISSA 2013). Meanwhile, the declining coverage of contributory pensions in Europe and Central Asia has created a coverage gap that has led to increasing discussion of how social pensions could fill the gap. In con- trast to most other low- and middle-income countries, the legacy of almost universal formal employ- ment during the Soviet period means that most countries have near-universal pension systems based on payroll contributions. Nevertheless, a sharp increase in informal employment in the region, teamed with pension reforms aimed at creating a closer link between contributions and benefits, means that the proportion of the workforce contributing to a pension is rapidly decreasing (Mikkonen-Jeanneret and others 2011). The role of social pensions will become increasingly important if these countries are to maintain the universal coverage of their pension systems. Georgia is one country that appears to have already recognized this trend by converting its contributory social insurance system into a basic univer- sal social pension in 2006 (UN HRC 2010). Other countries do have social pensions, but these are often limited to a tiny minority of the population. For example, fewer than 1 to 2 percent of those over 60 are covered in the Kyrgyz Republic and Moldova. References Begum, S., and D. Wesumperuma. 2012. “Overview of the Old Age Allowance Programme in Bangladesh.” In Social Pro- tection for Older Persons: Social Pensions in Asia, edited by S. W. Handayani and B. Babajanian, 187–213. Manila: Asian Development Bank. Devereaux, S. 2001. “Namibia:  Social Pensions in Namibia and South Africa.” IDS Discussion Paper 379, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, England. ISSA (International Social Security Association). 2013. Pension Schemes Witnessed about 130 Million New Members within One Year. Geneva: International Social Security Organization. Mikkonen-Jeanneret, E., R. Rayapova, and N. Yefimov. 2011. Off the Grid: Exploring the Expanding Informal Economy and Threats to Old-Age Social Protection in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. London: HelpAge International. NEPAN (Nepal Participatory Action Network). 2011. The Effectiveness of Non-contributory Social Pension in Nepal: Partic- ipatory Research Report. Kathmandu, Nepal: NEPAN. Niño-Zarazúa, M., A. Barrientos, D. Hulme, and S. Hickey. 2010. “Social Protection in Sub-Saharan Africa: Will the Green Shoots Blossom?”  MPRA Paper  22422, Munich Personal RePEc Archive (MPRA), University Library of Munich, Germany. Rofman, R., I. Apella, and E. Vezza, eds. 2014. Más allá de las Pensiones Contributivas. Washington, DC: World Bank. Suwaranda, W., and D. Wesumperuma. 2012. “Development of the Old-Age Allowance System in Thailand: Challenges and Policy Implications.” In Social Protection for Older Persons Social Pensions in Asia, edited by S. W. Handayani and B. Babajanian. Manila: Asian Development Bank. UN HRC (United Nations Human Rights Council). 2010. Report of the Independent Expert on the Question of Human Rights and Extreme Poverty. Report A/HRC/14/31. New York: UN HRC. 31 Section 3. Policy, Institutions, and Administration T his section describes different ap- existing social protection strategies is highest in Social protection proaches that social protection pol- Europe and Central Asia. icies and strategies use to organize a There are three distinct types of overall social national variety of social safety net interven- protection strategies across countries. In about strategies and tions. The discussion is based on data gathered 19 percent of countries, the social protection policies are from 136 countries through internal policy policy is incorporated in a wider poverty reduc- monitoring and reporting materials. Appendix tion strategy or plan, and frequently forms a in place in 77 E provides the collective source of information pillar of a wider country development strategy, countries and for this section. including to address overarching issues such as developing in climate change and disaster risk management another 31. Policies and Strategies (see highlight 3, on climate change, poverty, Countries are increasingly formulating national and the importance of leveraging social pro- Meanwhile, social protection policies or strategies to reduce tection). In 16 percent of countries, specific countries are or eliminate poverty. While social safety net laws covering only social safety nets have been enhancing interventions have existed since the start of enacted. In the majority of cases (88 countries, or 65 percent), however, countries have devel- coordination organized governance, comprehensive policies and strategies for poverty reduction began to be oped a comprehensive social protection strat- mechanisms developed in the 1990s following the Copenha- egy or plan covering social safety net programs, to implement gen Social Development Summit. In the 2000s, labor programs, and pensions (figure 3.2). Sector-specific strategies are becoming more social protection governments began recognizing social protec- tion as a new government sector and priori- common worldwide, with social protection no strategies across tizing the creation of social protection policies longer falling under wider development frame- government and strategies. works. This result suggests that increasingly policies are geared toward social protection bodies. More than half the countries surveyed have an approved social protection policy or strategy priorities. In all regions, the majority of poli- in place. A total of 77 countries, or 57 percent cies are pure social protection strategies, except of the 136 surveyed countries, have a social pro- in the Middle East and North Africa, where tection policy in place; another 31 countries (or policies are incorporated into a broader devel- 23 percent) are planning or formulating a pol- opment or poverty reduction strategy. In low- icy. In only 20 percent of surveyed countries (or income and lower-middle-income countries, 28 countries), no information was reported or the proportion of countries with social protection available on policy monitoring systems or from literature reviews (figure 3.1). Approved national social protection strategies Main Messages for Section 3 are more common among higher-income coun- tries. Table 3.1 provides a detailed breakdown • Stand-alone social protection strategies are becoming of the status of social protection policies by more common worldwide. The majority of countries income groups and regions. About 80 percent of have developed comprehensive social protection strat- upper-middle-income countries (40 out of 55) egies or plans covering social safety net programs, labor have a comprehensive social protection strat- programs, and pensions. egy in place, with 5 countries developing one. • The implementation of comprehensive social protection The share is much lower among lower-middle- policies demands institutional arrangements among a income countries and low-income countries: variety of institutions, agencies, and entities in different about half. However, many low-income coun- sectors. The specific coordination mechanisms to over- tries are moving toward a coherent framework see social protection strategies vary across countries, and are in the process of developing a national though all face common challenges. policy or strategy. Sub-Saharan Africa is the • Countries have developed management information region most active in creating or preparing systems of varying complexity and sophistication. Social social policy frameworks at this time, with 15 registries, beneficiary registries, and monitoring and countries (or 31 percent) planning or preparing evaluation systems are among the most commonly used a policy or strategy. This highlights the increas- tools to support the administration and management of ing focus on implementing safety net systems social protection systems. in Sub-Saharan Africa recently. The share of 33 Figure 3.1 Status of social protection policies Figure 3.2 Existing social protection policy or or strategies as of 2014 strategy as of 2014, by type Percent of countries Percent of countries Planned, Poverty 23 reduction, 19 Available, 57 Not Social reported, assistance, 20 Social 16 protection, 65 Source: World Bank internal monitoring reports 2014. Source: World Bank internal monitoring reports 2014. Table 3.1 Social Protection Policy/Strategy as of 2014, Low- and Middle-Income Countries Number of countries Status Income group and region Active Planned Not reported Total Income group         Low-income 16 16 3 35 Lower-middle-income 21 10 15 46 Upper-middle-income 40 5 10 55 Total, middle-income 61 15 25 101 Region         East Asia and Pacific 7 4 9 20 Europe and Central Asia 17 2 4 23 Latin America and the Caribbean 17 4 7 28 Middle East and North Africa 7 1 1 9 South Asia 2 5 1 8 Sub-Saharan Africa 27 15 6 48 Total 77 31 28 136 Source: World Bank internal monitoring reports. Note: The total number of low-income and middle-income countries with available data on national social protection policy/strategy is 136. strategies is about 75 percent. National strategies and implementation of policies demand insti- focusing only on social safety nets are more com- tutional arrangements and joint actions with mon in Sub-Saharan Africa (table 3.2). other public sectors involved in the strategy, often including social development, health, Institutions education, and employment. This section Given the multisectoral nature of social pro- describes and highlights some key changes tak- tection, governments are continuing to insti- ing place within the institutional context. tutionalize mechanisms and bodies to enhance The wider the scope of the strategy and and strengthen coordination of social protec- greater the diversity of agencies with a role to tion strategies across different ministries, agen- play in implementing it, the greater the number cies, and regional and local bodies. The design of actors in the collective body and the more 34 The State of Social Safety Nets 2015 Table 3.2 Type of Policy/Strategy for Countries with Active Social Protection Policy/Strategy as of 2014, Low- and Middle-Income Countries Number of countries Type of policy/strategy Poverty Social safety Social Income group and region reduction nets protection Total Income group         Low-income 2 2 12 16 Lower-middle-income 4 1 16 21 Upper-middle-income 9 9 22 40 Total, middle-income 13 10 38 61 Region         East Asia and Pacific 2 1 4 7 Europe and Central Asia 5 1 11 17 Latin America and the Caribbean 3 3 11 17 Middle East and North Africa 4 1 2 7 South Asia 0 0 2 2 Sub-Saharan Africa 1 6 20 27 Total 15 12 50 77 Source: World Bank internal monitoring reports. Note: The total number of low-income and middle-income countries with an active national social protection policy/strategy is 77. complex decision making processes become. Figure 3.3 Most countries use one lead coordinating ministry to Challenges are rife, including the need to main- coordinate social protection policies tain a functional decision-making body across sectors that can monitor the implementation of Coordinating ministry 39 the strategy. Different levels of state administra- tion lead to different levels of interagency coor- Ministerial National Committee 10 dination, as shown in figure 3.3. Usually, one chief ministry coordinates and No coordination body 6 leads the strategy. In most cases, the coordi- nating role is assigned to the ministry most Ministerial National Committee directly linked to social protection, such as the led by the President’s Office 3 Social Development Ministry, Social Inclusion Ministry, or the National Authority for Social No information 19 Security. In these cases, the coordinating min- 0 10 20 30 40 istry summons entities to participate in the Number of countries implementation of the strategy. For example, in Brazil, the Ministry for Social Development Source: World Bank internal monitoring reports 2014. Note: The total number of low-income and middle-income countries with an active national social and Fight Against Hunger coordinates Brazil’s protection policy or strategy is 77. strategy. In Kenya, coordination is divided between three ministries: the Ministry of Labor, under existing social ministries or with newly the Ministry of Social Security and Services, created ministries, like the Ministry of Devel- and the Ministry of Devolution and Planning. opment and Social Inclusion in Peru, the same In Romania, the Ministry of Labor coordinates entity in charge of planning and monitoring the the delivery of most social assistance programs, strategy is often tasked with its implementation. yet the processes of accountability remain the This arrangement presents important manage- responsibility of the coordinating ministry and ment challenges. not of other committees or commissions. In the Another method of coordination is through cases when coordination responsibilities fall a coordinating commission or committee, often Policy, Institutions, and Administration 35 Table 3.3 Key Coordination Bodies of Social Protection as of 2014, Low- and Middle-Income Countries Number of countries Coordination body National NC led by Coordinating Committee President’s Not Income group and region None ministry (NC) Office reported Total Income group             Low-income 1 7 3 3 2 16 Lower-middle-income 4 12 2 0 3 21 Upper-middle-income 1 20 5 0 14 40 Total, middle-income 5 32 7 0 17 61 Region             East Asia and Pacific 1 3 3 0 0 7 Europe and Central Asia 0 7 1 0 9 17 Latin America and the Caribbean 1 10 3 0 3 17 Middle East and North Africa 1 4 0 0 2 7 South Asia 1 0 0 0 1 2 Sub-Saharan Africa 2 15 3 3 4 27 Total 6 39 10 3 19 77 Source: World Bank internal monitoring reports. Note: The total number of low-income and middle-income countries with an active national social protection policy/strategy is 77. called a Ministerial National Committee. The It is also vital that social protection strategies committee is created specifically to coordinate are coordinated with broader government pro- the strategy. In many cases, this committee lies grams and priorities in other social sectors such directly under the presidency. For example, in as education and health, to ensure long-term Benin, the Comité Socle de Protection Sociale success, and to encourage promotion of human is responsible for coordination related to the capital through early childhood development, social protection strategy. Although it is chaired skills development, and access to jobs. Research by the Ministry of Development, the commit- on the interaction of early childhood develop- tee is housed under the direct leadership of the ment initiatives combined with cash transfer president of the republic. Because of their prox- programs have found that strengthening these imity to the president, these types of commit- linkages can provide significant gains in achiev- tees often have stronger convening and coordi- ing social protection objectives. nation powers than they would otherwise have. In many other cases, the committee may fall Administration under a ministry such as the Ministry of Plan- The effective implementation of a social pro- ning, the Ministry of Finance, or the Ministry tection system requires tools that facilitate the of Labor. These interministerial coordination selection of beneficiaries, the delivery of ser- bodies typically operate with an executive secre- vices, and the monitoring of both processes and tary in charge of coordination tasks. Ministries outcomes. Thus interest and investment in sys- and agencies that are part of the committee or tems to manage information concerning poten- commission collaborate in an effort to achieve tial beneficiaries of social protection programs the goals set out within the strategy. Such com- is growing. Countries have generated manage- mittees have a more deliberate function than an ment information systems (MIS) of varying advisory one; among their duties is monitoring complexity and sophistication, allowing more the commitments that each of the participating efficient management and effective results of institutions have made to implement the strat- social protection programs (table 3.4). egy. Table 3.3 presents a breakdown of different Three main mechanisms support the admin- coordination bodies. istration and management of social protection 36 The State of Social Safety Nets 2015 Table 3.4 Social Protection and Labor System Administration Tools as of 2014 Number of countries Administration tools Basic monitoring Beneficiary Income group and region tools Social registry registry Total Income group         Low-income 23 9 1 35 Lower-middle-income 29 21 19 46 Upper-middle-income 41 17 25 55 Total, middle-income 70 38 44 101 Region         East Asia and Pacific 11 4 4 20 Europe and Central Asia 18 7 7 23 Latin America and the Caribbean 24 17 19 28 Middle East and North Africa 7 5 5 9 South Asia 5 2 1 8 Sub-Saharan Africa 28 12 9 48 Total 93 47 45 136 Source: World Bank internal monitoring reports. Note: The total number of low-income and middle-income countries with available data is 136. The same country could have more than one administration tool. systems: the registration of potentially eligible Figure 3.4 Many countries lack social protection and individuals or households for the allocation of labor system administration tools Number of countries social benefits (social registry); the registration of beneficiaries of social protection interven- tions (beneficiary registry); and monitoring and 43 89 91 evaluation systems. These instruments should ease the functioning of social protection sys- tems and increase the levels of management 93 efficiency and effectiveness. 47 45 The use of data to improve service delivery is still not widespread. About 68 percent of Basic Social Beneficiary monitoring registries registries countries report that they regularly use moni- systems toring tools to track progress on program per- HAVE DO NOT HAVE formance. These tools can range from informa- Source: World Bank internal monitoring reports 2014. tion systems to track budgets, the number of beneficiaries, and key performance indicators to complex and integrated management infor- mation systems; process evaluations to identify 21 countries have a fully institutionalized social implementation issues and propose strategies to registry. An additional 26 countries, including address key bottlenecks; and systematic, peri- many in Sub-Saharan Africa, are in the process odic impact evaluations to assess whether pro- of building one. At least 29 countries have fully grams are achieving their intended outcomes. operational beneficiary registries, while an Social registries, used for targeting purposes, additional 16 are developing them. These regis- are present or being created in 47 countries, tries range from serving a single program, as in while 45 countries have implemented benefi- Armenia, to 80 different programs in Chile. A ciary registries for a specific program or across selection of operational registries can be found social protection programs (figure 3.4). in table 3.5. A selection of registries under Support for social and beneficiary registries development can be found in table 3.6. has grown considerably in recent years. At least Policy, Institutions, and Administration 37 Table 3.5 Selected Examples of Operational Social and Beneficiary Registries Number of Number of households programs Country Name Managing institution (thousands) served Social registries Belize Single Identification System of Ministry of Economic Development 3.5  — Beneficiaries (SISB) (2013) Bolivia Beneficiary Registry of Social Programs Ministry of Development Planning — 4 Brazil Cadastro Unico Ministry of Social Development and Fight against 25,000 20 Hunger Cabo Verde Unique Registry — —  2 Chile Integrated System of Social Information Ministry of Social Development 4,200 80 (SIIS) Colombia Integrated Information System of Social Ministry of Health and Social Protection 3,000 31 Protection (SISPRO) Costa Rica Sistema de Identificación de la Población IMAS (Agency for Social Benefits) 1,420a 3 Objectivo (SIPO) Ecuador Social Registry and Registry of the Social Ministry Coordinator of Social Development —  —  Programs (RIPS) Guatemala Registro Unico de Usuarios Nacional Ministerio de Desarrollo Social (MIDES) 2,600 108 (RUU-N) Honduras Unique Registry of Participants (RUP) National Information Center for Social Sector, under 3,350 18 the Government’s Office Indonesia — National Team for the Acceleration of Poverty 25,000 3 Reduction (TNP2K) Secretariat Lesotho National Information System for Social Ministry of Social Development and Fight against 40 3 planned, Assistance (NISSA) Hunger (as of July 2013) 1 as of July 2013 Macedonia, FYR Cash Benefits Management Information Ministry of Labour and Social Protection  — 1 System (CBMIS) Mauritius Social Register of Mauritius (SRM) Various ministries 41 4 (as of June 2013) Mexico Cuestionario Unico de Informacion Various ministries 7,400  — Socioeconomica for SEDESOL Pakistan National Socio Economic Registry (NSER) Benazir Income Support Program (BISP) 27,000 30 a Panama Unified Registry of Beneficiaries (RUB) Ministry of Social Development (MIDES) 178.3 11 Philippines Listahanan or National Household Department of Social Welfare and Development 10,909 3 Targeting System for Poverty Reduction (NHTS-PR) Romania Integrated Information System for National Agency for Social Benefits 6,000a 14 Administration of Social Benefits (SAFIR) Turkey Social Assistance Information System General Directorate of Social Assistance 8,000 17 (SAIS) Beneficiary registries Armenia Family Benefit System Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs 95 1 Azerbaijan MIS of Ministry of Labor and Social Ministry of Labor and Social Protection of the 127 3 Protection of Population (MLSPP) Population China Registry of Beneficaries Dibao — 78,000 1 Dominican Republic Sistema Unico de Beneficiaros (SIUBEN) Cabinet of Social Policy Coordination 6,059 10 Jamaica Beneficiary Management Information Ministry of Labor and Social Security 375 — System Seychelles Integrated MIS Agency for Social Protection — 5 South Africa National Integrated Social Information South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) 22,000a 8 System (NISIS) Source: World Bank internal monitoring reports. Note: Data refer to the number of households unless noted otherwise. — = not available. a. Data refer to a total number of beneficiaries. 38 The State of Social Safety Nets 2015 Table 3.6 Selected Examples of Operational Social and Beneficiary Registries Being Developed Country Name Managing institution Bangladesh Bangladesh Poverty Database Ministry of Planning Benin Unique Registry Permanent Executive Secretariat of the National SP Commission (11 ministries) Cambodia Poor ID Ministry of Planning Djibouti Registre Unique Pending Dominica National Beneficiary Information System (NBIS) Ministry of Social Services, Community Development and Gender Affairs El Salvador Single Registry of Beneficiaries (RUP) Pending Georgia System of Social Assistance Minister of Labor, Health and Social Service Agency Ghana Ghana National Household Registry (GNHR) Minister of Gender, Children and Social Protection Jordan National Unified Registry Pending Kenya Integrated Registry of Beneficiaries Ministry of Labor, Social Security and Services Kyrgyz Republic Pending Ministry of Social Development Lebanon National Poverty Targeting Program Ministry of Social Affairs Mongolia Intersectoral Database of Poor Households and Registry of Pending Beneficiaries Morocco Unified Register Pending Nicaragua Unique Registry of Participants (RUP) Ministry of Family, Adolescence and Childhood (MIFAN) Papua New Guinea Pending Department for Community Development Paraguay Single Registry of Beneficiaries Pending Peru National Registry of Beneficiaries Ministry of Development and Social Inclusion Rwanda Integrated Management Information System Pending Senegal Unique registry Délégation Générale à la Protection Sociale et la Solidarité Nationale St. Lucia Central Beneficiary Registry Pending Tajikistan National Registry of Social Protection Social Protection agency and Housing and Maintenance Department (HMD) Tunisia Unified Registry and Unique Identification System Pending Zambia Single Registry of Beneficiaries Pending Source: World Bank internal monitoring reports. Policy, Institutions, and Administration 39 Highlight 3. Climate Change, Poverty, and the Importance of Leveraging Social Protection C limate change will increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events.1 As climate impacts increase over time, building the tools needed to manage the increased risks is an urgent task. Social Protection to Mitigate Impacts of Climate Shocks Climate impacts are expected to increase the flows of vulnerable people falling into poverty, directly through losses from flood or drought, and indirectly through impacts on health and disease. Climate impacts may also make it more difficult for people to escape poverty by slow- ing asset accumulation, reducing land and labor productivity, or affecting support systems (Hallegatte and others 2014). Poor people will be disproportionally affected, as they often inhabit poor-quality housing and live on land that is marginal or prone to flooding. Moreover, they often hold assets in material form (rather than financial assets) and pursue occupations that are more vulnerable to climatic shocks, such as farming. The effects on welfare and prospects will depend not only on the direct impacts, but also on the ability of people and institutions to cope and adapt. Again, poor people are at a disadvantage. They have less access to the information, markets, and financial tools that support adaptation. Social protection has the potential to play a significant role in minimizing the impacts of climate change on poor people. Against this backdrop, social protection can be honed into a major tool to minimize the impacts of climate change on poor people. After a shock, social safety nets can be effective at counteracting adverse impacts if interventions are scaled up or introduced rapidly. When droughts in East Africa caused food shortages and famine in 2011, for instance, Ethiopia was the only country in the region where poverty did not increase. The Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) expanded its coverage from 6.5 million to 9.6 million in two months, and increased the duration of benefits from six to nine months per year. Similarly, in Brazil, after massive floods and landslides hit in January 2011, causing 903 deaths and leaving 17,000 homeless, the Bolsa Familia program provided in-kind and cash benefits to 162,000 families in 279 municipalities within 10 days of the floods. Its central registry helped identify the affected families. Social protection can also help before disasters strike. In this context, adaptive social protec- tion (ASP) is an approach to help build resilience, with an emphasis on leveraging on existing systems. The Sahel region, for example, is extremely prone to risk. A multidonor initiative is underway to increase access to effective ASP for vulnerable populations in six Sahel countries: Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, and Senegal. The aim is to increase community resilience and to leverage existing social protection programs for faster, more responsive sup- port to marginalized households. 40 40 The State of Social Safety Nets 2015 Social protection programs rely on four fundamental building blocks to scale up efforts to mitigate crises and shocks. The first building block requires that countries have a sufficient footprint of at least one program in place, with appropriate delivery systems that can be used as the basis of a disaster response. Such a program should be capable of scaling up after the disaster and allowing for adjustments. Examples of such programs with built-in mechanisms to scale up rapidly when a disaster strikes include the Temporary Employment Public Works Program (PET) in Mexico, the Floods Emergency Cash Transfer Program in Pakistan, and the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4P) in the Philippines. The Productive Safety Nets program in Ethiopia incorporates various innovative features, such as public works activities to strengthen climate resilience, a risk financing facility to help households cope better with transitory shocks, and the use of targeting methods that assist the community members most vulnerable to climate shocks. The second building block requires the presence of sufficiently strong information systems to facilitate effective preparedness and timely response. Financing instruments and resources are the third building block. It is critical to have financing schemes arranged in advance of disasters so scalable social protection programs can be dispatched in a timely and efficient way. Such tools help governments shift from assistance following disasters to proactive budget plan- ning before disasters strike. Bolsa Familia in Brazil is a case in point. The fourth building block is institutional coordination and capacity. Scalable social safety net programs require a high degree of institutional coordination and capacity if they are to function well after a disaster. Note 1. This highlight is based on the forthcoming World Bank publication, Climate Change and Poverty. References Hallegatte, S., M. Bangalore, L. Bonzanigo, M. Fay, U. Narloch, J. Rozenberg, and A. Vogt-Schilb. 2014. “Climate Change and Poverty—An Analytical Framework.” Policy Research Working Paper 7126, World Bank, Washington, DC. World Bank. Forthcoming. Climate Change and Poverty. Washington, DC: World Bank. Policy, Institutions, and Administration 41 41 Section 4. Results and Evidence about Social Safety Nets T he ultimate goal of social protection systematic approach. For instance, Madagascar, Only one-third and labor systems is to help individ- Mali, Mauritania, and Niger are building social uals and societies manage risk and safety net systems comprised of public works of the poor volatility by increasing their resilience and cash transfers, coordinated at the central are covered to shocks; making societies more equitable by and local level. All have been inspired by the by any type of sharing resources to help the poor and vulner- Productive Safety Nets program in Ethiopia. able avoid destitution; and improving access to At a different level of development, the Arab social safety opportunities generated by economic growth.1 Republic of Egypt is building a system of coor- net globally. Safety net interventions contribute to achieving dinated programs that will cover the poorest Extending all three goals: resilience, equity, and opportu- households with conditional and unconditional coverage of the nity. This section focuses on the performance cash transfers and public works, using its own of social safety nets in improving the equity experience of creating a registry of beneficiaries poor remains goal only; specifically, it examines the poverty using smart cards, and learning from the les- an important reduction impacts. Poverty is of course multidi- sons of implementing nationwide coordinated development mensional, and requires multiple interventions approaches in Mexico and Pakistan. from multiple sectors and policies. As such, Process indicators that can measure the priority. social safety nets are one of an array of instru- soundness and efficiency of the operational ments to address poverty, albeit a vital one. procedures of programs are critical to achiev- The analysis in this section relies on indica- ing positive impacts. In safety net interventions, tors from the World Bank Atlas of Social Pro- the most common operational procedures are tection: Indicators of Resilience and Equity program outreach and application, selection of (ASPIRE) database, based on harmonized beneficiaries (targeting), enrollment, payment household survey data from 105 countries to delivery, periodic verification of eligibility, and estimate how social safety net transfers (cash, monitoring and evaluation.2 Regular monitoring near-cash, and in-kind) help reduce poverty of these processes can identify potential bottle- (see box 4.1). In particular, the performance of necks and trigger corrective actions to improve safety nets is measured against key indicators implementation. For example, delays and irregu- such as coverage, enrollment, adequacy, and larities in transfer payments in Ghana’s Liveli- benefit incidence (see figure 4.1). This analy- hood Empowerment Against Poverty (LEAP) sis is supplemented with results from selected program led to the program’s inability to increase recent impact evaluation studies. household consumption or reduce poverty. Performance of Social Safety Net Main Messages for Section 4 Programs To fully understand how to improve the effi- • A significant gap persists in terms of covering the poor with ciency of safety net systems and enhance their social protection. The coverage gap is particularly acute in effectiveness in reducing poverty, it is impor- the two regions where most of the world’s poor live: Sub- tant to assess program performance at each step Saharan Africa and South Asia. of the results chain. The results chain depicts • The typical cash transfer program in lower-income coun- the series of logical steps of cause and effect tries does not provide adequate income support, covering that link inputs, activities, or processes with only 10 percent of the consumption of the average poor outputs and outcomes of an intervention to person. capture their effect on the desired development • Global poverty reduction due to social safety nets is sig- impacts. Figure 4.1 presents a simplified results nificant, including reducing the poverty gap by 15 per- chain of a safety net system. cent. Those impacts are much stronger in higher-income Better coordinated systems are required to countries than in low-income countries, where needs are increase the efficiency of safety nets. Protecting greatest. the poor and the vulnerable and allowing them • New studies confirm the positive and significant impacts to avail themselves of opportunities necessitates of social safety net programs on education, health, food multiple social protection programs working security, and nutrition outcomes in early childhood. Stud- together, to minimize duplication and overlap. ies also demonstrate that predictable cash transfers can A coherent system starts with a policy frame- enhance households’ investment in activities to generate work to guide multiple social protection inter- income and can spark positive spillover effects in local ventions. Countries at different levels of devel- economies. opment have had some success in taking such a 43 Box 4.1 ASPIRE Indicators Based on Household Surveys The ASPIRE (Atlas of Social Protection: countries. ASPIRE indicators track total Indicators of Resilience and Equity) data- transfers or benefits’ coverage, adequacy, base, accessible online, includes key and targeting performance. The latter is country- and program-level indicators measured by benefit or beneficiary inci- for social protection and labor programs, dence in the total population and across including social safety nets, social insur- quintiles of the welfare distribution. ASPIRE ance, and labor market programs. These also includes estimates of the simulated are calculated using nationally represen- impacts of social safety nets on poverty tative household surveys, and are the re- and inequality reduction and the degree sult of a careful process of quality assur- of program overlaps. In order to compare ance, identification of programs in each countries, poverty is defined in relative country, grouping of different programs terms within each country. In each coun- into standard categories, and harmoniza- try, the bottom 20 percent of the popula- tion of core indicators. When interpreting tion in terms of consumption or income ASPIRE indicators, it is important to bear (after the safety net transfer) is defined as in mind that the extent to which informa- poor as a practical comparative approach. tion on specific transfers and programs is Coverage, targeting, and impacts on pov- captured in the household surveys can erty are then assessed focusing on that vary considerably across countries. More- very low-income group as the target for over, household surveys typically do not safety nets. According to World Bank data, capture the universe of social protection world poverty—as measured with a com- programs in the country, usually only mon absolute standard of US$1.25/day in the largest programs. As a consequence, purchasing power parity—was 20.6 per- ASPIRE indicators are not fully compara- cent in 2010. Hence, focusing on the bot- ble across program categories and coun- tom 20 percent globally is consistent with tries; however, they provide approximate the objective of eliminating absolute pov- measures of social protection system erty. However, not all countries have pov- performance. erty rates equal or close to 20 percent of The database includes over 153 harmo- the population; the population groups in nized nationally representative household need of assistance may be wider in some surveys from 1998 to 2014, covering 112 countries. Source: www.worldbank.org/aspire. Figure 4.1 Results chain of a safety net system Inputs Processes Outputs Outcomes Short-term impacts Long-term impacts • Policy framework • Outreach, • Number of • Coverage of • Increased asset • Increased and priorities enrollment, beneficiaries the poor ownership productivity • Spending on benefits registration, reached • Targeting • Increase in and earnings • Administrative and payment, eligibility • Delivery of accuracy consumption • Improved operating costs verification, M&E benefits • Adequacy of and well-being resilience • Human resources • Coordination and • Quality of benefits and • Enhanced • Greater equity collaboration with service delivery services human capital and shared other SSN and referrals prosperity programs Note: M&E = monitoring and evaluation; SSN = social safety net. 44 The State of Social Safety Nets 2015 Coverage Social safety nets play a key role in address- Globally, there continues to be a gap in terms ing the gap in the overall social protection of covering the poor. While strong differences coverage rates for poor countries, especially exist across countries, on average, only one- in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. Glob- third of the poor are covered by any type of ally for all regions, except Europe and Central social safety net (ASPIRE indicators based on Asia, social safety nets remain the main form household surveys; see box 4.1). The gap of of social protection in terms of coverage (fig- coverage is particularly acute in the two regions ure 4.3). Extending the systems further will where most of the global poor live: Sub-Saharan require different strategies in different coun- Africa and South Asia. Thus despite the exten- tries and regions and will rely on a combina- sive outreach of social safety net programs, tion of instruments. most of the poor remain outside the system. Hence extending coverage of the poor remains Enrollment an important development priority. The better the ability of the social safety net sys- Outreach to the poor is increasing mostly tem to enroll beneficiaries, the higher is the cov- through cash transfer programs. Figure 4.2 erage rate of the poor. Table 4.1 shows a rather documents this trend and also shows that tight correlation between enrollment and cov- unconditional cash transfers (UCTs) and con- erage rates as captured by household surveys. ditional cash transfers (CCTs) are playing a par- However, there are some outliers and coun- ticular role in this expansion. At lower income tries that complicate this comparison. In order levels, in-kind school feeding programs provide to remain consistent, figure 4.4 uses household the largest, albeit limited, coverage. As country survey data to link coverage of the poor (mea- income increases, higher coverage is achieved sured as those beneficiary households in the through cash transfer programs. However, data poorest quintile of the respective national wel- also show that these programs provide only fare distribution) to the social safety net system limited coverage of the poor. School feeding enrollment rates (measured as the sum of ben- is not covering even 10 percent of the poor, eficiaries on the rolls of different types of safety on average, within the low-income countries net programs captured through the surveys). where this program type has the highest cover- There is a strong pattern between the benefi- age with respect to other program types. ciary rolls of cash transfer programs and their Figure 4.2 Coverage of the poor differs greatly by different types of safety nets and income groups Coverage of the poor (poorest quintile) 60 50 Percent of the poor 40 30 20 10 0 ks T w T he T T Fe C T Sc e w CT w CT w T he g SN In s w d rs rs SN ol ind g fe s In g Pu her d w N ks he rs SN fe d g ks or ol e r k Ot din in in in in Ot -kin ol in UC C UC bl CC CC bl CC bl SS ve ve Ot aive or or or Ot U Fe U rS ed ed ed rS rS ho aiv Fe -k ho n-k ho In-k w ai ai e lic fe fe w I ic ic ic b ol e e e Pu Fe ho Pu Pu Sc Sc Sc Low-income (19) Lower-middle-income Upper-middle-income High-income (8) (41) (36) Income level/type of transfer Sources: ASPIRE; see appendix G. Coverage rates are derived from household survey data, for the most recent year available per country. Note: Coverage rates refer to the percent of poor receiving any social safety net transfer. Poor households are defined as those in the poorest quintile of countries’ respective consumption/income distribution. The number of countries with available survey data for at least one program category in each income group is indicated in parentheses. CCT = conditional cash transfer; SSN = social safety net; UCT = unconditional cash transfer. Results and Evidence about Social Safety Nets 45 Figure 4.3 Coverage by different components of the social protection consumption levels below US$1.25/day per system varies by region capita in purchasing power parity terms). a. Social protection and labor coverage A critical level of enrollment is required to ensure coverage of the poor. No country 50 43.1 44.6 achieves coverage of at least 50 percent of the poor if its overall enrollment rate is less than Percent of total population 39.1 40 35.1 35.0 20 percent. However, there are some variations across countries: 50 percent of the poor can be 30 26.1 reached with very different enrollment rates: from about 20 percent of the population (as in 20 17.1 17.4 15.1 Brazil) to more than double this size (54 per- 10.6 cent, as in Ukraine). This implies very different 10 4.1 3.8 4.1 budgets to achieve the same objective—and 3.6 2.9 0.6 1.1 1.5 very different cost-efficiency in terms of pov- 0 EAP ECA LAC MENA SAR SSA erty reduction. No country covers 100 percent of the poor. Region/type of program There are significant differences in the way SOCIAL SAFETY NETS SOCIAL INSURANCE LABOR MARKET PROGRAMS countries are capable of targeting their social safety net to the poor. Some countries (Chile, b. Social protection and labor coverage Ecuador, the Slovak Republic) have combined 58.1 social safety net enrollment rates that exceed 60 55.5 the size of their population (that is, some 50.2 50 45.5 people are enrolled in more than one social Percent of the poor 40 39.8 safety net program). However, they still do not achieve 100 percent coverage of the poor. 30 Targeting errors are inevitable in any program 20 21.1 design, and even with universal programs, 12.2 there are some groups that are particularly dif- 10.6 10 8.2 6.8 ficult to cover. While, for example, social safety 6.3 5.5 2.3 2.2 1.2 2.0 1.7 0 0.0 net systems in Brazil, Malawi, and Turkey have EAP ECA LAC MENA SAR SSA approximately the same capacity in terms of Region/type of program percent of total population on the rolls, Malawi covers only about 20 percent of the poorest SOCIAL SAFETY NETS SOCIAL INSURANCE LABOR MARKET PROGRAMS quintile, while Brazil and Turkey cover almost Sources: ASPIRE. Coverage rates are derived from household survey data, for the most recent year 60 percent (figure 4.4). available per country. Note: Poor households are defined as those in the poorest quintile of countries’ respective consumption/ income distribution. Aggregate statistics are based on countries with information on social safety net programs (105 countries). Regions: EAP = East Asia and Pacific; ECA = Europe and Central Asia; Adequacy LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean; MENA = Middle East and North Africa; SAR = South Asia; The contribution of safety net programs to total SSA = Sub-Saharan Africa. household consumption and poverty reduc- tion varies substantially across country income levels. The average level of cash benefits covers actual coverage of the poor as country income only 10 percent of the consumption of the aver- increases. On average, lower-income countries age poor person3 across low-income countries. have the lowest coverage of the poor and the They cover almost twice that level (21 percent) least ability to direct resources to those most in lower-middle-income countries, and almost in need. In lower-income countries and lower- four times as much (37 percent) in upper- middle-income countries, only about 27 per- middle-income countries. In terms of the cent of the poorest quintile receive any form of extreme poor, the average size of the transfer social safety nets. This proportion grows to 64 is 30.6 percent of consumption of those below percent in upper-middle-income countries and the absolute poverty line (US$1.25/day) among to 57 percent in the higher-income countries low- and middle-income countries (figure 4.5). included in the analysis (table 4.1). Survey data According to World Bank data on global pov- suggest that social safety net coverage is capable erty, the average level of consumption among of reaching half the extreme poor (those with the poor in the developing world is 34.8 percent 46 The State of Social Safety Nets 2015 below the US$1.25/day poverty line; this means Figure 4.4 Higher coverage of the poor is associated with higher that transfer amounts represent approximately enrollment in social safety nets one-fifth of the income needed to close the 100 Slovak Republic Chile poverty gap in low-income countries, half the 90 Mongolia income needed in lower-middle-income coun- Uruguay Peru Ecuador Panama tries, and is adequate as income support only Coverage of SSN, percent of the poor 80 in upper-middle-income countries. Social pensions and family allowances are 70 Indonesia - more generous, on average, than other safety net 60 Turkey Philippines Liberia interventions, though there is variation across Brazil Ukraine country income levels. UCT programs (includ- 50 - ing family allowances and benefits for orphans Latvia 40 and vulnerable children) provide the high- Djibouti Mauritania est income support in low-income countries: 30 about 20 percent of consumption (figure 4.6). Malawi 20 Kosovo In upper-middle-income countries, there are no marked differences in adequacy among program 10 Senegal types, which all provide between 20 and 25 per- 0 cent of the poor’s consumption, including cate- 0 50 100 150 200 250 gories such as social care classified under “other Enrollment in SSN programs, percent of population social safety nets.” UCT and social pensions, broadly defined, include old-age and disability Sources: ASPIRE. Coverage rates and enrollment rates are both derived from household survey data, for the most recent year available per country. noncontributory pensions, and provide about Note: Enrollment rates are defined as the number of beneficiaries on the rolls of all social safety net programs, as a percent of the population (thus double counting is possible; hence total percentages may 40 percent of the poor’s consumption in upper- exceed 100 percent). Poor households are defined as those in the poorest quintile of the national welfare middle-income countries. Despite the small distribution. Aggregate statistics are based on countries/surveys with information on social safety net programs (104 countries). SSN = social safety net. sample of countries, benefits paid for public works are higher as gross domestic product (GDP) per capita increases, consistent with minimum wage policies. bution is regressive. The benefit incidence across program types varies, often reflecting Benefit Incidence the underlying extent to which programs tar- The targeting of social safety nets is generally get the poor rather than other social categories. pro-poor. Benefit incidence captures the pro- CCTs are among the better targeted programs, portion of transfers that the poorest quintile directing more than 50 percent of spending to receive as a percent of total transfers (appen- the poorest quintile in the case of the largest- dix F). If this indicator is above 20 percent, scale CCT programs in Latin America, and the distribution tends to be pro-poor or pro- 46 percent in the case of more recently estab- gressive; if it is below 20 percent, the distri- lished, at-scale programs such as the Pantawid Table 4.1 Enrollment and Coverage of the Poor Rates, by Country Income Group Enrollment rates Coverage of the poor All program Cash transfers All program Cash transfers Income group types only types only Low-income 14.5 5.1 26.3 14.7 Lower-middle-income 26.0 9.1 27.6 16.6 Upper-middle-income 47.7 16.7 63.9 52.7 High-income 54.1 45.4 56.8 54.3 Source: ASPIRE. Note: Enrollment rates are derived by summing up the number of beneficiaries of all safety net programs in the country as percent of total population; beneficiary rolls are based on administrative data. Enrollment rates include double counting of beneficiaries and as such, they should not be interpreted as a measure of coverage. The coverage of the poor indicator is expressed as the percentage of households in the poorest quintile of the national welfare distribution receiving any type of social safety net and cash transfer only, respectively, and is derived from household survey data, most recent year available per country, correcting for double counting of households. Cash transfers refer to both conditional and unconditional cash transfers (including social pensions) and public works. Results and Evidence about Social Safety Nets 47 Figure 4.5 The average transfer size does not Impacts on Poverty Reduction fill the poverty gap Social safety nets help achieve visible impacts a. Cash transfers are not adequate in terms of reducing poverty and inequality. in lower-income countries The simulated impact of all social safety nets on poverty headcount reduction5 is 8 per- LIC 10 11 cent on average across 105 countries in the ASPIRE database (appendix F), which means 21 that safety net transfers on average help reduce Income level LMIC 26 the poverty headcount rate by 8 percent, the 37 value it would have been without safety nets. UMIC 55 Poverty-reducing impacts are higher in higher- income countries (14 percent) than in low- 22 HIC 70 (2 percent), lower-middle- (6 percent), and upper-middle- (10 percent) income countries. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 The reduction also differs by regions; it is largest Adequacy of transfers, percent of consumption in Europe and Central Asia (14 percent reduc- ADEQUACY OF CASH TRANSFERS FOR THE POOREST QUINTILE ADEQUACY OF CASH TRANSFERS FOR THE EXTREME POOR tion) and smallest in South Asia (3 percent Source: ASPIRE. reduction). While informative about the scale Note: Adequacy of cash transfers for the poorest quintile (or extreme of poverty, the headcount ratio does not mea- poor) is the total benefit amounts received by households in the poorest quintile (or extreme poor households) as percent of the total sure how far the poor are from the poverty line consumption or income of the poorest quintile (or the extreme poor). (the poverty gap). Impacts on reducing the pov- Extreme poor are those living on less than $1.25 a day at purchasing power parity (PPP) in 2005 U.S. dollars. Poorest quintile refers to erty gap are even higher, averaging 15 percent the national consumption/income distribution. HIC = high-income countries; LIC = low-income countries; LMIC = lower-middle-income of the value of the poverty gap without safety countries; UMIC = upper-middle-income countries. nets. Patterns are similar across regions and income groups. b. The average size of cash transfers does not Impacts on reducing the poverty gap depend fill the poverty gap in low-income and lower-middle-income countries on how well the poor are covered and on the Daily level of income or consumption adequacy of benefits, among other factors. Countries differ considerably in how successful Poverty line (US$1.25/day) they are in closing the poverty gap, depending on the performance of each step along the results Average size of cash transfers Average (30.6% of consumption of the chain, from implementation to actual delivery poverty gap extreme poor) (outputs), to outcomes achieved in terms of tar- geting accuracy and coverage of the poor. The Average level of consumption by the poor combination of these factors explains the varia- (34% below the poverty line) tion of poverty gap reduction across countries, and why this is due not only to the coverage of U.S. dollars per capita the poor and adequacy of benefits. While some Source: World Bank calculations based on ASPIRE; see appendix F. countries have reduced poverty by more than 50 percent (Hungary, Mauritius, Poland), oth- in the Philippines. Figure 4.7 shows targeting ers have had negligible effects on poverty. Fig- performance of different types of programs ure 4.8 maps poverty reduction effects to the (reflecting different targeting approaches), for two main factors: the coverage of the poor, and first- and second-generation CCT programs. the adequacy of transfers. Obviously, the higher Targeting performance of social pensions and the coverage of the poor, the greater is the effect UCTs is weaker, as they may not be means- on poverty. But even achieving almost complete tested; indeed social pensions are universal coverage while providing low transfers means in several countries (see highlight 2 on social that poverty reduction effects are low (as for pensions) and UCTs include categorical allow- Panama). Of course, when countries put rela- ances and benefits.4 Despite self-targeting, often tively little weight on the role of safety nets in adopted to select beneficiaries of public works, terms of both coverage and transfers (as in the all quintiles of the population benefit equally, case of Senegal), the poverty reduction effects on average. are even smaller. 48 The State of Social Safety Nets 2015 Even within similar budgetary alloca- Figure 4.6 The adequacy of transfers for the poor varies by program tion, some countries achieve higher poverty- type Percent of consumption covered by transfers reducing effects. This pattern provides a bench- mark for assessing performance. The dotted 50 lines in figure 4.8 represent different levels of 45 Percent of consumption resources committed to social safety nets, with 40 35 higher lines corresponding to higher spending. 30 Countries typically face a trade-off between 25 expanding coverage and providing transfers 20 with greater adequacy within a given budgetary 15 envelope. For example, Hungary and Mauritius 10 achieve the same poverty reduction effect with 5 quite different combinations of adequacy and 0 UCT (63) CCT (15) Social Public Fee Other SSNs coverage. However, even within similar budget pension works waivers (53) outlays, some countries are doing better than (34) (10) (18) others. Program type/number of countries Evidence from Impact Evaluations LOW-INCOME COUNTRIES LOWER-MIDDLE-INCOME COUNTRIES UPPER-MIDDLE-INCOME COUNTRIES Social safety nets are among the most rigor- Source: ASPIRE. Note: Values refer to the average adequacy of transfers for the poor, defined as households in the ously evaluated interventions in development. poorest quintile of the national consumption/income distribution. Adequacy of transfers for the poorest Unlike ASPIRE indicators, impact evaluations quintile is the total benefit amounts received by households in the poorest quintile as percent of the total consumption or income of the poorest quintile. The number of countries for which data on the estimate program impacts compared to rigor- respective program type are available in national household surveys is indicated in parentheses. CCT = conditional cash transfer; SSN = social safety net; UCT= unconditional cash transfer. ous counterfactuals (how individuals would have behaved without safety nets). Since the 2014 edition of The State of Social Safety Nets, at least 23 additional impact evaluations have cash transfers, including both conditional and been published,6 over half of which were con- unconditional programs. Other interventions ducted in Sub-Saharan Africa (table 4.2). Some evaluated include food transfers, early child- of the most notable evaluations published over hood development interventions (see highlight the last year include the impact evaluation of 4), and public works programs. the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program in Most recent evidence confirms the positive the Philippines—one of the largest cash transfer and significant impact of cash transfers on programs in the world, serving over 4 million education outcomes such as increased enroll- beneficiaries. In addition, a number of evalu- ment and attendance. Cash transfers, both ations falling under the Food and Agriculture conditional and unconditional, helped increase Organization’s Protection to Production Pro- enrollment rates of primary and secondary gram have added a significant evidence base children by 18 percentage points in Burkina to studies evaluating the potential produc- Faso compared to a control group (families not tive impact of cash transfer programs in Sub- receiving a transfer) and by 8 percent in Chile Saharan Africa on productive investments. (figure 4.9).7 Attendance rates, a key condition Rigorous evidence is being amassed at for many transfer programs, have also been impressive speed, and is providing new insights improved for transfer beneficiaries, especially into the transformational role of social safety among secondary students (figure 4.10). net programs. Since 2011, more than 86 eval- Results on health, nutrition, and food secu- uations have focused on social safety net pro- rity continue to be positive and significant. In grams. About half focus on pilots and the rest Peru, women of childbearing age enrolled in examine established large-scale programs. the Juntos cash transfer program were 91 per- Table 4.2 shows how Sub-Saharan Africa has centage points more likely to have a doctor- overtaken Latin America as the most heavily assisted delivery compared to those not par- evaluated region in the past four years. Table ticipating in the program (Perova and Vakis 4.3 summarizes the latest impact evaluation by 2012). Evidence from Indonesia and the Philip- country and intervention type. A large propor- pines shows that cash transfer programs tion (over 80 percent) continues to focus on increased prenatal and postnatal care, regular Results and Evidence about Social Safety Nets 49 Figure 4.7 Conditional cash transfers are among the best targeted type dren in households receiving a UCT in Lesotho of safety net were 16 percentage points less likely to be mal- a. Targeting performance varies by targeting method used nourished than similar children not receiving the transfers (Pellerano and others 2014). In 45 Ecuador, a supplementary feeding program 40 reduced child mortality in households exposed to the program for at least 8 months by 1.0 to Benefit incidence, percent 35 Pro–poor 1.5 percentage points, from a baseline average 30 rate of 2.5 percent (Meller and Litschig 2014). 25 A selection of impacts reviewed shows a 20 significant impact of transfers on participants’ household food security, especially in Kenya 15 and Zambia. Programs in Brazil, Ecuador, Nic- 10 aragua, and Peru show large increases in the 5 amount that families spend on food, compared to households that were not enrolled in safety 0 net programs.8 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 While most of the recent evidence on safety Quintile nets revolves around cash transfers, new evi- CCT CT SOCIAL PENSIONS PUBLIC WORKS dence has compared them to in-kind and Source: ASPIRE. near-cash transfers on a range of food secu- Note: Benefit incidence refers to the sum of transfers received by individuals in each quintile of the rity indicators. A review of 12 randomized and national consumption/income distribution as a percentage of total transfers received by all individuals in the population. CCT = conditional cash transfer; CT = cash transfer; Q = quintile, with Q1 being the quasi-experimental studies (Gentilini 2014) poorest 20 percent of the population and Q5 being the richest. comparing cash to food shows that differences between cash and food can be substantial for b. The targeting performance of conditional cash transfers in different countries varies considerably some indicators (food consumption and calo- rie availability), but in most instances the dif- 60 57 56 56 55 ferences are not significant. Costs associated poorest quintile, percent 50 48 with cash transfers and vouchers tend to be Benefit incidence in 46 46 42 40 40 38 substantially lower relative to food transfers. 40 30 28 27 Yet the magnitude and direction of results can 23 23 vary depending on methods used for a cost- 20 effectiveness analysis. 10 Higher income from predictable cash trans- 0 fers has helped households undertake produc- tive investments in agricultural and nonagri- FA Ja gu 4P M lsa AF pi UF gu a– F F – p. s –P ilia Ch era –T TH m ora th –st H Ho hild d t ur ran en to A RA en D Pe ed O Ba Ecu a–P Ur s– – Pa ma ay– ico am S ay PA cultural activities to generate income. In many Le des r–B sp Br Arg Jun p ip Bo ina Ph ile– g –P Co eko ne ro F R bi la do as t a– ru ic African countries, where safety net programs u h a ilip C lo m o– nd na ex il– tend to target a large number of rural house- Pa ra ng az so holds, results show that the likelihood of ben- Country/program eficiary households owning livestock increased Source: ASPIRE. significantly. In Kenya, Lesotho, Mexico, and Note: Benefit incidence refers to the sum of transfers received by individuals in the poorest quintile of the national consumption/income distribution as a percentage of total transfers received by all Zambia, the probability of participant house- individuals in the population. 4P = Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program; AF = Asignaciones Familiares; holds owning more expensive and more pro- BDH = Bono de Desarrollo Humano; PATH = Programme of Advancement Through Health and Education; PFA = Programa Familias en Acción; PRAF = Programa De Asignación Familiar; Red Op. = Red de ductive livestock—including cattle, draft ani- Oportunidades; SUF = Subsidio Único Familiar. mals, and pigs—increased (figure 4.11).9 In addition, cash transfer programs have increased age-appropriate weighing, and facility-based the likelihood of participant households own- deliveries for pregnant women and new moth- ing agricultural tools by 32, 30, and 23 percent- ers (World Bank 2011; Orbeta and others 2014). age points in Malawi, Zambia, and Ethiopia, Safety net programs tend to increase the con- respectively.10 Studies in Nicaragua, Mexico, sumption of calories in the poorer households and Zambia indicate that beneficiaries are more targeted, resulting in frequent direct health likely to start up nonagricultural enterprises impacts on young children. For example, chil- than those that do not receive transfers by 3, 4, 50 The State of Social Safety Nets 2015 Figure 4.8 The poverty reduction effects of social safety nets depend on both the coverage of the poor and the adequacy of social safety net transfers Adequacy: SSN transfers as percent of average household consumption 40 35 26, Kosovo 30 26, 54, Kyrgyz Mauritius 25 Republic 35, Philippines 5 20 36, Mexico 31 54, 14 28 15 58, Hungary 20 Poland 10 13 8 27 23 7 9 10 18 29, Chile 28 26 23 20 24 36 10 36 2, 15 29 14 31 16 30 20 36 5 Senegal 9 9 9 12 12 7 25 10 29 8 5, Panama 7 13 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Coverage: percent of poor receiving transfer Source: ASPIRE; see appendix F. Note: Coverage rates refer to the percent of poor receiving any social safety net transfer. The poor are defined as those households in the poorest quintile of the national consumption/income distribution. The size of the bubbles and the numbers inside the bubbles and next to country names indicate the percentage reduction in the poverty gap. The dotted and dashed lines represent different levels of resources committed to SSNs; higher lines correspond to higher spending. SSN = social safety net. Table 4.2 Impact Evaluations, This argument is further strengthened by the 1999–2015 fact that evidence suggests that safety net pro- Number of impact evaluations grams do not reduce labor market participation. 1999– Over the last few years, program evaluations of Regions 2011–15 2010 social safety net interventions in Brazil, Chile, Sub-Saharan Africa 37 26 Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, and the Philip- pines have shown that such programs result in Latin America and the Caribbean 35 96 few (and insignificant) to no disincentives to East Asia and Pacific 9 12 labor market participation.12 Middle East and North Africa 1 0 Social safety nets can also lead to multiplier South Asia 3 13 effects on local economies of targeted commu- Europe and Central Asia 1 6 nities. A strong evidence base collected in the From Protection to Production Project13 has Total 86 153 found that cash transfer programs have major Sources: Authors’ compilations (2011–15) and World Bank 2011 (1999–2010). positive spillover effects on the local economy Note: Selection of studies for 2011-15 included rigorous impact of targeted communities, with a nominal total evaluation studies published as journal articles, chapters in books, reports, or working papers. The search strategy relies on existing income multiplier ranging from 1.08 to 2.52 dol- impact evaluation (IE) databases including 3IE’s Impact Evaluation Repository, DIME’s (Development IMpact Evaluation’s) IE Working lars for each dollar transferred. This impact was Paper Series, and the World Bank’s Development Impact Blog series. found in eight different Sub-Saharan countries, including Zimbabwe (1.73) and Ghana (2.50).14 Spillover effects stem from beneficiaries spend- and 17 percentage points, respectively.11 These ing their transfers, often on goods or services microenterprises, such as carpentry businesses from others inside and outside the local econ- or food vendors, have the potential to result in omy. In many cases, these are households not significant long-term improvements in welfare. eligible to receive the cash transfer. As a result, Results and Evidence about Social Safety Nets 51 Table 4.3 Selected Recent Impact Evaluations of Social Safety Net Programs, 2014–15 Social safety Channel of impact Country net Main findings Year/Author Early childhood Indonesia ECD There is clear evidence that in project villages, Jung and Hasan 2014 development (ECD) the achievement gap between richer and poorer children, as measured by an array of child development outcomes and school enrollment, decreased in many dimensions. Education Cambodia In-kind food, In most measures, similar impacts from Barker, Filmer, and CCT receipt of food and cash scholarship were Rigolini 2015 found. Both types of scholarship decreased the drop-out rate among recipient students. Colombia ECD Psychosocial stimulation had significant Attanasio and others positive effects on the language and cognitive 2015 development of children who received the home visits. Nicaragua CCT Boys exposed to the program in utero and Barham and others during the first two years of life have better 2014 cognitive outcomes when they are 10 years old than those exposed in their second year of life or later. For boys aged 9–12 in 2000 (and thus aged 19–22 in 2010), the short-term program effect of a half-grade increase in schooling was sustained into early adulthood, seven years after the end of the program. In addition, there were significant and substantial gains in both math and language achievement scores. Those boys of the same cohort in the early treatment group have higher earnings in the labor market than those in the late treatment group. Food security and Zambia UCT Cash transfers improve household Seidenfeld and others nutrition consumption, food consumption, diet 2014 diversity, and food security. Strong and significant heterogeneous impacts on reducing stunting were found among children who have access to clean water or more educated mothers. Health Bangladesh CCT The pilot had a significant impact on the Ferré and Sharif 2014 incidence of wasting (low weight-for-height) among children who were 10–22 months old when the program started. The pilot was also able to improve nutrition knowledge among mothers, including an increase in the proportion of beneficiary mothers who knew about the importance of exclusively breastfeeding infants until the age of 6 months. Uganda Food Significant positive impacts were found Rawat and others 2014 assistance on nutritional status. Food assistance significantly increased the body mass index (BMI) by 0.6 kg/m2 and mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) by 6.7 mm. When restricting the analysis to individuals with CD4 counts >0 cells/uL, food assistance resulted in large significant impacts. (Table continues next page) 52 The State of Social Safety Nets 2015 Table 4.3 Selected Recent Impact Evaluations of Social Safety Net Programs, 2014–15 (Continued) Social safety Channel of impact Country net Main findings Year/Author Mixed Ghana Public works The program had a positive impact on paid Osei-Akoto and others employment, food consumption expenditure, 2014 and food security for children. School attendance, particularly at the upper- secondary school level, increased among beneficiary households. Lesotho UCT The program helped increase the levels of Pellerano and others expenditure on schooling, clothing, and 2014 footwear for children. The program also contributed to a significant reduction in the proportion of children 0–5 who suffered from an illness (generally flu or cold) in the 30 days prior to the survey. The Child Grant Program helped retain children 13–17 in primary school, particularly boys who would have otherwise dropped out. Philippines CCT Pantawid Pamilya encourages the trial use Orbeta Jr. and others of modern family planning methods. The 2014 program promotes facility-based deliveries and access to professional postnatal care and improves children’s access to some key health care services. Among Pantawid beneficiaries, about 9 in 10 households are covered by the PhilHealth health insurance program. The program keeps older children in school. Children (10–14 years old) in the program work seven fewer days a month than children not in the program. Pantawid Pamilya increases households’ investments in education and does not encourage dependency or spending more on vice goods, such as alcohol. Philippines CCT Pantawid Pamilya is reaching most of its key Chaudhury, Friedman, objectives. The impacts found through this and Onishi 2014 study are comparable to the levels of impact found in other CCT programs around the world at this stage of program maturity, particularly in terms of the program’s achievements in improved use of health services and school enrollment. Sierra Leone Public works Monthly incomes of participating households Rosas and Sabarwal increased by 26 percent. Further, the program 2014 appears to have been a highly productive safety net. Program participation significantly increased the likelihood of creating enterprises and investing in homes and, in some cases, existing businesses. Beneficiary households increased their asset accumulation of small livestock. Tanzania CCT Significant impacts are observed across Evans and others 2014 a broad array of areas, including health, education, and various risk-reducing behaviors: use of health insurance, insurance expenditures, nonbank savings (for the poorest households), and the purchase of livestock such as goats and chickens. In addition, the program has led to significant increases in spending on certain children’s goods (especially children’s shoes). (Table continues next page) Results and Evidence about Social Safety Nets 53 Table 4.3 Selected Recent Impact Evaluations of Social Safety Net Programs, 2014–15 (Continued) Social safety Channel of impact Country net Main findings Year/Author Productive Lesotho UCT The program is associated with higher use of Daidone and others investments inputs, especially pesticides that prevented 2014 major crop losses after a severe outbreak of armyworms. The Child Grants Program contributed to increased production, both for the home garden and for main staple crops, including maize. Program take-up Colombia Home visits No consistent impact of the program was Abramovsky and others from social found, possibly because the way the pilot was 2014 workers implemented resulted in a very light treatment in terms of home visits. Stimulating local Ethiopia UCT Each birr (unit of Ethiopian currency) Kagin and others 2014 economies distributed in Hintalo-Wajirat generated an extra 1.52 birr via local market linkages, for a total income multiplier of 2.52. Similarly, each birr distributed in Abi-Adi generated an additional 0.35 birr, for a total income multiplier of 1.35. Simulations incorporating market constraints find a “real” income multiplier of 1.84 birr for Hintalo-Wajirat and 1.26 birr for Abi-Adi. Ghana CCT Transfers could lead to a relatively large Thome, Taylor, Kagin, income multiplier of GHS (Ghanaian cedi) and others 2014 2.50. Adjusting for potential rising prices could lead to a lower real income multiplier of GHS 1.50. Zambia UCT The transfers could lead to a relatively large Thome, Taylor, Davis, income multiplier of K (Zambian kwacha) and others 2014 1.79. Eligible households receive the direct benefit of the transfer, while ineligible households receive the bulk of the indirect benefit. Zimbabwe UCT Transfers could lead to relatively large Taylor and others 2014 nominal income multipliers of Z$ (Zimbabwean dollars) 1.73 and a real income multiplier that could be as low as Z$1.40. Temptation goods Mexico In-kind Households do not indulge in consumption of Cunha 2014 food, CCT vices when handed cash. Furthermore, there (although is little evidence that the in-kind food transfer conditionality induced more food to be consumed than did not enforced) the cash transfer of equal value. Peru CCT Food expenditures went up by 10–20 percent Dasso and Fernandez when beneficiaries received the cash transfer 2014 as opposed to when they did not have it. Additional evidence suggests that this increase is driven by higher consumption of candies, chocolates, soft drinks, and meals in restaurants, but not alcohol. Source: Authors’ compilations. Note: CCT = conditional cash transfer; ECD = early childhood development; UCT = unconditional cash transfer. for each dollar invested into a cash transfer pro- of this multiplier. Even after adjusting for any gram in Zimbabwe, 1.73 dollars in income was resulting local inflation, real multiplier effects generated for the local economy. It is possible, are still higher than 1. Figure 4.12 presents both however, that labor, capital, and land markets do real and nominal multiplier effects. not function optimally in these countries, mean- While transfer programs raise consumption ing that prices could rise as a result of the trans- levels of food, health, education, and hygiene, fer programs themselves, diluting the impact there is no evidence that they also increase con- 54 The State of Social Safety Nets 2015 sumption of alcohol or tobacco. Programs in Figure 4.9 Selected impacts of social safety nets on school enrollment Africa, Latin America, and Eastern and South- rates Percentage point increase compared to the control group ern Asia all show no impact of transfer pro- grams on the consumption of alcohol, tobacco, 25 and gambling (Evans and Popova 2014). In fact, Percentage point increase the evaluation of the Pantawid Program in the 20 Philippines found that beneficiaries reduced their spending on alcohol by 39 percent in 15 comparison to the control group (Chaudhury, Friedman, and Onishi 2014). 10 Several studies have measured the impact of interventions after five years or more,15 indicat- 5 ing that impacts persist well after program exit.16 In Nicaragua, seven years after treatment groups 0 stopped receiving transfers, boys (now young so T CT a s s s a na il M ile Ta co Le a o Ke l il i az az az ne ra ne th in ny i C an men aged 19–22) in the early treatment group Ch oc a C ,U Ch du Br Br Br so pi pi Gh nz or o, lip lip n rk as Ho had still attained a half-year more in schooling i i Fa Ph Ph Bu a F a in in than those who were exposed to the program rk Bu three years later. Moreover, unlike long-term Pre- Primary Secondary Primary and secondary school findings related to the Oportunidades (now school school school Prospera) program in Mexico, the increase in Schooling level/country/type of transfer grade attainment was accompanied with better Source: World Bank, based on a review of selected impact evaluation studies. literacy and math skills in comparison to the late Note: Percentage point increase in outcomes among program beneficiaries with respect to nonbeneficiaries (control group). CCT = conditional cash transfer; UCT = unconditional cash transfer. treatment group. Yet in Colombia, a long-term analysis on the impact of Familias en Acción on test scores found no difference in the perfor- Figure 4.10 Selected impacts of social safety nets on school attendance mance of poor high school graduates who were rates program recipients, compared to equally poor Percentage point increase compared to the control group graduates who were not program recipients. 30 Even four years after the control households 26 were incorporated into the Opportunidades, the 25 Percentage point increase original beneficiary households had consump- tion levels that were 5.6 percent higher than 20 the original nonbeneficiary households. This 15 13 implies that the returns on investments made 12 11 by the initial beneficiaries in the 18 months 10 10 8 8 8 before the control households received bene- fits resulted in improved long-term living stan- 5 5 4 dards. A study on the impact of a supplemental feeding program in Guatemala found that boys 0 e s a e i 7 4 so ) who received a protein supplement between the ) aw HR FP ne bw bw –1 di –1 Fa bo (S 15 12 pi al (T ba ba ilip M a ages of 0 and 2 had an hourly wage 25 years later m s/ s/ da da m m in Ca ne ne Ph rk an Zi Zi an pi pi Bu that was US$0.67 higher than the control group: Ug Ug ilip ilip Ph Ph a 46 percent increase in average wages. Primary Secondary school Primary and secondary More research is needed in a number of areas, school school including the overall cost-benefit analysis of Schooling level/country/type of transfer social safety net programs. The pace at which Source: World Bank, based on a review of selected impact evaluation studies. the evidence base on social safety nets contin- Note: Percentage point increase in outcomes among program beneficiaries with respect to nonbeneficiaries (control group). SFP = school feeding program; THR = take-home ration. ues to grow nonetheless remains impressive and continues to shed light on the transformational role these programs can have on the lives of nificant decrease in intimate partner violence program participants. New insights have found in Ecuador and a reduction in street crime in that safety net programs can also result in sig- Brazil.17 With the enormous policy implications nificant reductions in violence, including a sig- involved, and current studies limited to Latin Results and Evidence about Social Safety Nets 55 Figure 4.11 The proportion of social safety net beneficiary households America, further evidence needs to be collected owning a productive asset has grown to supplement these findings. There is also grow- Percentage point increase compared to control group ing interest in the “graduation” agenda: how to Agricultural Nonagricultural Agricultural help social safety net beneficiaries move out of Lesotho 8 inputs extreme poverty and into sustainable livelihoods Ethiopia 23 and more productive jobs. Yet much remains to be explored on how best to link social safety nets Mexico 3 with complementary programs and services— business Nicaragua 4 such as asset transfers, financial inclusion, skills training, and job search assistance—and the Zambia 17 effects of such services on beneficiaries’ job Zambia 30 prospects and earnings. The adaptation of social tools safety nets to urban areas is an issue of grow- Malawi 32 ing relevance in a number of countries, and so Asset/country is the customization of safety nets in fragile and Chickens Zambia 15 disaster-prone contexts. Finally, a coherent evi- Malawi 59 dence base of cost-benefit analysis of safety net 4 programs is still scarce. Filling this knowledge Zambia Goats/sheep gap would significantly add to the discussion on Kenya 7 social safety net performance. Malawi 52 Notes Kenya 2 1. The 2012–2022 Social Protection and Labor Strategy, Large livestock World Bank, http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic Mexico 4 /social protectionlabor/publication/social-protection -labor-strategy-2012-2022. Lesotho 8 2. Examples of such process indicators are the average Zambia 8 duration of the application process, the percentage of payments on hold for more than a certain num- 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 ber of weeks and months, the percentage of benefi- Percentage point increase ciaries recertified within the period established in the operations manual, the percentage of suspected Source: World Bank, based on a review of selected impact evaluation studies. cases of error and fraud that are investigated, and the Note: Percentage point increase in outcomes among program beneficiaries with respect to nonbeneficiaries (control group). percentage of conditionality compliance reports that Figure 4.12 Social safety nets have high multiplier effects 3 2.50 2.52 2.45 Income multiplier, U.S. dollars 2.23 2 1.84 1.73 1.79 1.81 1.50 1.34 1.35 1.40 1.34 1.36 1.26 1.23 1.08 1 0 Kenya Ethiopia Zimbabwe Zambia Kenya Lesotho Malawi Ghana Ethiopia (Nyanza) (Abi Adi) (Garissa) (Hintalo Wajirat) Country (province/region) NOMINAL MULTIPLIER EFFECT REAL MULTIPLIER EFFECT Sources: Tirivayi, Knowles, and Davis 2013. Data for Malawi from Davies and Davey 2008. Note: Multiplier effects refer to increases in local income for each dollar spent on social safety nets. Real multiplier effects are adjusted for inflation. 56 The State of Social Safety Nets 2015 are received on time, in the case of conditional cash 12. De Brauw and others 2012 (Brazil); Larranaga, Con- transfer (CCT) programs (Rubio 2012). treras, and Ruiz-Tagle 2012 (Chile); Alzúa, Cruces, and Ripani 2014 (Honduras, Mexico, and Nica- 3. The poor are defined as those belonging to the poor- ragua); Chaudhury, Friedman, and Onishi 2014 est quintile, relative to the national consumption/ (Philippines). income distribution. 13. The From Protection to Production (PtoP) project is 4. Categorical allowances and benefits use specific cat- a multicountry impact evaluation of cash transfers egories or population groups to define benefit eli- in Sub-Saharan Africa. The project is a collaborative gibility, such as a particular age group, geographic effort between the FAO, the UNICEF Eastern and location, gender, or demographic composition. Chil- Southern Africa Regional Office, and the govern- dren allowances and universal social pensions for cit- ments of Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, izens above a certain age are examples of categorical Zambia, and Zimbabwe. benefits. 14. Taylor and others 2014 (Zimbabwe); Thome, Taylor, 5. It is assumed that the welfare aggregate of a recipi- Kagin, and others 2014 (Ghana). ent household—in the absence of the program—falls 15. The Punjab Female School Stipend in Pakistan by the value of the transfer. To establish the impact (Alam, Baez, and Del Carpio 2011); Familias en of a safety protection program(s) on poverty, one Acción in Colombia (Baez and Camacho 2011); ought to compare poverty without the program(s) Red de Protección Social in Nicaragua (Barham and (“pre-transfer”), to poverty with it (“post-transfer”). others 2014); the INCAP Supplementation Pro- Then the transfer received under the program would gramme in Guatemala (Hoddinott and others 2008); need to be subtracted from the welfare aggregate and Juntos in Peru (Perova and Vakis 2012); Opor- the poverty measure would need to be recalculated to tunidades in Mexico (Gertler, Martinez, and Rubio- get a pre-transfer/program poverty measure. Com- Codina 2012); and the Jamaica Study in Jamaica paring the two poverty measures gives an estimate of (Walker and others 2011; Gertler and others 2013). the program’s poverty impact. 16. Measuring long-term impacts of social safety net 6. The search strategy focused on rigorous impact programs is often difficult. Many programs that evaluation studies of social safety net interventions are evaluated using experimental and quasi- (cash, in-kind transfer, public works) published as experimental methods make use of the fact that bud- journal articles, chapters in books, reports, or as get constraints force programs to be phased in over working papers. The search relied on existing impact time, allowing for the creation of a valid counterfac- evaluation databases, including 3IE’s Impact Evalu- tual. However, the scale-up of the program results in ation Repository, DIME’s IE Working Paper Series, the control group receiving treatment, therefore no and the World Bank’s Development Impact Blog longer becoming a valid counterfactual. series, among other publicly available sources. The analysis offered here is not meant to provide a com- 17. Chioda, De Mello, and Soares 2012; Hidrobo and prehensive review of the evidence; rather, it aims to others 2012; Walker and others 2011. summarize results from selected studies and illustrate the overall trend in the impact evaluation literature. References Importantly, the analysis focuses only on positive and Abramovsky, L., O. Attanasio, K. Barron, P. Carneiro, statistically significant impacts. The impact of safety and G. Stoye. 2014. “Challenges to Promoting nets can also be mixed, not statistically significant, or Social Inclusion of the Extreme Poor: Evidence even negative, indicating the need for comprehensive from a Large-Scale Experiment in Colombia.” IFS reviews of the evidence. Working Paper 14/33, Institute for Fiscal Studies, London. 7. Akresh, De Walque, and Kazianga 2013 (Burkina Faso); Martorano and Sanfilippo 2012 (Chile). Akresh, R., D. De Walque, and H. Kazianga. 2013. “Cash Transfers and Child Schooling: Evidence 8. Haushofer and Shapiro 2013 (Kenya); Seidenfeld, from a Randomized Evaluation of the Role of Con- Handa, and Tembo 2013 (Zambia); Braido, Olinto, ditionality.” Policy Research Working Paper 6340, and Perrone 2012 (Brazil); Hidrobo and others World Bank, Washington, DC. 2012 (Ecuador); Macours, Premand, and Vakis 2012 (Nicaragua); Dasso and Fernandez 2014 (Peru). Alam, Andaleeb, J. Baez, and X. Del Carpio. 2011. “Does Cash for School Influence Young Women’s 9. Merttens and others 2013 (Kenya); Daidone and Behavior in the Longer Term? Evidence from Paki- others 2014 (Lesotho); Gertler, Martinez, and Rubio- stan.” IZA Discussion Papers 5703, Institute for the Codina 2012 (Mexico); American Institutes for Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn. Research 2013 (Zambia). Alzúa, M. L., G. Cruces, and L. Ripani. 2014. “Welfare 10. Covarrubias, Davis, and Winters 2012 (Malawi); Programs and Labor Supply in Developing Coun- Seidenfeld and others 2014 (Zambia); Hoddinott and tries: Experimental Evidence from Latin America.” others 2012 (Ethiopia). Journal of Population Economics 26 (4): 1255–84. 11. Macours, Premand, and Vakis 2012 (Nicaragua); American Institutes for Research. 2013. Zambia’s Child Gertler, Martinez, and Rubio-Codina 2012 (Mexico); Grant Program: 24-Month Impact Report. Washing- Seidenfeld and others 2014 (Zambia). ton, DC: American Institutes for Research. Results and Evidence about Social Safety Nets 57 Attanasio, O., S. Cattan, E. Fitzsimons, C. Meghir, and Tanzania: Results from a Randomized Trial. Wash- M. Rubio-Codina. 2015. “Estimating the Produc- ington, DC: World Bank. tion Function for Human Capital: Results from a Evans, David K. and A. Popova. 2014. “Cash Trans- Randomized Control Trial in Colombia.” IZA Dis- fers and Temptation Goods: A Review of Global cussion Paper 8856, Institute for the Study of Labor Evidence.” Policy Research Working Paper 6886, (IZA), Bonn. World Bank, Washington, DC. Baez, J. E., and A. Camacho. 2011. “Assessing the Long- Ferré, C., and I. Sharif. 2014. “Can Conditional Cash Term Effects of Conditional Cash Transfers on Transfers Improve Education and Nutrition Out- Human Capital: Evidence from Colombia.” Policy comes for Poor Children in Bangladesh? Evidence Research Working Paper 5681, World Bank, Wash- from a Pilot Project.” Policy Research Working Pa- ington, DC. per 7077, World Bank, Washington, DC. Barham, T., K. Macours, J. A. Maluccio, F. Regalia, V. Gentilini, U. 2014. “Our Daily Bread: What Is the Evi- Aguilera, and M. E. Moncada. 2014. Assessing Long- dence on Comparing Cash versus Food Transfers?” Term Impacts of Conditional Cash Transfers on Chil- Social Protection and Labor Discussion Paper dren and Young Adults in Rural Nicaragua. Impact 1420, World Bank, Washington, DC. Evaluation Report 17. New Delhi: International Initiative for Impact Evaluation. Gertler, P. J., J. Heckman, R. Pinto, A. Zanolini, C. Vermeersch, and S. Walker. 2013. “Labor Market Barker, M., D. Filmer, and J. Rigolini. 2015. Evaluat- Returns to Early Childhood Stimulation: A 20- ing Food versus Cash Assistance in Rural Cambodia. Year Follow-Up to an Experimental Intervention in Washington, DC: World Bank. Jamaica.” NBER Working Paper 19185, National Braido, L. H., P. Olinto, and H. Perrone. 2012. “Gender Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. Bias in Intrahousehold Allocation: Evidence from Gertler, P. J., S. W. Martinez, and M. Rubio-Codina. an Unintentional Experiment.” Review of Econom- 2012. “Investing Cash Transfers to Raise Long-Term ics and Statistics 94 (2): 552–65. Living Standards.” American Economic Journal: Chaudhury, N., J. Friedman, and J. Onishi. 2014. Phil- Applied Economics 4 (1): 164–92. ippines Conditional Cash Transfer Program: Impact Haushofer, J., and J. Shapiro. 2013. Household Response Evaluation 2012. Washington, DC: World Bank. to Income Changes: Evidence from an Unconditional Chioda, L., J. M. De Mello, and R. R. Soares. 2012. Cash Transfer Program in Kenya. Massachusetts Spillovers from Conditional Cash Transfer Programs: Institute of Technology. http://www.princeton.edu Bolsa Família and Crime in Urban Brazil. World /~joha/publications/Haushofer_Shapiro_UCT Bank, Washington, DC. _2013.pdf. Covarrubias, K., B. Davis, and P. Winters. 2012. “From Hidrobo, M., J. Hoddinott, A. Margolies, V. Moreira, Protection to Production: Productive Impacts of and A. Peterman. 2012. Impact Evaluation of Cash, the Malawi Social Cash Transfer Scheme.” Journal Food Vouchers, and Food Transfers among Colom- of Development Effectiveness 4 (1): 50–77. bian Refugees and Poor Ecuadorians in Carchi and Sucumbíos. Washington, DC: International Food Cunha, J. M. 2014. “Testing Paternalism: Cash versus Policy Research Institute. In-kind Transfers.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 6 (2): 195–230. Hoddinott, J., G. Berhane, D. O. Gilligan, N. Kumar, and A. S. Taffesse. 2012. “The Impact of Ethiopia’s Daidone, S., B. Davis, J. Dewbre, and K. Covvarubias. Productive Safety Net Programme and Related 2014. Lesotho’s Child Grant Programme: 24-Month Transfers on Agricultural Productivity.” Journal of Impact Report on Productive Activities and African Economies 21 (5): 761–86. Labour Allocation. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization. Hoddinott, J., J. A. Maluccio, J. R. Behrman, R. Flores, and R. Martorell. 2008. “Effect of a Nutrition Inter- Dasso, R., and F. Fernandez. 2014. Temptation Goods vention during Early Childhood on Economic Pro- and Conditional Cash Transfers in Peru. Washing- ductivity in Guatemalan Adults.” The Lancet 371 ton, DC: International Food and Policy Research (9610): 411–16. Institute. Jung, H., and A. Hasan. 2014. “The Impact of Early Davies, S., and J. Davey. 2008. “A Regional Multiplier Childhood Education on Early Achievement Gaps: Approach to Estimating the Impact of Cash Trans- Evidence from the Indonesia Early Childhood Ed- fers on the Market: The Case of Cash Transfers in ucation and Development (ECED) Project.” Policy Rural Malawi.” Development Policy Review 26 (1): Research Working Paper 6794, World Bank, Wash- 91–111. ington, DC. De Brauw, A., D. Gilligan, J. Hoddinott, V. Moreira, and Kagin, J., E. Taylor, F. Alfani, and B. Davis. 2014. Local S. Roy. 2012. The Impact of Bolsa Familia on Child, Economy-wide Impact Evaluation (LEWIE) of Ethi- Maternal, and Household Welfare. Washington, DC: opia’s Social Cash Transfer Pilot Programme. Rome: International Food Policy Resarch Institute. Food and Agriculture Organization. Evans, D., S. Hausladen, K. Kosec, and N. Reese. 2014. Larranaga O., D. Contreras, and J. Ruiz-Tagle. 2012. Community-Based Conditional Cash Transfers in “Impact Evaluation of Chile Solidario: Lessons and 58 The State of Social Safety Nets 2015 Policy Recommendations.” Journal of Latin Ameri- Rubio, G. M. 2012. “Building Results Frameworks for can Studies 44 (02): 347–72. Safety Nets Projects.” Social Protection and Labor Discussion Paper 73703, World Bank, Washington, Macours, K., P. Premand, and R. Vakis. 2012. “Trans- DC. fers, Diversification and Household Risk Strategies: Experimental Evidence with Lessons for Climate Seidenfeld, D., S. Handa, and G. Tembo. 2013. Change Adaptation.” Policy Research Working 24-Month Impact Report for the Child Grant Pro- Paper 6053, World Bank, Washington, DC. gramme. Ministry of Community Development, Mother and Child Health, Government of Zambia. Martorano, B., and M. Sanfilippo.  2012. “Innovative Features in Conditional Cash Transfers: An Im- Seidenfeld, D., S. Handa, G. Tembo, S. Michelo, C. pact Evaluation of Chile Solidario on Households Harland Scott, and L. Prencipe. 2014. The Impact and Children.” Innocenti Working Paper 2012-03, of an Unconditional Cash Transfer on Food Security UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence, and Nutrition: The Zambia Child Grant Programme. Italy. Brighton, U.K.: Institute of Development Studies. Meller, M., and S. Litschig. 2014. “Saving Lives: Evi- Taylor, E., K. Thome, B. Davis, D. Seidenfeld, and S. dence from a Conditional Food Supplementation Handa. 2014. Evaluating Local General Equilibrium Program.” Journal of Human Resources 49 (4): Impacts of Zimbabwe’s Harmonized Social Cash 1014–52. Transfer Programme. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization. Merttens, F., A. Hurrell, M. Marzi, R. Attah, M. Farhat, A. Kardan, and I. MacAuslan. 2013. Kenya Hunger Thome, K., J. Taylor, B. Davis, S. Handa, D. Seidenfeld, Safety Net Programme Monitoring and Evaluation and G. Tembo. 2014. Local Economy-wide Impact Component. Impact Evaluation Final Report: 2009 Evaluation (LEWIE) of Zambia’s Child Grant Pro- to 2012. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford Policy Management gramme. PtoP Project Report. Food and Agricul- Limited. ture Organization, UNICEF, and the World Bank. Orbeta Jr., A., A. Abdon, M. del Mundo, M. Tutor, Thome, K., J. E. Taylor, J. Kagin, B. Davis, R. Osei Darko, M. T. Valera, and D. Yarcia. 2014. Keeping Children and I. Osei-Akoto. 2014. Local Economy-wide Im- Healthy and in School: Evaluating the Pantawid pact Evaluation (LEWIE) of Ghana’s Livelihood Pamilya Using Regression Discontinuity Design Sec- Empowerment against Poverty (LEAP) Programme. ond Wave Impact Evaluation Results. Washington, Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization. DC: World Bank. Tirivayi, N., M. Knowles, and B. Davis. 2013. The In- Osei-Akoto, I., S. Bawakyillenuo, G. Owusu, E. Larbi teraction between Social Protection and Agriculture: Offei, C. Yaw Okyere, and I. Komla Agbelie. 2014. A Review of Evidence. Rome: Food and Agriculture Short-Term Impact Evaluation Report: Labour- Organization. Intensive Public Works (LIPW) of Ghana Social Op- Walker, S. P., S. M. Chang, M. Vera-Hernandez, and portunities Project (GSOP). Institute of Statistical, S. Grantham-McGregor. 2011. “Early Childhood Social and Economic Research (ISSER), University Stimulation Benefits Adult Competence and Re- of Ghana. duces Violent Behavior.” Pediatrics 127 (5): 849–57. Pellerano, L., M. Moratti, M. Jakobsen, M. Bajgar, and World Bank. 2011. Program Keluarga Harapan: Main V. Barca. 2014. Child Grants Programme Impact Findings from the Impact Evaluation of Indonesia’s Evaluation. Follow-Up Report. Oxford Policy Man- Pilot Household Conditional Cash Transfer Pro- agement for the European Union, UNICEF, and the gram. Washington, DC: World Bank. Food and Agriculture Organization. Perova, E., and R. Vakis. 2012. 5 Years in Juntos: New Evidence on the Program’s Short- and Long-Term Weblinks Impacts. Economía 35 (69): 53–82. ASPIRE (The Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of Resilience and Equity), World Bank, www.world Rawat, R., E. Faust, J. A. Maluccio, and S. Kadiyala. bank.org/aspire/. 2014. “The Impact of a Food Assistance Program on Nutritional Status, Disease Progression, and DIME’s IE Working Paper Series, http://go.worldbank Food Security among People Living with HIV in .org/69LQQAL850. Uganda.” Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency 3IE’s Impact Evaluation Repository, http://www.3ie Syndromes 66 (1): e15–22. impact.org/evidence/impact-evaluations/. Rosas, N., and S. Sabarwal. 2014. Opportunity and Re- World Bank’s Development Impact Blog Series, http:// silience: Do Public Works Have It All? Evidence from blogs.worldbank.org/impactevaluations/. a Randomized Evaluation in Sierra Leone. Washing- ton, DC: World Bank. Results and Evidence about Social Safety Nets 59 Highlight 4. Using Cash Transfers to Promote Early Childhood Development S trengthening linkages between cash transfers and early childhood development (ECD) can be a win-win. Promoting early childhood development can help cash transfer programs achieve their core objectives of protecting the most vulnerable, fostering investments in human capital, and reducing the intergenerational transmission of poverty. At the same time, cash transfer programs can help scale up early childhood development services. Cash transfer programs can serve as effective vehicles for promoting early childhood nutri- tion, health, and development, in addition to their more traditional role of providing income support to the poor and vulnerable. Where ECD services exist, cash transfer programs can help households overcome barriers to access, for instance, by making the transfers conditional on health visits, growth monitoring sessions, or attendance in preschool. Cash transfer programs can also help encourage changes in parenting practices to promote early childhood nutrition, psychosocial stimulation, or health. For instance, programs can package unconditional cash transfers with parenting information for caregivers. A growing number of safety net programs are using accompanying measures to achieve these objectives. Cash transfer programs can serve as effective vehicles for promoting early childhood nutrition, health, and development. Cash transfer programs with strong accompanying measures can improve ECD outcomes by fostering behavioral changes among parents. This approach is particularly relevant for low- income countries, where existing ECD services are limited and where targeted cash transfers provide a primary (and often the only) vehicle for reaching poor and vulnerable households. Accompanying measures can include a range of social marketing, community-based, or home- visit activities to encourage psychosocial stimulation or growth-promotion practices by par- ents. In Bangladesh, for example, the Shombob pilot program significantly reduced the inci- dence of wasting among children who were 10–22 months old when the program started (Ferré and Sharif 2014). The program was a cash transfer intervention, conditional on regular growth monitoring of children aged 0–36 months. Participation in monthly nutrition-related sessions by mothers of young children was encouraged, although not mandatory. The pilot was also able to improve nutrition knowledge among mothers, including in relation to the importance of exclusive breastfeeding. Other countries are testing similar approaches, including Burkina Faso, Djibouti, Mali, and Niger. In West Africa, many countries are delivering unconditional cash transfers with accom- panying ECD measures. For instance, in Niger, the national safety net program is implementing an unconditional cash transfer with a range of accompanying measures aimed at encouraging parenting practices conducive to early childhood development. (World Bank 2013). The behav- ioral change component explicitly focuses on improving nutrition, psychosocial stimulation, 60 60 The State of Social Safety Nets 2015 health, and sanitation practices. Implementation is contracted out to nongovernmental orga- nizations (NGOs), which deliver activities based on a curriculum and implementation strategy developed by the government. Each beneficiary household participates in up to three activities per month over 18 months: a village assembly delivered by a NGO operator; a small-group meeting delivered by a community educator; and a home-visit delivered by the community educator. Participation in the three activities is close to 95 percent. A large number of non- beneficiaries also participate, creating strong social dynamics around the program. Accompanying measures to promote ECD are also being implemented in middle-income countries. In Indonesia, the conditional cash transfer (CCT) program Keluarga Harapan (PKH) covers 3 million poor families nationwide. The program not only provides cash, but also pro- vides beneficiary mothers with skills. Training modules seek to promote sustainable behavioral changes in relation to early childhood education and parenting practices, and extend to such topics as family finances or microenterprises. The training modules are given during monthly meetings that CCT beneficiaries have at the local level, over three years. Messages are harmo- nized through the use of videos that represent daily situations of a typical CCT family. References Ferré, C., and I. Sharif. 2014. “Can Conditional Cash Transfers Improve Education and Nutrition Out- comes for Poor Children in Bangladesh? Evidence from a Pilot Project.” Policy Research Working Paper 7077, World Bank, Washington, DC. World Bank. 2013. http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2013/11/05/niger-invests-in-early -childhood-through-social-safety-nets. Results and Evidence about Social Safety Nets 61 61 Sp ec ial Section 5. Fe at ure Social Safety Nets in Urban Areas: Emerging Issues and Practices I n 2007, the world reached the tipping point that, on average, 28 percent of the rural popu- Poverty whereby the urban population outstripped lation is covered by a social safety net program, that of rural areas.1 Currently, 3.9 billion peo- while 25 percent of the urban population ben- is rapidly ple, or 54 percent of the global population, efits from these programs (figure 5.1). In con- urbanizing. live in urban settings. The share is expected to trast, the coverage of social insurance schemes There is growing increase to 66 percent by 2050, when an addi- and labor market programs is almost three times tional 2.4 billion people are projected to live in higher in urban settings than in rural areas. interest in the cities. Nearly 90 percent of them may be con- However, in either urban or rural areas, labor role that targeted centrated in Asia and Africa, with about half of market programs cover less than 4 percent of social safety such an increase occurring in just six countries: the population. nets can play to China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, There are variations in coverage of social safety India, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Pakistan. nets, depending on country income status and reduce urban The process of urbanization and the process of region. The rate of coverage of the urban poor- poverty and development are closely intertwined. Urbaniza- est quintile in upper-middle-income countries address emerging tion is the result of the spatial concentration of (57.3 percent) is three times higher than that people, economic activities, and physical infra- in low-income countries (18.9 percent). While vulnerabilities. structure. This concentration can spark various differences between urban and rural coverage of benefits because of the so-called agglomeration the bottom quintile exist across country groups, economies. Cities generate about 65 percent urban and rural coverage in lower-middle- of global gross domestic product (GDP), with income countries are almost identical (figure the world’s 300 largest metropolitan economies 5.2). However, the difference amounts to about accounting for nearly half of global growth in 8.5 percentage points in low-income countries. 2014. People tend to move to and live in urban As a “first generation” of urban social safety areas to pursue economic upward mobility, net programs is emerging, countries are fol- access better services, and enhance their quality lowing different pathways in introducing and of life. expanding programs. Evidence from those early Yet urbanization does not automatically trans- experiences points to the different and complex late into development. For instance, an estimated nature of urban poverty, as well as a range of 863 million people live in precarious settlements patterns in the introduction and scale-up of or slums, lacking access to basic water and sani- social safety nets in cities. These include varia- tation services. In more than half of developing tions in whether to start first in urban or rural countries for which data are available, urban areas, whether to adjust the design to urban youth-to-adult unemployment ratios are higher contexts, and whether to use a national system than in rural areas. The number of urban poor that will span urban and rural settings. living on less than US$1.25/day—or some 285 In some contexts, national programs cover million people—has remained steady over the both urban and rural areas, with some design past quarter-century, while rural poverty num- variants between those contexts. Within this bers have declined sharply. Estimates based on group, some countries have gradually built on national poverty lines show that in about one- mature rural social safety net programs and third of developing countries, the number of transitioned them into urban areas. For exam- urban poor is higher than those in rural settings. Residential patterns, social networks, occupa- tional concentration, and social norms operate Main Messages for Section 5 differently in urban areas, leading to new forms of social exclusion. To put it simply, poverty is • Urban poverty is complex and dynamic, and presents urbanizing and it is doing so rapidly (see high- specific features that require that social safety net inter- light 5, on understanding urban poverty). ventions be tailored to specific local urban contexts. Against this backdrop, countries are increas- • The coverage of the poor in urban areas is lower than in ingly recognizing the need for more inclusive rural settings. The difference amounts to about 8.5 per- urbanization pathways. As systems to address centage points in low-income countries. urban poverty are reimagined, there is growing • Emerging urban social safety net programs are starting to interest in the role that targeted social safety nets adapt to urban contexts, although more practical learning, can play in urban areas. Preliminary estimates experimentation, and knowledge exchange are needed. from household surveys in 98 countries show 63 Figure 5.1 Coverage of social safety nets is out in 1997–98. Other countries have followed lower in urban areas than in rural settings, but an opposite pattern, commencing programs in urban dwellers are better covered by social urban contexts and expanding them to rural insurance and labor market programs Percent of population covered by social protection areas. In China, for example, the uncondi- and labor programs tional cash transfer (UCT) Dibao was formally 30 adopted in 1997–99 following several years of piloting at the local level. Urban Dibao benefi- Coverage of total population 25 ciaries rose from 0.85 million in 1996 to 21.4 in 2013. In 2007, the rural version was launched, 20 making the program national and covering a total of 74.5 million people. 15 In other contexts, large-scale programs may 10 cover both urban and rural areas, but they may not envision major design adjustments 5 across rural to urban spaces. This is the case for most countries in Europe and Central Asia, for 0 Social Social Labor Brazil’s Bolsa Familia, and for the Public Food safety nets insurance market Distribution System in India. In some cases, Type of program, urban and rural areas however, urban areas may present a different URBAN RURAL set of linkages to complementary interven- tions (such as productive inclusion measures Source: ASPIRE. Note: Coverage rates refer to the percent of total population in urban Brazil) or offer the opportunity to test receiving social safety nets, social insurance, and labor market programs. Aggregate statistics are based on countries with innovations (such as delivery of food entitle- information on social safety net programs and urban-rural area of ments in urban Raipur, India). residence (98 countries). In most low-income countries, social safety nets tend to be mainly rural. Yet in some cases, Figure 5.2 The urban poor are less covered by programs have been launched in urban areas, social safety nets than are the rural poor such as the cash-based Programa Subsidio de Percent of households in the poorest quintile covered by social safety net programs Alimentos in Mozambique and the Food Subsidy Program in Kenya. Other countries, such as Ethi- Coverage of the poor (poorest quintile) 80 opia and Mali, have started or planned to imple- 70 ment urban social safety nets, leveraging their 60 years of experience with rural interventions. 50 Yet as countries roll out their first generation of programs, the initial performance has tended 40 to be lower than expected, including in terms 30 of coverage. This result could stem from several 20 factors. For example, while poverty is increas- 10 ingly concentrated in urban areas, rural settings 0 may still be prioritized in social safety net cov- Low- Lower- Upper- High- erage, especially on the basis of higher preva- income middle- middle- income income income lence of poverty in those areas (that is, urban areas may have larger numbers of poor people, Type of program, urban and rural areas but lower rates of poverty). In other cases, there URBAN RURAL might be a perception that social safety nets may Source: ASPIRE. Note: Coverage rates refer to the percent of poor receiving any social not be needed or appropriate in urban areas, safety net transfer. The poor are defined as those households in the chiefly because of more vibrant labor markets. poorest quintile of the national consumption/income distribution. Aggregate statistics are based on countries with information on Yet the poorest individuals tend to have precari- social safety net programs and urban-rural area of residence (98 countries). ous, low-paying, and informal jobs. At the same time, active labor market programs to boost ple, in Mexico about 40 percent of the beneficia- employability have often found it challenging to ries of the Prospera (formerly Oportunidades) match labor market needs with the aspirations, program live in urban and peri-urban areas, capabilities, and profiles of the poorest. More- up from 7 percent at the early stages of roll- over, a sizable share of the portfolio of interven- 64 The State of Social Safety Nets 2015 tions for urban poverty tends to fall under the to vary significantly in accounting practices and remit of urban planning and development, such their capacity to deliver services. Cities, prov- as slum upgrading programs. Those essential inces, and municipalities may each have their and critical interventions have focused on the own programs, which may not necessarily be engineering of urban infrastructure (includ- consistent with national schemes. While this ing drainage, water supply, and public sanita- challenge may be compelling for rural areas as tion facilities), and arguably have yielded more well, the spatial proximity and concentration limited direct impacts on the “people” side of those administrative entities and functions of the poverty equation. Furthermore, large- in urban contexts amplifies the need for coor- scale subsidy schemes, especially those that are dination among them. Limited analytical work food- and energy-based, have been popular in has been conducted to document and appraise urban areas. In the East Asia and Pacific region, the nature and scale of urban social safety net those interventions account for over 50 percent interventions available at different governmen- of total social assistance programs. Yet the dis- tal levels. tributional impact of such measures is consid- The issue of financing arrangements for erably regressive, with limited benefits accruing urban social safety nets is closely related to to the poorest segments of the urban populace. institutional set-ups. For example, in China the In most cases, however, it is the techncial urban Dibao program provides means-tested design and implementation of programs that UCTs to over 20 million people. In the mid- may pose special performance challenges. For 1990s, the program envisioned mixed financing instance, a range of technical hurdles, such as responsibilities between enterprises and local the fluid expansion and contraction of poor governments. The situation changed over time, urban informal settlements over time, has sti- with the share of central transfers increasing fled an effective identification of the urban from 29 percent in 1999 to 65 percent in 2012, poor. Even when prospective beneficiaries are including supporting the poorest provinces. identified “on paper,” it is challenging to reach Central transfers also vary significantly between and communicate with them about available provinces. The richer coastal provinces—where programs. And even when people are reached, many rural migrant workers flock—receive no programs may not be attractive enough to off- central budgetary allocations. In contrast, both set relatively high urban opportunity costs. The central and western provinces receive central result may be limited program enrollment and budgetary allocations. As China is now experi- take-up. The discussion that follows considers menting with relaxing its hukou system,2 those how some of those issues are emerging from financing arrangements would become an recent country practices, drawing on experi- important part of the debate around if and how ences from a dozen countries that have exper- to support poor rural migrants currently not imented with social safety net programs of dif- eligible for Dibao in cities where they live and ferent size, form, and stage of maturity. work. Governance and financing can become While policy makers tend to place a stron- particularly complex as programs enter large ger emphasis on service delivery across sec- metropolitan areas. For example, when Famil- tors, skills transfer, and interventions that ias in Acción was expanded to cities through- encourage beneficiaries to “graduate” from out Colombia, local authorities in Bogotá did the service in urban areas, the institutional not introduce Familias; the program was not framework that could underpin these dimen- operated through the mayor’s office, as in other sions is generally fragmented. To be effective, cities, but was instead managed by the federal approaches to urban poverty should work in government. The limited coordination with the many dimensions at many levels. This requires mayor’s office became a key constraint of the a significant degree of integration among insti- program. Challenges in devising clear respon- tutions, government levels, and public-private sibilities between government lines in urban partnerships. In practice, however, roles and areas might be particularly difficult in contexts responsibilities are often unclear and spread where such roles are blurred and capacities lim- across multiple actors. In India, for example, ited, as in a number of low-income countries. urban health spans four ministries and nutri- The measurement of urban poverty is impor- tion spans six, with multiple levels involved tant for both fiscal allocations and program within each. In particular, municipalities tend design. The assessment and identification of Social Safety Nets in Urban Areas: Emerging Issues and Practices 65 poor areas and poor people constitutes the cen- percent of PATI beneficiaries belong to the two tral information base upon which programs are poorest income quintiles. In a number of cases, designed and fiscal allocation criteria are deter- the experience and local knowledge of nongov- mined. Hence it is very important that poverty ernmental organizations has been a precious be appropriately conceptualized, defined, and asset for targeting beneficiaries and mobilizing measured. The assessment of urban poverty communities. This was the case in an urban often includes metrics for employment status, voucher program in two cities in Burkino Faso, education levels, and housing proxies, as in Ouagadougou and Bobo Dioulasso, although Romania. In El Salvador, such dimensions were the applicability of the approach for larger-scale integrated with security and crime-related vari- programs could be limited. In other programs, ables. In particular, an Urban Poverty and Social adjustments have been made to targeting proto- Exclusion Map was devised through rigorous cols to reach special profiles, such as street fam- statistical and geospatial analysis based on the ilies in Manila. Considerations such as these population and housing censuses. By producing have raised new challenges to targeting, such as geo-referenced data at the level of individual city the identification of urban “poverty hotspots” blocks, the map could be used to identify precar- where people could be found only at night (to ious urban settlements (or AUPs, in their Span- sleep) and places that may not be reported in ish-language acronym) where the Programa de administrative maps (such as streets lacking Apoyo Temporal al Ingreso (PATI) social safety names). net program could be implemented (map 5.1). A recurrent question is whether and how to Generally, urban programs use multiple tar- adapt proxy-means test (PMT) approaches for geting methods to select and prioritize poten- targeting in urban contexts. Country case stud- tial beneficiaries. In the case of PATI, the inter- ies show that both PMT coefficients and their vention provides temporary income support weights may need to be tailored to urban spec- (US$100/month for 6 months) to vulnerable ificities. For example, in Mexico in the rural urban populations in exchange for their partici- formula, remittances have twice the weight as pation in both physical labor activities and skills in urban areas, and not having a refrigerator training programs. The program combines geo- has three times the weight. In contrast, in the graphical targeting (identifying AUPs) with self- urban formula, renting a living space has twice selection, mechanisms to prioritize partici- the weight as in rural areas, likely reflecting the pants, and community validation of participa- higher share of expenditure for urban housing. tion. Impact evaluations show that about 72 The treatment of housing conditions also varies, Map 5.1 The Programa de Apoyo Temporal al Ingreso (PATI) in El Salvador is implemented in precarious urban settlements a. Precarious urban settlements in San Salvador, El Salvador b. Enlarged view of zip code 01 area, San Salvador Source: Gentilini, forthcoming. Note: Precarious urban settlements are shown in yellow and orange. 66 The State of Social Safety Nets 2015 with the floor condition having nearly twice the duced in 1997 in rural areas. Starting in 2001, weight in rural areas. In Mozambique, urban it was gradually expanded in phases in urban PMT formulas have a number of additional areas of different sizes. Within selected urban variables, such as having a computer or elec- communities, an extensive information cam- tricity, which are strong indicators of wealth, paign preceded the registration process. This though less prevalent in rural areas, where elec- was followed by a temporary establishment of tricity is a weaker predictor of welfare. Another a program office in each locality, where indi- frequently raised issue is reaching households vidual households could register for the pro- with characteristics that are seldom captured in gram. Households that were deemed eligible PMT models—not what kind of materials their were then visited at home to verify this infor- house is made of, but whether they have a house mation; they then had to visit the program’s at all (the homeless or street families). To cap- office to receive the results of their application. ture such households, a modified version of the As a result, only 51 percent of eligible urban Philippines’ conditional cash transfer (CCT) households enrolled in the program in the program Pantawid was devised to address the initial phase. Consequently, program officials specific profile of homeless households. The revisited how to reach potential participants, pilot, now underway, is designed to integrate such as full-day poor working mothers and street families into the flagship CCT program, those living in highly populated areas. Given while providing a complementary package of beneficiaries’ higher mobility and opportunity interventions, including housing and livelihood costs, processes were put in place to reduce measures. the time needed to enroll in the program (for After targeted populations have been iden- example, using a short prescreening interview tified, a number of conditions must be met to called Cedula Urbana). A social intermediation ensure program take-up by prospective ben- service (Modelo de Atención Personalizada de eficiaries. A key lesson is the need for exten- Oportunidades) was introduced to reach out sive communications and outreach tailored to directly to potential beneficiaries, providing urban communities. Television and radio spots personalized service to navigate the social pro- are useful—but not if the poor lack access to tection system, and establishing a relationship TVs or radios. For instance, Brazil included a of trust and support—an approach pioneered range of informal information dissemination and widely used in the Chile Solidario program. mechanisms, such as local associations, loud- Similarly, as Colombia’s Familias en Acción speakers, and churches. Registration sites must CCT program was introduced in Bogotá, ini- also be accessible. If they cannot be reached tial enrollment levels were significantly lower easily because of distance, poor public trans- than expected. About two-thirds of surveyed port, safety, or other reasons, prospective ben- households did not apply. Reasons included eficiaries will not be able to apply. In other that prospective beneficiaries were unfamiliar cases, illiterate individuals who are unable to with program benefits; did not know that they complete forms may simply not apply for ben- could register; and did not have time to reg- efits to which they are entitled. For example, ister because they held multiple jobs. Among South Africa has addressed this concern for those who attempted to enroll, about half did its Old Age and Child Support Grants through not manage to do so because of insufficient the use of local community committees that knowledge of eligibility criteria (figure 5.3). To help prospective beneficiaries—such as elderly address low take-up rates, part of the strategy widows—with the application process. The was a month-long, large-scale registration pro- United States has introduced similar mecha- cess that established new locations where indi- nisms for its main social safety net, the Supple- viduals could learn more about the program mental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and register.3 including supporting the urban elderly, whose An interesting pattern emerging across coun- enrollment rates are up to 20 percentage points tries is the tendency to combine social safety lower than average participation. nets with complementary labor-related inter- Early experiences underscore the importance ventions. In urban areas, there is growing inter- of learning and ensuring operational flexibility est in leveraging social safety nets to enhance to adjust design and processes. For example, the the employability of the poor, including through Mexican Oportunidades program was intro- wage or self-employment. The PATI program Social Safety Nets in Urban Areas: Emerging Issues and Practices 67 Figure 5.3 Problems with the initial enrollment process of the Familias Program in Bogotá prevented most people from enrolling Why not? (main reasons) Yes: 33.7% Managed to Not in SISBEN I: 30.6% enroll? Didn’t meet other criteria: 15.6% No: 46.6% Long length of process: 7.3% Tried to enroll? Why not? (main reasons) No: 66.2% Not aware of program benefits: 35.8% Believed not entitled to enroll: 29.2% Had no time: 6.7% Source: Gentilini, forthcoming. Note: Data refer to 2011. SISBEN I = Sistema de Identificación de Beneficiarios de Subsidios Sociales (system of identification for social subsidies beneficiaries). in El Salvador is one example, although similar nessed, including supporting unskilled approaches are being taken in Ghana, Latvia, urban migrants, assisting subsistence entre- and the Philippines, and are a key institutional preneurs, and providing childcare for full- innovation in more mature programs in Argen- day working mothers? tina, Brazil, and Mexico. Yet experience remains • What is the cross-country experience and limited, especially in Africa and Asia. For exam- evidence regarding social protection for ple, a recent review of 106 small-scale self- temporary and long-term intra-country employment interventions found only a hand- migrants? ful of programs that are specifically targeted to • What is the role of social safety nets in sup- urban areas. These show some promising results porting urban strategies to reduce violence, in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Kenya, the Lao People’s integrate service delivery, or assist people Democratic Republic, and Liberia, yet they also living in areas with unclear land tenure? underscore the challenge of tailoring interven- • What is the experience with institutional tions to the specific skills, aptitudes, and social and financing arrangements of local and capital of informal, poor subsistence entrepre- central governments involved with social neurs, as opposed to more successful vocational protection in cities? ones. • How can civil society and communities Altogether, these preliminary considerations strengthen voice and accountability of suggest that an agenda is only just emerging for administrations involved in social safety using social safety nets to help tackle urban pov- nets in cities, as well as strengthen partner- erty. Interest and know-how about social safety ships with the public and private sectors? nets are growing, but the role of social safety nets in urban areas—and within the urbaniza- In many ways, approaches to urban social tion process more widely—remains a complex, safety nets epitomize the science of delivery. dynamic, and largely uncharted domain. As While some countries are institutionalizing such, it is raising a range of strategic questions, mature urban programs, most are undergoing including the following: an iterative process of experimentation, learn- ing, and organic adaptation. The agenda of • What are the synergies and trade-offs making social safety nets more “spatially sensi- between social protection, urban develop- tive” includes positioning social safety net pro- ment, social services, and economic agen- grams within a broader framework for inclu- das in cities? sive cities where infrastructure, economic, and • How can social safety net programs be social spheres all interact. This would include more closely integrated with compelling a better understanding not only of design and urban development activities, such as slum delivery choices, but also of how social protec- upgrading, housing policy, and urban tion can enhance the policy and institutional resilience? synergies with urban development, labor, and • How can the links between urban social other social sector agendas as part of efforts to protection and economic agendas be har- make cities more inclusive. 68 The State of Social Safety Nets 2015 Notes Reference 1. This section draws heavily on Gentilini (forthcoming) Gentilini, U. Forthcoming. “Safety Nets in Urban and the sources therein. Areas: Emerging Issues, Evidence and Practices,” World Bank, Washington, DC. 2. Hukou is the institutional mechanism that, among other functions, ties Dibao to place of origin rather than residency. 3. Low coverage in Bogotá could also be the result of the competition between national-level and district-level supply of social protection programs. Social Safety Nets in Urban Areas: Emerging Issues and Practices 69 Highlight 5. Understanding Urban Poverty U rban poverty exhibits some peculiar characteristics that generate new sources of vulnerability and poverty profiles, such as higher physical and income mobility, even among the poorest households.1 In Indonesia, for instance, about 20 percent of households that were initially surveyed in urban areas could not be found in the same residence six months later. These mobile urban groups often do not have permanent places of residence and tend to be migrant workers. In urban Mexico, only 7 percent of households that were extremely poor in 2002 remained so in 2007. Yet chronic poverty persists in urban contexts. For instance, in Latin America, a sizable number of urban people were living on less than US$4/day in 2004 and 2012, preliminary evidence indicates. In Brazil, for every one chronically poor person in rural areas, there are two who live in urban areas. The wider availability of short-term employment means that the urban “working poor” face opportunity and transaction costs to participate in safety net programs. For instance, in Lima and Rio de Janeiro, most of the poor live 30–40 kilometers from employment hubs, and commute on average 3 hours a day. In Montevideo, residents living in slums outside the city cite the lack of access to public transport as a major constraint to accessing jobs. In Kampala, many motorized transport options are unaffordable for the poor, with transport fares absorbing 41 percent of incomes for the poorest 20 percent of the population (70 percent of urban workers in Kampala walk to work). In Mexico, children and youth may prefer to take public transport to school to avoid street violence, rather than to walk or take school buses, cutting into household income. Also for safety reasons, residents in low-income areas of Dar es Salaam spend between 10 percent and 30 percent of their income on transport. The complex nature of urban poverty presents opportunities and challenges in designing and implementing social safety nets in urban areas. Insecurity, crime, gender-based domestic violence, and intergenerational conflict tend to loom large in urban settings and generate social and economic costs. An estimated 30 percent of hospi- tal admissions in Latin America are the result of urban violence, while the associated health costs account for up to 5 percent of GDP in Colombia. Living in informal settlements is reported as a key source of anxiety of the poor, including daily fears of violence and abuse. The overcrowding of poor-quality housing in marginal areas, including clustering in risky locations (such as along river banks and railway yards), often perpetuates marginalization, vulnerability to climate hazards, discrimination, and neighborhood stigma. For example, a unique 30-year longitudinal study from Brazil shows that living in a favela is the most widely perceived stigmatizing factor among 96 per- cent of the interviewed households. As a favela dweller in Sao Paulo put it in the Voices of the Poor report, “. . . one day a company called me for a job, but when they realized I lived in Bode [a favela] they changed their minds, thinking that I was one of those marginais they couldn’t trust.” The cost of living in urban areas, including for food and housing, can be considerably higher than in rural settings. For example, simulations of Mexico show that the transfer amount needed to fully compensate for the labor market income of 16-year-olds would mean quadrupling the size paid by most conditional cash transfers. In urban Nepal, dwellers spend about 28 percent of their income on housing, while rural households spend about four times less. The poorest are more likely to rent than the better off. For example, in Kampala 78 percent of households in the poorest quintile 70 The State of Social Safety Nets 2015 rent, compared with 63 percent in the richest quintile. Although poor urban and rural households generally devote a similar share of income on food, often in the range of 60–75 percent of the house- hold budget, the urban poor obtain food almost entirely through market-based transactions. While urban dwellers are more likely to be shielded from seasonal fluctuations in domestic commodity prices, they tend to be more exposed to global food price volatility. Moreover, the nutrition transi- tion in urban diets toward higher calories, fats, and prepared foods introduces new forms of health and nutrition risks, including obesity and cardiovascular diseases. Unlike rural areas, cities tend to generate more limited community arrangements, social net- works, and support mechanisms. Especially in new settlements and slums, barriers such as different languages, lack of family connections, and the dynamic in-and-out flow of temporary migrants, for example, can create substantial pockets of social exclusion and marginalization. This does not mean that informal networks are nonexistent; they are often strong, though they may take on specific characteristics. In Ethiopia, for the example, the idir system, a way for people to provide help and mutual support, is widely present in urban contexts, alongside mechanisms of mutual support among clusters of migrants. These informal urban mechanisms are seldom considered for social protection programming. The rapid expansion of cities, as well as the management of densities within them, requires institutions that manage land effectively and strategically. These include a transparent system to convert land use, a clear definition of property rights, a robust mechanism to value land and property, and a strong judicial system. However, the capacity to formulate, oversee, and enforce standards is generally limited in developing countries, often leading to haphazard urbaniza- tion patterns. For example, in Colombia about 1,100 municipal governments are responsible for delivery of infrastructure and social services, land use, and economic development planning. Their accounting practices and their capacity to deliver services tend to vary greatly. An out- come of such diversity is the uneven capacity to coordinate interventions and assign clear respon- sibilities among government levels in highly populated areas—a particular challenge in low- income countries. Access to basic services such as water, electricity, and sanitation is often hindered because capac- ity is overwhelmed and services are not affordable. The density of cities makes it more affordable to expand services; evidence from 78 countries shows that it costs significantly less to provide piped water in urban areas as opposed to in sparsely populated settings. However, when the supply of land, housing, and services do not keep up with the rising demand from growing populations moving into the cities, low-income households often resort to slums. More than 70 percent of Africa’s urban population live in slums. For example, there is one toilet for every 500 people in Nairobi’s slums. In Dhaka, only 9 percent of households in the poorest quintile benefit from a sewage line, and less than one-third of them access piped water. An implication of those inequities is that the poor tend to bear the cost for basic service provision: a review of 47 countries showed that the average water prices charged by private vendors compared with the public network were 4.5 times higher in peri-urban or unplanned settlements with unclear tenure. In Accra’s slums, the cost of water from private ven- dors can amount to up to 10 percent of households’ monthly income. Note 1. This highlight is based on a World Bank compilation of studies, including those cited in Gentilini (forthcoming). Reference Gentilini, U. Forthcoming. “Safety Nets in Urban Areas: Emerging Issues, Evidence and Practices,” World Bank, Washington, DC. Social Safety Nets in Urban Areas: Emerging Issues and Practices 71 Appendixes APPENDIX A Definitions, Methodology, and Data Sources Definitions and Methodology relative poverty is defined as a level of welfare in This appendix presents the concepts, programs, the bottom 20 percent of the national distribu- indicators, and data sources used in this report tion: that is, the poverty rate is set at 20 percent and the associated World Bank database, the in each country. On the other hand, absolute Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of Resil- poverty is defined using the international stan- ience and Equity (ASPIRE). dard of US$1.25/day per capita in purchasing power parity terms. In both cases, the concept Concepts of poverty can be applied only to survey data, Social safety nets (SSNs) are measures designed and uses the definition of welfare that is either to provide regular and predictable support to the definition used by national statistical offices poor and vulnerable people. A distinctive fea- or developed by the World Bank in its work ture of social safety nets is their noncontribu- with the national statistical agencies. The abso- tory character: that is, beneficiaries do not have lute poverty rate defined using the international to pay or contribute financially to receive the standard for most developing countries is below benefits.1 20 percent, so sometimes it is also referred to as Social safety nets are also referred to as social extreme poverty—even though there are excep- assistance or social transfers and fall within tions in which the bottom 20 percent is just a broader social protection systems. In general, subset of the absolute poor. social protection also includes social insurance, Urban areas in this report are as defined and such as health insurance and contributory pen- reported in country surveys. However, this sions,2 as well as labor market programs, such report recognizes that such country-specific as services to facilitate access to jobs (including definitions vary by context, including being skills training and job search support) (social based on administrative and/or density metrics. protection and labor, SPL). While social safety For instance, the literature often distinguishes net programs are often specifically targeted to between megacities (more than 10 million people in need (such as poor, vulnerable, food inhabitants), large cities (5–10 million people), insecure, or malnourished people), in a number medium-sized cities (1–5 million dwellers), cit- of cases programs are designed for particular ies of 500,000–1 million people, and small cities groups in the population (such as children, the (less than 500,000 people). elderly, and indigenous people). In other cases, rights-based approaches may provide transfers Programs to the entire population, independently of need The definition of social safety nets used in this or demographic characteristics. report includes cash transfers (conditional Poverty has many dimensions, and this report and unconditional);3 in-kind transfers such as underscores the importance of understanding school feeding4 and targeted food assistance; fee the multiple factors that cause and stem from waivers to support access to education, health, poverty. However, for measurement purposes, and housing; and social care services. Although the most robust and comparable indicator is vouchers or near-cash transfers have a number material poverty. This is defined here as an unac- of commonalities with both cash and in-kind ceptably low level of welfare measured in terms modalities, vouchers are considered in this of income or consumption. For this report, two report as part of a broader set of in-kind trans- definitions of poverty are used. On the one hand, fers. Social pensions, including old-age benefits 73 and pensions, disability pensions and benefits, social safety nets with spending on energy, elec- and veteran benefits, are included in the uncon- tricity, and food subsidies. ditional cash transfer category. Energy subsidies include government inter- General price subsidies—such as subsidies for ventions and subsidized sales of petroleum energy, electricity, food, housing, and trans- products, including gasoline and diesel used for port—are not classified as a part of the social transport. Subsidies for electricity lower prices safety net in this report, even though some for generating electricity for agricultural use, studies include those measures in definitions kerosene used for lighting and heating, and liq- of social safety nets.5 General price subsidies uefied petroleum gas used for cooking. Univer- are measures that keep prices for consumers sal food subsidies are government interventions below market levels, and thus benefit house- to lower the price the general population pays holds through lower prices. As such, peo- for staple foods. Governments may also provide ple need to pay part of the price to access the universal access to food or other commodities transfer. General price subsidies are universal through subsidized sales at public distribution in the sense that all consumers have access to centers or designated private outlets on a first- the same commodities at the same price. The come, first-served basis. amount received by a beneficiary is a function The social safety net program types captured of the quantity purchased, and market access. in the ASPIRE database are grouped in seven Section 2 of this report compares spending on categories in this report (table A.1). Table A.1 Classification of Social Safety Net Programs Program category Program subcategory Conditional cash transfers (CCTs) Poverty-targeted cash transfersa Family and child allowance (including orphan and vulnerable children benefits)a Scholarship benefitsa Unconditional cash transfers (UCTs) Poverty-targeted cash transfers Family and child allowances (including orphan and vulnerable children benefits) Scholarship benefits in cash Housing and utility allowance benefits in cash Emergency support in cash Old-age social pensions Disability social pensions and benefits Veterans pensions Funeral grants, burial allowances Public-private charity, including zakat Other cash transfers Unconditional in-kind transfers (UITs) Food stamps and vouchers Food distribution programs Nutritional programs (therapeutic, supplementary, and PLHIVb) In-kind emergency support Other food/in-kind program School feeding School feeding Public works (PW) Cash for work Food for work Workfare Fee waivers Reduced medical and health fees Educational fee waivers Housing/utility fee waivers Other SSN Other social assistance transfers Social care services: Care for children/youth Social care services: Care for family Social care services: Care for the disabled Social care services: Care for older persons Other social safety nets a. This report includes under the category of conditional cash transfers any cash transfer program that has a conditionality component in its operation manual, even if it is weakly conditioned or weakly enforced (it has soft conditionalities). Box 1.2 in section 1 discusses variations in the enforcement of conditionalities across programs. b. PLHIV = People Living with HIV/AIDS. 74 Appendixes Various social safety net programs are run When the data reporting unit in administra- by different agencies and ministries, and thus tive records is “households,” the enrollment rate outlays are dispersed throughout the budget.6 is derived by multiplying the number of benefi- Because official publications rarely contain ciary households by the average household size consolidated data on social safety net bud- obtained by official estimates (from the national gets, this report provides a unique attempt to statistical offices) and divided by the total pop- piece together such data from different sources ulation—thus accounting for indirect benefi- around the world. ciaries (see discussion on coverage). When an Since countries usually have multiple social official estimate of the average household size safety net programs (on average, 20 programs), is not available, it is approximated to the global the same beneficiary can in principle bene- average of 5.10 fit from several interventions as long as he or Coverage rates in this report refer to the per- she meets the eligibility criteria. This feature is centage of the population participating in social called overlap. It can be the result of conscious safety net programs (including both direct and effort (in cases in which different programs are indirect beneficiaries), based on household sur- seen as complementary), or can reflect inef- veys. The coverage of the poor rate refers to the ficiencies and lack of coordination between percentage of the poor participating in social social safety net programs. safety net programs (including both direct and indirect beneficiaries), based on household sur- Indicators veys.11 The poor can be defined either as those Enrollment rates in this report are defined as households in the poorest quintile of the con- the sum of individual beneficiaries on the rolls sumption or income distribution (after receiv- of all social safety net programs in a country,7 ing social safety net transfers) or those house- as a percent of the population in that coun- holds living below $1.25/day (in terms of 2005 try. This is a new metric at the country level— U.S. dollars adjusted for purchasing power par- not used in the 2014 edition—that builds on ity), after receiving social safety net transfers. program-level data on the number of beneficia- Programs are aggregated in eight social safety ries for all existing social safety net programs in net categories and according to the ASPIRE the country.8 classification (the seven categories described Beneficiary rolls are the lists of names of above plus social pensions, including old-age people participating in safety net programs. social pensions, disability social pensions and Enrollment rates should not be interpreted as benefits, and war veteran benefits).12 coverage rates because some individuals may Often multiple programs or transfers are receive multiple benefits and thus may be on aggregated in one of the eight social safety net the rolls of more than one program. A social categories. A detailed description of which pro- registry is the list of individuals or households gram or original variables in the surveys have potentially eligible to participate in social safety been aggregated into each harmonized social net programs. The actual list of beneficiaries safety net category is available at www.world of social safety nets is called the beneficiary bank.org/aspire/documentation. The nature of registry. the data source prevents double-counting of Program enrollment rates are based on beneficiaries when households receive more administrative data in ASPIRE (see appendix than one benefit in the same category. For exam- C for the primary sources of largest programs ple, if a household receives a family allowance only); they are aggregated by social safety net as well as emergency cash support, it is counted program categories according to the ASPIRE only once in the coverage indicator of uncon- classification (table A.1) by all social safety ditional cash transfer programs. Similarly, the net programs by summing up the number of coverage of social safety net programs is derived individual beneficiaries in the rolls of all by summing up individuals receiving any type social safety net programs in the country for of social safety net benefits, correcting for which data are available in ASPIRE. Given the double-counting. The household size recorded nature of the data source (program adminis- in the survey is used to estimate direct and indi- trative records), it is not possible to avoid dou- rect individual beneficiaries (see discussion of ble-counting of beneficiaries when aggregating household size in the discussion on the enroll- program-level data into the seven categories ment rate). Global, regional, and income group and total SSN category.9 aggregates are obtained as weighted averages Appendixes 75 of country indicators using household survey program-level spending as a percent of GDP of expansion factors for the sample of 105 coun- the respective year for all social safety net pro- tries for which indicators are available. grams, according to the ASPIRE classification Adequacy is defined as the total transfer (the seven categories described earlier). The amount received by all beneficiaries in a quin- aggregation methodology relies on the most tile as a share of the total welfare of beneficiaries recent data on program spending available in in that quintile. It is based on household sur- ASPIRE. The latest available year may vary by vey data. The indicator is estimated by program program for some countries. In those cases, the type, for the entire population and by quintiles total spending by social safety net categories of the welfare distribution after the transfer. and for all social safety net programs is esti- Programs are aggregated into social safety nets mated for an indicated time frame (for exam- categories according to the ASPIRE classifica- ple, 2010–14, as shown in appendix D) and is tion. Specifically, adequacy of benefits is cal- analyzed with the assumption that program culated as the amount of transfers received by spending does not vary much within that time a quintile divided by the total income or con- frame. For 21 countries of the 120 included in sumption of beneficiaries in that quintile.13 the analysis of spending as percent of GDP, only Benefit incidence is defined as the percent- aggregate data on safety net spending are avail- age of benefits going to each group/quintile able; for those 21 countries, data are not disag- of the post-transfer welfare distribution rela- gregated by program (respective data sources tive to the total benefits going to the popula- are reported in appendix D). tion. It is based on household survey data. The The poverty headcount reduction is the simu- indicator is estimated by program type and by lated change on poverty headcount due to social quintiles of the post-transfer welfare distri- safety net programs. The poverty headcount bution. Programs are aggregated into social ratio is the percentage of the population below safety net categories according to the ASPIRE the relative poverty line (the poorest quintile of classification. Specifically, benefit incidence is national consumption distribution). It is mea- equal to the sum of all transfers received by all sured assuming the absence of the programs individuals in the quintile divided by the sum (pre-transfer welfare). Specifically, the poverty of all transfers received by all individuals in headcount reduction is computed as (the pov- the population. Indicators for all social safety erty headcount pre-transfer minus the poverty net programs provide the totals summing up headcount post-transfer) divided by the pov- social safety net program categories as per the erty headcount pre-transfer. Indicators for all ASPIRE classification. social safety net programs provide the totals Beneficiary incidence for a population group summing up social safety net program catego- (such as the poorest quintile) is defined as the ries as per the ASPIRE classification. Regional percentage of program beneficiaries in that and income group aggregates are obtained as particular group or quintile relative to the total simple averages of country indicators. number of beneficiaries in the population. It is The poverty gap reduction is the simulated based on household survey data. Specifically, change in the poverty gap due to social safety beneficiary incidence is the number of indi- net programs. The poverty gap index is the aver- viduals in each quintile living in a household age percentage shortfall in income of poor peo- where at least one member participates in a ple from the relative poverty line (the poorest social safety net program divided by the num- quintile of national consumption distribution). ber of individuals participating in social protec- It is measured assuming the absence of the pro- tion and labor programs in the population. grams. Specifically, the poverty gap reduction Spending as percent of GDP refers to total pro- is computed as (the poverty gap pre-transfer gram spending, including spending on benefits minus the poverty gap post-transfer) divided and on administrative costs. This measure cap- by the poverty gap pre-transfer. Indicators for tures both the recurrent and capital program all social safety net programs provide the totals budget. It is based on administrative program summing up social safety net program catego- records. Program spending is analyzed as a per- ries as per the ASPIRE classification. Regional cent of GDP of the respective year. and income group aggregates are obtained as Spending on each of the seven categories and simple averages of country indicators. for all social safety net programs in the country Unlike poverty, vulnerability does not have is aggregated by summing up the most recent a strict definition. It is typically determined by 76 Appendixes assessing the risks of deprivation or exposure One important aspect that has bearing on to shocks for different social or demographic measuring the scale of social safety nets is who groups. Since these risks and exposures/shocks is the beneficiary or unit of assistance. It is often may differ across countries and there are no an individual who is receiving support (a direct international standards to define them, this beneficiary), but it can also be a family (includ- report does not use any separate grouping. The ing indirect beneficiaries). The distinction poor are the ones who are typically considered between direct beneficiaries and indirect benefi- as most “vulnerable.” Their level of consump- ciaries is important because alternative defini- tion is already below a standard that is deemed tions of the beneficiary unit may significantly a minimum, and any shocks can send them into affect the results (table A.2). Depending on the a spiral of losses leading to destitution. type of program and the target group, the direct beneficiary of a safety net program may be an Different Definitions of “Coverage Rates” individual, a family, or a household. However, Since the data collection for administrative in a broader sense, all household members ben- data and household surveys entails very dif- efit from the additional resources provided by ferent processes that may rely on very different the program, even when it is targeted to a par- concepts and definitions, the coverage rates of ticular individual within a household. social safety net programs derived from either There is a strong economic rationale for administrative data or household survey data assigning benefits to the entire household when may differ substantially. However, both sources assessing the incidence of a program. Consider are important and complement each other. a child allowance program in a country where Obviously, possible double-counting com- children account for 25  percent of the popu- bining numbers of beneficiaries of different lation and families with children account for social safety net programs from the adminis- 60 percent of the population. If only direct ben- trative data overstates the actual coverage. In eficiaries are taken into account, the coverage the ASPIRE data platform, there are 105 coun- of the program will be 25 percent of the popu- tries, economies, and territories with indicators lation; however, if all beneficiaries—direct and of coverage based on household survey data, indirect—are counted, coverage will be 60 per- as well as enrollment rates in social safety net cent. Given the negative correlation between programs based on administrative data. Despite household size and welfare level, using house- some outliers with large discrepancies between holds as beneficiary units for safety net pro- these two sources (administrative data and grams where the assistance unit is an individual household surveys), the majority of countries will improve statistics measuring both coverage present rather consistent outcomes. This is reas- and targeting accuracy. Whenever possible, the suring, and suggests that survey-based indi- analyst should report both results. If only one cators can be relied upon to assess how many set of results is to be reported, the set based people—and in particular, how many poor peo- on indirect beneficiaries is preferred, as these ple—are covered by social safety net programs. results are the only way to compare programs The use of the term “coverage” as it applies that serve different types of assistance units. to social safety nets, is somewhat confusing. Conceptually, program coverage is a neces- It comes from a literature that emphasizes the sary, but not sufficient, condition for a program insurance aspects of the social protection. From to be effective in improving living conditions of that point of view, “coverage” means protection its target group. The program can be considered against a specific risk. Coverage in this sense effective only if it reaches its intended beneficia- refers to persons protected for a given risk/ ries and provides them with adequate benefits contingency or persons benefiting from spe- (cash, in-kind goods, services) to ameliorate cific social protection benefits. There are vari- the condition for which the program was ini- ous dimensions of coverage from this insurance tially designed. or actuarial perspective, which are discussed extensively in the literature (see note 6 and box Data Sources A.1). While in some way social safety nets can The analysis in this report draws heavily on the be viewed as covering the risk of poverty and ASPIRE database, which includes a set of indi- destitution, they do not address contingent or cators based on household surveys (discussed future risk; they represent an action to address in sections 4 and 5 of this report) and indicators the condition that the poor are already in. of program size (number of beneficiaries ) and Appendixes 77 Box A.1 Coverage Considered from an Insurance or Actuarial Perspective Assessing coverage from an insurance or ⅙ Actual beneficiaries (the proportion actuarial perspective requires analyzing dif- of the population affected by a cer- ferent life risks and social protection needs tain contingency who actually re- as stipulated in the national legislation. In ceive the respective benefit). addition, the assessment must look at effec- tive coverage, or the extent to which per- Social safety nets from this perspective sons are actually covered. In other words, have a “filler” function: they pick up the the analysis should ascertain whether the risks that are left uncovered by other parts legal provisions are being implemented of social protection. This “residual” ap- in practice and whether schemes provide proach to social safety nets is reflected in certain protections in practice, even if that the standard classification of social pro- protection is not prescribed by law. tection in terms of “functions” to protect against the social risks and needs that can The assessment therefore should distin- arise throughout the life cycle. In particu- guish between: lar, these include: • Legal (statutory) coverage (groups cov- • Lack of or insufficient work-related in- ered by statutory schemes for a given come (caused by sickness, disability, social protection function or branch in maternity, employment injury, unem- national legislation), and ployment, or death of a family member) • Effective coverage (the proportion of • Lack of access to health care persons covered within the entire pop- • Insufficient family support ulation or target group by social secu- • Insufficient support in old age rity measures in each specific function). • General poverty and social exclusion. Effective coverage is assessed in terms of both: Poverty in this view is regarded as sep- ⅙ Protected persons (the number of arate, “life-cycle” risk. In fact it is not. In persons who are eligible for bene- most cases, poverty is a condition that is fits, and whose benefits are guar- determined by structural factors beyond anteed, but who are not necessarily the control or “risk management” of an currently receiving those benefits— individual or a group. It affects people in such as those who are actually con- different stages of the life cycle. It may or tributing to or affiliated with a con- may not stem from insufficient protection tributory scheme); and against the life-cycle risks. Source: International Labour Office 2014. spending based on administrative data (dis- by the World Bank local consultants working cussed in sections 1 and 2). closely with government agencies implementing social safety net programs.14 The sample of coun- Administrative Data tries for which data are available on the program Program-level administrative data on spending number of beneficiaries includes 136 countries and number of beneficiaries in ASPIRE include (see appendix C). The sample of countries for both primary and secondary sources: official which data on program spending are available government reports and the official website; includes 120 countries (see appendix D). data provided directly by government officials through country dialogue with the World Bank; Household Survey Data published World Bank country reports; and Sources of ASPIRE indicators based on nation- other international databases (from the Asian ally representative household surveys include: Development Bank, Economic Commission for household income expenditure/budget surveys, Latin America and the Caribbean of the United Living Standard Measurement Surveys (LSMS), Nations, and World Food Programme). When Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICs), Sur- official program-level administrative data are not veys on Income and Living Conditions (SILCs), available, data have been collected and compiled and Welfare Monitoring Surveys. 78 Appendixes Table A.2 Alternative Definitions of Coverage Measure Numerator Denominator Coverage of direct beneficiaries The total number of individuals who report The national population receiving program benefits (that is, only those individuals who directly receive the benefit) Coverage of households The number of households that report The total number of households in the having at least one direct beneficiary country Coverage of individuals within All individuals who live in houses where The national population households there is at least one beneficiary Coverage of target individuals The number of individuals who meet The total population that meets the program criteria (such as age or income) program’s criteria and receive the benefit Coverage of target households The number of households where at least one The total number of households where at individual who meets program criteria (such least one person who meets the program’s as age or income) and receives the benefit criteria resides resides Coverage of target individuals within The total number of people living in The total number of people living in households households where at least one individual households where at least one person who meets program criteria (such as age or who meets the program’s criteria resides income) and receives the benefit resides While ASPIRE indicators based on house- age of SPL programs, but also the coverage of hold surveys are available for 112 countries, the poor. Second, they also allow estimations economies, and territories,15 the analysis in this of the population that is not covered by SPL report focuses on only the 105 where national programs, but that may be in a great need of household surveys collect information on par- government interventions due to their vulner- ticipation and transfer amounts received from ability (the poor, the unemployed, the disabled, social safety net programs.16 Compared to the and so on). Moreover, such surveys are the only 2014 edition of this report, the analysis in the source of data to enable estimates of the impact 2015 edition extends to new household surveys of existing18 (or simulated) social protection in 44 new countries (table A.3).17 benefits on reductions in household poverty or Nationally representative household sur- inequality. veys are a valuable tool to analyze the perfor- However, important caveats need to be con- mance of SPL programs in two unique ways. sidered because household surveys have their First, given the availability of a welfare aggre- own limitations.19 The extent to which infor- gate (total household income or consumption), mation on specific transfers and programs is surveys measure not only the global cover- captured in household surveys can vary across Table A.3 New Countries Included in the 2015 Edition (Household Surveys for 44 Countries) Survey Survey Survey Survey Country year Country year Country year Country year Belize 2009 Djibouti 2002 Kiribati 2006 Namibia 2003 Benin 2003 Dominica 2002 Lebanon 2004 Niger 2011 Botswana 2009 Ethiopia 2004 Lesotho 2010 Palau 2006 Burkina Faso 2003 Fiji 2008 Liberia 2007 Papua New Guinea 2009 Cabo Verde 2007 Gabon 2005 Lithuania 2008 Senegal 2011 Cameroon 2007 Gambia, The 1998 Madagascar 2010 Sierra Leone 2011 Colombia 2012 Haiti 2001 Maldives 2004 Solomon Islands 2005 Comoros 2004 Honduras 2011 Marshall Islands 1999 South Africa 2005 Congo, Dem. Rep. 2005 Hungary 2007 Mauritania 2008 Swaziland 2000 Congo, Rep. 2005 Jamaica 2002 Micronesia, Fed. Sts. 2000 Syrian Arab Republic 2003 Côte d’Ivoire 2002 Jordan 2006 Morocco 2009 Togo 2006 Appendixes 79 countries. Very often household surveys do not tions are included in the survey, only nonmon- capture the universe of social protection and etary indicators can be generated, such as cov- labor programs in the country—only the largest erage or beneficiary incidence.20 programs. Many household surveys have lim- In this sense, household surveys are a power- ited information on social protection and labor ful complement to the information provided by programs. Some surveys collect information administrative data. When properly planned only on participation without including the and executed, the administrative and house- transfer amounts; others mix information on hold survey data should be broadly consistent. public programs with private transfers, making There are of course specific issues related to it difficult to isolate individual SPL programs. the accuracy of reporting and possible sam- Therefore, information on country social pling issues that may prevent broad matching protection and labor programs reflected in the of data. This is why some applications—such as ASPIRE indicators based on household surveys the tax-benefit micro-simulation model for the is limited to what is captured in the respective European Union (EUROMOD)—use imputed national household surveys and does not neces- data or a combination of reported and imputed sarily represent the universe of programs exist- information. However, in practice, the main ing in the country. In addition, the availability issue is not ensuring the accuracy of responses, of ASPIRE indicators depends on the type of but rather establishing the appropriate cor- questions included in the survey. If transfer respondence of survey questions to existing amounts are available, for example, indicators social safety net programs and schemes.21 on adequacy and the impact on poverty can be Table A.4 lists the household surveys used in generated. If only program participation ques- the analysis. Table A.4 Household Surveys Used in the Report (105 Countries, Economies, and Territories) Country/ Survey economy/territory year Survey name Afghanistan 2007 National Risk and Vulnerability Assessment (NRVA) Albania 2008 Living Standards Measurement Survey Argentina 2010 Encuesta Permanente de Hogares Continua Armenia 2009 Integrated Living Conditions Survey 2009 (ILCS) Azerbaijan 2008 Household Survey on Monitoring Targeted Social Assistance Programme 2008 Bangladesh 2010 Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2010 Belarus 2010 Household Sample Survey Belize 2009 Living Standards Measurement Survey (LSMS) Bhutan 2007 Living Standards Survey 2007—South Asia Labor Flagship Dataset Bolivia 2007 Encuesta de Hogares Bosnia and Herzegovina 2007 Household Budget Survey Botswana 2009 Core Welfare Indicators Survey Brazil 2009 Pesquisa Nacional por Amostra de Domicilios Bulgaria 2007 Multi-Topic Household Survey Burkina Faso 2003 Enquête sur les Conditions de Vie des Ménages 2003, Questionnaire Unifié sur les Indicateurs de Base du Bien-être Cabo Verde 2007 Questionário Unificado de Indicadores Básicos de Bem-Estar (QUIBB) Cambodia 2008 Socio-Economic Survey 2008 Cameroon 2007 Troisième Enquête Camerounaise Auprès des Ménages 2007 Chile 2009 Encuesta de Caracterización Socio-Económica Nacional (CASEN) Colombia 2012 Encuesta Nacional de Calidad de Vida (ENCV) Congo, Dem. Rep. 2004 Enquête 1-2-3 sur l’Emploi, le Secteur Informel et les Conditions de Vie des Ménages Congo, Rep. 2005 Enquête Congolaise auprès des Ménages pour l’Evaluation de la Pauvreté 2005 Costa Rica 2009 Encuesta de Hogares de Propósitos Múltiples Côte d’Ivoire 2002 Enquête sur le Niveau de Vie des Ménages de Côte d’Ivoire 2002 Croatia 2008 Household Budget Survey Djibouti 2012 Enquete Djiboutienne Aupres des Menages (EDAM 3-IS) (Table continues next page) 80 Appendixes Table A.4 Household Surveys Used in the Report (105 Countries, Economies, and Territories) (Continued) Country/ Survey economy/territory year Survey name Dominica 2002 Survey of Living Conditions (SLC) Dominican Republic 2009 Encuesta Nacional de Fuerza de Trabajo Ecuador 2010 Encuesta Nacional de Empleo Desempleo y Subempleo Egypt, Arab Rep. 2008 Pan Survey El Salvador 2009 Encuesta de Hogares de Propósitos Múltiples Ethiopia 2010 Household Income, Consumption and Expenditures Fiji 2008 Household Income and Expenditure Survey Gabon 2005 Enquête Gabonaise pour l’Evaluation et le Suivi de la Pauvreté 2005 Gambia, The 1998 Household Poverty Survey Georgia 2011 Welfare Monitoring Survey Ghana 2013 Living Standards Survey V 2012–13 Guatemala 2006 Encuesta Nacional de Condiciones de Vida Haiti 2001 Enquête sur les Conditions de Vie en Haïti 2001 Honduras 2011 Encuesta Permanente de Hogares de Propósitos Múltiples Hungary 2007 Household Budget Survey India 2009 National Sample Survey 2009–10 (66th round)—Schedule 10-Employment and Unemployment Indonesia 2009 Survei Sosial Ekonomi Nasional 2009, Maret Iraq 2006 Household Socio-Economic Survey 2006–07 Jamaica 2010 Survey of Living Conditions Jordan 2010 Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2010 Kazakhstan 2007 Household Budget Survey Kenya 2005 Integrated Household Budget Survey 2005–06 Kiribati 2006 Household Income and Expenditure Survey Kosovo 2006 Household Budget Survey Kyrgyz Republic 2006 Kyrgyz Integrated Household Survey 2006 Latvia 2008 Household Budget Survey Lebanon 2004 National Survey of Household Living Conditions 2004, Multipurpose Survey Lesotho 2014 CMS Quarter III 2013/2014 Liberia 2007 Core Welfare Indicators Questionnaire 2007 Lithuania 2008 Household Budget Survey Madagascar 2010 Enquete Periodique Aupres Des Menages 2010 (EPM 2010) Malawi 2010 Third Integrated Household Survey 2010–11 Malaysia 2008 Household Income Survey Maldives 2004 Vulnerability and Poverty Assessment Survey II 2004 Mauritania 2008 Enquete Permanente Sur Les Conditions De Vie Des Menages Mauritius 2006 Household Budget Survey 2006–07 Mexico 2010 Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares Micronesia, Fed. Sts. 2000 Population and Housing Census 2000 Moldova 2010 Household Budget Survey Mongolia 2007 Household Socio-Economic Survey 2007–08 Morocco 2009 Household and Youth Survey Mozambique 2008 Inquérito Sobre Orçamento Familiar 2008–09 Namibia 2003 National Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2003/2004 Nepal 2010 Living Standards Survey 2010–11, Third Round Nicaragua 2005 Encuesta Nacional de Hogares sobre Medición de Nivel de Vida Niger 2011 Enquête Nationale sur les Conditions de Vie des Ménages 2010–11 Nigeria 2010 General Household Survey, Panel 2010 Pakistan 2009 Social and Living Standards Measurement Survey 2009–10—Panel Component Palau 2006 Household Income and Expenditure Survey (Table continues next page) Appendixes 81 Table A.4 Household Surveys Used in the Report (105 Countries, Economies, and Territories) (Continued) Country/ Survey economy/territory year Survey name Panama 2008 Encuesta de Niveles de Vida Papua New Guinea 2009 Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2009–10 Paraguay 2009 Encuesta Permanente de Hogares Peru 2009 Encuesta Nacional de Hogares-Condiciones de Vida y Pobreza Philippines 2013 Annual Poverty Indicators Survey Poland 2005 Household Budget Survey Romania 2008 Household Budget Survey Russian Federation 2007 Household Budget Survey Rwanda 2005 Enquête Intégrale sur les Conditions de Vie des ménages (EICV) Senegal 2011 Enquête de Suivi de la Pauvreté au Sénégal 2011 Serbia 2007 Household Budget Survey Sierra Leone 2011 Integrated Household Survey (SLIHS)—Main Survey Slovak Republic 2009 Household Income and Living Conditions Survey Solomon Islands 2005 Household Income and Expenditure Survey South Africa 2010 Income and Expenditure Survey Sri Lanka 2006 Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2006–07 Swaziland 2010 Household Income and Expenditure Survey Tajikistan 2011 Panorama Tanzania 2008 National Panel Survey Thailand 2009 Household Socio-Economic Survey Timor-Leste 2007 Survey of Living Standards 2007 and Extension 2008 Turkey 2012 Household Income and Consumption Expenditures Survey 2012 Uganda 2009 Uganda National Panel Survey 2009–10 Ukraine 2006 Household Living Conditions Survey 2006 Uruguay 2009 Encuesta Continua de Hogares Venezuela, RB 2006 Encuesta de Hogares por Muestreo 2006—SEDLAC-Base de Datos Armonizada Vietnam 2006 Household Living Standard Survey West Bank and Gaza 2007 Expenditure and Consumption Survey Yemen, Rep. 2005 Household Budget Survey Zambia 2010 Living Conditions Monitoring Survey VI (LCMS VI) Notes 1. This differentiates social safety nets from contributory forms of social protection, where prior contributions (and participation in the labor market) determine eligibility for benefits. The noncontributory nature also means that social safety net programs cannot be self-financed (as are most social insurance programs) and must rely on support from public budgets. 2. Social insurance programs minimize the negative impact of economic shocks on individuals and families. They include publicly provided or mandated insurance schemes against old age, disability, death of the main household provider, maternity leave, sickness cash benefits, and entitlement to health insurance. Social insurance programs are contributory. Beneficiaries receive benefits or services in recognition of contributions to an insurance scheme. 3. Conditional cash transfers (CCTs) are periodic monetary benefits to poor households that require beneficiaries to comply with specific behavioral requirements to encourage investments in human capital (such as school attendance, immunizations, and health check-ups). 4. School feeding programs were named “conditional food transfers” in the 2014 edition of this report. 5. See, for example, Grosh and others 2008. 6. Indeed, social safety nets are not considered to be a part of standard budget classifications, such as the main international framework to report budgetary data, the Classification of the Functions of Governments (COFOG). Developed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), COFOG breaks down government expenditures according to their purpose independently from the nature of the administrative unit in charge of this expenditure. “Social protection” as a whole is one of the functions used in COGOF. Under COFOG, the term is used to cover the following subfunctions: “sickness and disability,” “old age,” “survivors,” “family and children,” “unemployment,” “housing,” “social exclusion 82 Appendixes not elsewhere classified,” and some other related categories. No “social safety net” category exists in this framework. See http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/gfs/manual/pdf/all.pdf. See also International Labour Organization (ILO) 1957, “Resolution concerning the development of social security statistics,” http://www.ilo.org/public/english /bureau/stat/download/res/socsec.pdf. 7. The sum of individual beneficiaries refers to the annual average stock or end-year number of direct beneficiaries. The beneficiary reporting unit may be either households or individuals. 8. ASPIRE includes programs that are implemented by the central/federal government and have more than 1,000 individual beneficiaries. For some countries, the inventory of programs included may not be exhaustive; thus country enrollment rates may be underestimated. 9. Avoiding double-counting would require perfectly interoperable program management information systems with common beneficiary identifications (IDs). 10. While five might be an overestimation of the household size in some Eastern Europe and Latin American countries, it might be an underestimation in some African and Asian countries. The assumption is that five is close to the average global household size. 11. Specifically, the coverage rate is equal to the number of individuals in the poorest quintile who live in a household where at least one member receives the transfer divided by the number of individuals in the poorest quintile. 12. Social pensions in this report and ASPIRE are aggregated within the unconditional cash transfers category. 13. See http://datatopics.worldbank.org/aspire/documentation. 14. In Bolivia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Namibia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Panama, South Africa, St. Lucia, Sudan, Uganda, West Bank and Gaza, and Zimbabwe. 15. ASPIRE indicators based on household surveys are publicly available at www.worldbank.org/aspire. 16. For 7 of the 112 countries, economies, and territories, the survey instrument collects information only on contributory pensions and other social insurance. These 7 jurisdictions are not considered in the analysis. 17. Data on the new countries were uploaded to the ASPIRE portal in July 2014 and updated in March 2015. Please visit www.worldbank.org/aspire/documentation for detailed information on survey names, links to the micro-data catalog to download the micro-data, the methodology used, and program documentation. 18. Benefits existing at the time of the survey; they may no longer be active. 19. See www.worldbank.org/aspire/indicator_caveats. 20. Another caveat is related to the fact that the sample design of household surveys does not take beneficiary incidence of social protection into account; thus final outcomes are biased down. For example, estimates from the Europe and Central Asia region show that the share of total social assistance captured in household surveys ranges from 30 percent to 90 percent when compared to administrative data on budgets for social assistance transfers. This is because many such programs are targeted to narrow groups, which are underrepresented in nationwide surveys. Moreover, statistical estimates for these small subsamples are characterized by large sampling errors. There are ways to address such problems. For example, in Mexico, an oversample of rural areas was needed to provide the correct coverage of the Oportunidades program in the household survey data. In Armenia, targeted program beneficiaries are oversampled in the national survey. However, this report did not adopt these methods across all countries. 21. Often questions on the amount and receipt of social protection and labor benefits in survey instruments are not specific enough to infer the nature of the benefit (contributory versus noncontributory); the specific program the benefit is part of (if the program name is not specified in the question); or the type of benefit (for example, old-age, disability, and survivorship pensions may be lumped in one general question). References 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. International Labour Office (ILO). 2014. World Social Protection Report 2014/15: Building Economic Recovery, Inclusive Development, and Social Justice. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Weblinks ASPIRE (Atlas of Social Protection: Indicators of Resilience and Equity), World Bank, www.worldbank.org/aspire/. COFOG (Classification of the Functions of Government), United Nations Statistics, http://unstats.un.org/unsd/cr /registry/regcst.asp?Cl=4. EUROMOD (Tax-Benefit Microsimulation Model for the European Union), Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER), https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/euromod. Appendixes 83 Appendix B. Countries, Economies, and Territories Included in the Report Country/economy/ Population territory Code Region Income classification (millions) 1 Afghanistan AFG South Asia Low-income 30.6 2 Albania ALB Europe and Central Asia Upper-middle-income 2.8 3 Algeria DZA Middle East and North Africa Upper-middle-income 39.2 4 Angola AGO Africa (Sub-Saharan) Upper-middle-income 21.5 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 41.4 7 Armenia ARM Europe and Central Asia Lower-middle-income 3.0 8 Azerbaijan AZE Europe and Central Asia Upper-middle-income 9.4 9 Bahrain BHR Middle East and North Africa High-income 1.3 10 Bangladesh BGD South Asia Low-income 156.6 11 Belarus BLR 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 10.3 14 Bhutan BTN South Asia Lower-middle-income 0.8 15 Bolivia BOL Latin America and the Caribbean Lower-middle-income 10.7 16 Bosnia and Herzegovina BIH 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 200.4 19 Bulgaria BGR Europe and Central Asia Upper-middle-income 7.3 20 Burkina Faso BFA Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low-income 16.9 21 Burundi BDI Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low-income 10.2 22 Cabo Verde CPV Africa (Sub-Saharan) Lower-middle-income 0.5 23 Cambodia KHM East Asia & Pacific Low-income 15.1 24 Cameroon CMR Africa (Sub-Saharan) Lower-middle-income 22.3 25 Central African Republic CAF Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low-income 4.6 26 Chad TCD Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low-income 12.8 27 Chile CHL Latin America and the Caribbean High-income 17.6 28 China CHN East Asia & Pacific Upper-middle-income 1,357.4 29 Colombia COL Latin America and the Caribbean Upper-middle-income 48.3 30 Comoros COM Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low-income 0.7 31 Congo, Dem. Rep. ZAR Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low-income 67.5 32 Congo, Rep. COG Africa (Sub-Saharan) Lower-middle-income 4.4 33 Costa Rica CRI Latin America and the Caribbean Upper-middle-income 4.9 34 Côte d’Ivoire CIV Africa (Sub-Saharan) Lower-middle-income 20.3 35 Croatia HRV Europe and Central Asia High-income 4.3 36 Czech Republic CZE 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 Republic DOM Latin America and the Caribbean Upper-middle-income 10.4 40 Ecuador ECU Latin America and the Caribbean Upper-middle-income 15.7 41 Egypt, Arab Rep. EGY Middle East and North Africa Lower-middle-income 82.1 42 El Salvador SLV Latin America and the Caribbean Lower-middle-income 6.3 43 Equatorial Guinea GNQ Africa (Sub-Saharan) High-income 0.8 (Table continues next page) 84 Appendixes Appendix B. Countries, Economies, and Territories Included in the Report (Continued) Country/economy/ Population territory Code Region Income classification (millions) 44 Eritrea ERI Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low-income 6.3 45 Estonia EST Europe and Central Asia High-income 1.3 46 Ethiopia ETH Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low-income 94.1 47 Fiji FJI East Asia & Pacific Upper-middle-income 0.9 48 Gabon GAB Africa (Sub-Saharan) Upper-middle-income 1.7 49 Gambia, The GMB Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low-income 1.8 50 Georgia GEO Europe and Central Asia Lower-middle-income 4.5 51 Ghana GHA Africa (Sub-Saharan) Lower-middle-income 25.9 52 Grenada GRD Latin America and the Caribbean Upper-middle-income 0.1 53 Guatemala GTM Latin America and the Caribbean Lower-middle-income 15.5 54 Guinea GIN Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low-income 11.7 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 10.3 58 Honduras HND Latin America and the Caribbean Lower-middle-income 8.1 59 Hungary HUN Europe and Central Asia Upper-middle-income 9.9 60 India IND South Asia Lower-middle-income 1,252.1 61 Indonesia IDN East Asia & Pacific Lower-middle-income 249.9 62 Iran, Islamic Rep. IRN Middle East and North Africa Upper-middle-income 77.4 63 Iraq IRQ Middle East and North Africa Upper-middle-income 33.4 64 Jamaica JAM Latin America and the Caribbean Upper-middle-income 2.7 65 Jordan JOR Middle East and North Africa Upper-middle-income 6.5 66 Kazakhstan KAZ Europe and Central Asia Upper-middle-income 17.0 67 Kenya KEN Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low-income 44.4 68 Kiribati KIR East Asia & Pacific Lower-middle-income 0.1 69 Kosovo KSV Europe and Central Asia Lower-middle-income 1.8 70 Kuwait KWT Middle East and North Africa High-income 3.4 71 Kyrgyz Republic KGZ Europe and Central Asia Lower-middle-income 5.7 72 Lao PDR LAO East Asia & Pacific Lower-middle-income 6.8 73 Latvia LVA Europe and Central Asia High-income 2.0 74 Lebanon LBN Middle East and North Africa Upper-middle-income 4.5 75 Lesotho LSO Africa (Sub-Saharan) Lower-middle-income 2.1 76 Liberia LBR Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low-income 4.3 77 Libya LBY Middle East and North Africa Upper-middle-income 6.2 78 Lithuania LTU Europe and Central Asia High-income 3.0 79 Macedonia, FYR MKD Europe and Central Asia Upper-middle-income 2.1 80 Madagascar MDG Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low-income 22.9 81 Malawi MWI Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low-income 16.4 82 Malaysia MYS East Asia & Pacific Upper-middle-income 29.7 83 Maldives MDV South Asia Upper-middle-income 0.3 84 Mali MLI Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low-income 15.3 85 Marshall Islands MHL East Asia & Pacific Upper-middle-income 0.1 (Table continues next page) Appendixes 85 Appendix B. Countries, Economies, and Territories Included in the Report (Continued) Country/economy/ Population territory Code Region Income classification (millions) 86 Mauritania MRT Africa (Sub-Saharan) Lower-middle-income 3.9 87 Mauritius MUS Africa (Sub-Saharan) Upper-middle-income 1.3 88 Mexico MEX Latin America and the Caribbean Upper-middle-income 122.3 89 Micronesia, Fed. Sts. FSM East Asia & Pacific Lower-middle-income 0.1 90 Moldova MDA Europe and Central Asia Lower-middle-income 3.6 91 Mongolia MNG East Asia & Pacific Lower-middle-income 2.8 92 Montenegro MNE Europe and Central Asia Upper-middle-income 0.6 93 Morocco MAR Middle East and North Africa Lower-middle-income 33.0 94 Mozambique MOZ Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low-income 25.8 95 Myanmar MMR East Asia & Pacific Low-income 53.3 96 Namibia NAM Africa (Sub-Saharan) Upper-middle-income 2.3 97 Nepal NPL South Asia Low-income 27.8 98 Nicaragua NIC Latin America and the Caribbean Lower-middle-income 6.1 99 Niger NER Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low-income 17.8 100 Nigeria NGA Africa (Sub-Saharan) Lower-middle-income 173.6 101 Oman OMN Middle East and North Africa High-income 3.6 102 Pakistan PAK South Asia Lower-middle-income 182.1 a 103 Palau PLW East Asia & Pacific Upper-middle-income 0 104 Panama PAN Latin America and the Caribbean Upper-middle-income 3.9 105 Papua New Guinea PNG East Asia & Pacific Lower-middle-income 7.3 106 Paraguay PRY Latin America and the Caribbean Lower-middle-income 6.8 107 Peru PER Latin America and the Caribbean Upper-middle-income 30.4 108 Philippines PHL East Asia & Pacific Lower-middle-income 98.4 109 Poland POL Europe and Central Asia High-income 38.5 110 Qatar QAT Middle East and North Africa High-income 2.2 111 Romania ROM Europe and Central Asia Upper-middle-income 20.0 112 Russian Federation RUS Europe and Central Asia High-income 143.5 113 Rwanda RWA Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low-income 11.8 114 Samoa WSM East Asia & Pacific Lower-middle-income 0.2 115 São Tomé and Príncipe STP Africa (Sub-Saharan) Lower-middle-income 0.2 116 Saudi Arabia SAU Middle East and North Africa High-income 28.8 117 Senegal SEN Africa (Sub-Saharan) Lower-middle-income 14.1 118 Serbia SRB Europe and Central Asia Upper-middle-income 7.2 119 Seychelles SYC Africa (Sub-Saharan) Upper-middle-income 0.1 120 Sierra Leone SLE Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low-income 6.1 121 Slovak Republic SVK Europe and Central Asia High-income 5.4 122 Slovenia SVN Europe and Central Asia High-income 2.1 123 Solomon Islands SLB East Asia & Pacific Lower-middle-income 0.6 124 Somalia SOM Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low-income 10.5 125 South Africa ZAF Africa (Sub-Saharan) Upper-middle-income 53.0 126 South Sudan SSD Africa (Sub-Saharan) Lower-middle-income 11.3 127 Sri Lanka LKA South Asia Lower-middle-income 20.5 (Table continues next page) 86 Appendixes Appendix B. Countries, Economies, and Territories Included in the Report (Continued) Country/economy/ Population territory Code Region Income classification (millions) 128 St. Kitts and Nevis KNA Latin America and the Caribbean High-income 0.1 129 St. Lucia LCA Latin America and the Caribbean Upper-middle-income 0.2 130 St. Vincent and the VCT Latin America and the Caribbean Upper-middle-income 0.1 Grenadines 131 Sudan SDN Africa (Sub-Saharan) Lower-middle-income 38.0 132 Suriname SUR Latin America and the Caribbean Upper-middle-income 0.5 133 Swaziland SWZ Africa (Sub-Saharan) Lower-middle-income 1.2 134 Syrian Arab Republic SYR Middle East and North Africa Lower-middle-income 22.8 135 Tajikistan TJK Europe and Central Asia Low-income 8.2 136 Tanzania TZA Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low-income 49.3 137 Thailand THA East Asia & Pacific Upper-middle-income 67.0 138 Timor-Leste TMP East Asia & Pacific Lower-middle-income 1.2 139 Togo TGO Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low-income 6.8 140 Tonga TON East Asia & Pacific Upper-middle-income 0.1 141 Trinidad and Tobago TTO Latin America and the Caribbean High-income 1.3 142 Tunisia TUN Middle East and North Africa Upper-middle-income 10.9 143 Turkey TUR Europe and Central Asia Upper-middle-income 74.9 144 Turkmenistan TKM Europe and Central Asia Upper-middle-income 5.2 a 145 Tuvalu TUV East Asia & Pacific Upper-middle-income 0 146 Uganda UGA Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low-income 37.6 147 Ukraine UKR Europe and Central Asia Lower-middle-income 45.5 148 United Arab Emirates ARE Middle East and North Africa High-income 9.3 149 Uruguay URY Latin America and the Caribbean High-income 3.4 150 Uzbekistan UZB Europe and Central Asia Lower-middle-income 30.2 151 Vanuatu VUT East Asia & Pacific Lower-middle-income 0.3 152 Venezuela, RB VEN Latin America and the Caribbean Upper-middle-income 30.4 153 Vietnam VNM East Asia & Pacific Lower-middle-income 89.7 154 West Bank and Gaza WBG Middle East and North Africa Lower-middle-income 4.2 155 Yemen, Rep. YEM Middle East and North Africa Lower-middle-income 24.4 156 Zambia ZMB Africa (Sub-Saharan) Lower-middle-income 14.5 157 Zimbabwe ZWE Africa (Sub-Saharan) Low-income 14.1 Source: Population data from World Development Indicators 2013. The regional and income classifications are based on a World Bank list of economies, July 2014. Note: The following were not included in the report and may be added in future issues of The State of Social Safety Nets: 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, China; Iceland; Ireland; Isle of Man; Israel; Italy; Japan; the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea; the Republic of Korea; Liechtenstein; Luxembourg; Macao SAR, China; Malta; Monaco; Nauru; the Netherlands; New Caledonia; New Zealand; Northern Mariana Islands; Norway; Poland; Portugal; Puerto Rico; Samoa; San Marino; Sint Maarten (Dutch part); Spain; Sweden; Switzerland; United Kingdom; United States; Virgin Islands (U.S.). a. The population in Palau and in Tuvalu is greater than 0 but less than 50,000 individuals. Appendixes 87 Appendix C. (Part 1) Program Inventory Conditional cash transfer Unconditional cash transfer Country/ economy/ Number of Number of territory Program name beneficiaries Year Data source Program name beneficiaries Year Data source Afghanistan — — — — Martyrs and Disabled 265,000 2014 World Bank Benefit Program 2014d Albania — — — — Ndihme Ekonomike 106,635a 2014 SPeeD Algeria — — — — — — — — Angola Angola CCT School 900,000 2012 World Bank Angola Social Pension 1,000,000 2012 World Bank Program 2012a Program 2012a Antigua and — — — — — — — — Barbuda Argentina Asignación Universal 3,540,717 2012 Government of Pensión no 716,058 2011 LAC database por Hijo para la Argentina contributiva por Protección Social discapacidad Armenia — — — — Family Poverty Benefit 96,309a 2012 SPeeD (PMT) Azerbaijan — — — — Targeted Social 548,663a 2012 SPeeD Assistance Bahrain — — — — Large-scale Temporary — — — Cash Transfer Program (CTP) Bangladesh Stipend for primary 7,800,000 2009 UNICEF 2013 Old-age allowance 2,475,000 2011 Helpage students Belarus — — — — Child care benefit, for 315,867 2012 SPeeD children up to 3 years old Belize Building Opportunities 8,600 2011 ECLAC Social pension 3,711 2011 Helpage for Our Social Transformation (BOOST) Benin Program for girls 100 2008 World Bank Projet de services 13,000 2015 Government of education 2011h décentralisés conduits Benin par les communautés (PSDCC) Bhutan — — — — — — — — Bolivia Bono Juancito Pinto 1,887,625 2013 Government of Renta Dignidad 838,866 2014 Helpage Bolivia Bosnia and — — — — Child Protection 105,844 2010 SPeeD Herzegovina Allowance Botswana — — — — Old-Age Pension 91,446 2010 World Bank (OAP) 2011a Brazil Bolsa Familia 14,014,252a 2015 MDS Old-age social pensions 5,852,000 2012 Government of Brazil Bulgaria — — — — Family or child 797,903 2013 SPeeD allowance Burkina Faso Burkin-Nong-Saya (CT — — — Cash Transfers 6,500 2010 World Bank with complementary to Orphans and 2011b activities) Vulnerable Children Burundi — — — — Take a Step Forward 2,000a 2012 World Bank (Terintambwe) 2014b Cabo Verde — — — — Social pensions 23,000 2011 Helpage 88 Appendixes Unconditional food and in-kind Country/ Number of economy/ Program name beneficiaries Year Data source territory Emergency Food 1,800,000 2013 WFP 2015a Afghanistan Assistance — — — — Albania — — — — Algeria Angola Nutrition 800,000 2012 World Bank Angola Program 2012a — — — — Antigua and Barbuda Plan Nacional de 1,954,000 2006 ECLAC Argentina Seguridad Alimentaria — — — — Armenia — — — — Azerbaijan — — — — Bahrain Public Food Distribution 2,100,000 2009 World Bank Bangladesh System 2010a — — — — Belarus Women’s Iron and 9,000 2009 World Bank Belize Folic Acid Distribution 2010b Program Various food 50,991 2008 World Bank Benin distribution programs in 2011h response to crises — — — — Bhutan Assistance to drought- 50,000 2013 WFP 2015c Bolivia affected populations in Bolivia — — — — Bosnia and Herzegovina Vulnerable Group 231,000 2010 World Bank Botswana Feeding Program 2011a Segurança Alimentar e — — — Brazil Nutricional dos Povos Indígenas Assistance for pupils and 48,845 2013 SPeeD Bulgaria students Urban voucher program 338,915 2009 World Bank Burkina Faso (EMOP) 2011b WFP food distribution 743,377 2012 World Bank Burundi (all programs) 2014b Nutritional support — — — Cabo Verde to vulnerable groups and persons living with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (CP10399.0 component 2) (Table continues next page) Appendixes 89 Appendix C. (Part 1) Program Inventory (Continued) Conditional cash transfer Unconditional cash transfer Country/ economy/ Number of Number of territory Program name beneficiaries Year Data source Program name beneficiaries Year Data source Cambodia CESSP Scholarship — — — — — — — Program (Cambodia Education Sector Support Project) Cameroon Pilot CCT with 2,000a 2014 Government of — — — — Productive Aspects Cameroon Central African — — — — — — — — Republic Chad Conditional cash grants 988,624 2014 CARE Programs for food 305,480 2014 Oxfam in refugee camps and International security Households Resilience Programs Chile Subsidio unico familiar 2,066,618 2012 Government of Old-age solidarity 1,000,806 2014 Helpage Chile pensions China Educational subsidies — — — Dibao 74,500,000 2013 Government of and free education China Colombia Familias en Acción 12,300,000 2013 ECLAC Programa Colombia 1,258,000 2014 Helpage Mayor Comoros — — — — — — — — Congo, — — — — World Food 234,000 2013 WFP 2015e Dem. Rep. Programme (cash and voucher program) Congo, Rep. Lisungi — — — Cash transfer program — — — in Brazzaville and Point-Noire Costa Rica Avancemos 171,534 2013 Government of Social pension 70,536 2013 Government of Costa Rica Costa Rica Côte d’Ivoire — — — — Cash transfer project in 54,000 2013 WFP 2015g Abidjan Croatia — — — — Child and family 216,013 2011 SPeeD benefits Czech — — — — Benefit in material 71,153a 2008 Tesliuc and Republic need others Djibouti Cantine and transport 900 2014 Government of Food voucher 3,500a 2014 WFP 2015h subsidy for university Djibouti (July–September) students Dominica — — — — — — — — Dominican Solidaridad/PROSOLI 2,355,615 2014 ECLAC Suplemento 99,802a 2013 Government Republic Alimenticio del of Dominican Programa de Republic Protección a la Vejez en Extrema Pobreza Ecuador Bono de Desarollo 444,562a 2014 Government of Bono matrícula para la 3,015,199 2010 LAC database Humano Ecuador eliminación del aporte voluntario Egypt, — — — — Social solidarity 7,000,000 2014 Government of Arab Rep. pension Egypt El Salvador Comunidades 75,385a 2013 Government of Universal basic pension 28,200 2013 Government of Solidarias Rurales El Salvador for the elderly El Salvador 90 Appendixes Unconditional food and in-kind Country/ Number of economy/ Program name beneficiaries Year Data source territory Mother and Child 114,000 2008 Government of Cambodia Health Program Cambodia, WFP, and World Bank 2009 Nutrition program 20,000 2010 World Bank 2011c Cameroon by CARE General food 333,000 2013 WFP 2015d Central African distribution to IDPs Republic and returnees General food 104,440 2014 Oxfam Chad distribution to IDPs and returnees Programa nacional 685,510 2012 Government of Chile de alimentación Chile complementaria Wubao 5,500,000 2008 World Bank 2010e China Programa de 417,230 2010 LAC database Colombia Alimentación al Adulto Mayor—Juan Luis Londoño de la Cuesta — — — — Comoros World Food Programme 714,900 2013 WFP 2015e Congo, food distribution Dem. Rep. program Food assistance to 70,000 2013 WFP 2015f Congo, Rep. refugees Cen-cinai 157,249 2010 Government of Costa Rica Costa Rica General food 379,000 2013 WFP 2015g Côte d’Ivoire distribution to IDPs Child care (both cash 391,836 2011 SPeeD Croatia and in-kind) — — — — Czech Republic WFP food distribution 28,255 2014 WFP 2015h Djibouti — — — — Dominica Provisión Alimentaria- — — — Dominican Comedores Económicos Republic Alimentate Ecuador 935,061 2010 LAC database Ecuador Support to nutrition 15,000 2011 WFP 2013b Egypt, Arab Rep. Programa de Agricultura 536,137a 2013 Government of El Salvador Familiar El Salvador (Table continues next page) Appendixes 91 Appendix C. (Part 1) Program Inventory (Continued) Conditional cash transfer Unconditional cash transfer Country/ economy/ Number of Number of territory Program name beneficiaries Year Data source Program name beneficiaries Year Data source Equatorial — — — — — — — — Guinea Eritrea CCT — — — — — — — Estonia — — — — Subsistence benefit 136,376a 2009 SPeeD (means-tested benefit) Ethiopia — — — — Pilot social cash 3,367a 2013 UNICEF-REPOM transfer, Tigray Fiji Care and Protection 8,000 2008 ADB 2009b Poverty Benefit Scheme 25,000 2009 ADB 2009b Allowance (C&P) (PBS) Gabon — — — — — — — — Gambia, The Family Strengthening 130,000 2011 COMCEC Emergency Food 20,000 2013 WFP 2015j Program Security Response Georgia — — — — Targeted social 428,492a 2013 SPeeD assistance Ghana — — — — Livelihood 85,000a 2014 Government of Empowerment Against Ghana Poverty (LEAP) Grenada Support for Education, — — — Public assistance 4,000 2008 UN Women Empowerment & Development (SEED) Guatemala Mi Bono Seguro— 588,400a 2013 Government of Atencion al Adulto 108,664 2013 Government of Bono Seguro Escolar Guatemala Mayor (MINTRA) Guatemala Guinea — — — — Cash transfer for — — — nutrition and for girls’ education Guinea-Bissau — — — — Social pension 2,000 2006 Government of Guinea-Bissau 2007 Guyana — — — — Social pension 42,500 2014 Helpage Haiti Ti Manman Cheri 86,234 2014 Haiti Economic Scholarship program 31,409 2014 Haiti Economic and Social (Kore etidyan) and Social Assistance Fund Assistance Fund (FAES) (FAES) Honduras Bono 10,000 2,347,505 2011 ECLAC Matrícula gratis 1,750,000 2010 LAC database Hungary For the Road 26,000 2008 Friedman and Regular social 269,000 2009 Tesliuc and others others 2009 assistance India Janani Suraksha Yojana 7,301,654 2014 Government of Indira Gandhi National 20,885,795 2014 India, Ministry India Old Age Pension of Health and Scheme (IGNOAPS) Family Welfare 2015 Indonesia Program Keluarga 2,400,000 2013 ADB 2013 Bantuan Langsung 15,530,897a 2013 ADB 2013 Harapan Sementara Masyrakat (BLSM) Iran, — — — — Compensatory cash 6,100,000 2009 World Bank Islamic Rep. transfer 2010c Iraq — — — — Social Protection 877,520 2013 Government of Network Iraq Jamaica Programme of 375,242 2014 Government of Old-age social pensions 56,989 2014 Government of Advancement through Jamaica Jamaica Health and Education (PATH) 92 Appendixes Unconditional food and in-kind Country/ Number of economy/ Program name beneficiaries Year Data source territory — — — — Equatorial Guinea Blanket feeding for 187,000 2011 UNICEF 2012 Eritrea children under 5 — — — — Estonia Food assistance under 2,500,000 2013 UNOCHA 2015 Ethiopia Joint Emergency Operation Programme Food Voucher Program — — — Fiji (FVP) — — — — Gabon Blanket supplementary 200,000 2013 WFP 2015j Gambia, The feeding for children under 5 — — — — Georgia Free exercise books 4,768,806 2013 Government of Ghana Ghana Food Security Program 1,000 2008 UN Women Grenada Mi Bolsa Segura 196,341 2013 Government of Guatemala (MIDES) Guatemala Food and nutritional 6,000 2013 WFP 2015k Guinea assistance to Ivoirian refugees — — — — Guinea-Bissau National School —   Internal World Guyana Uniform Programme Bank monitoring tool Unconditional food 300,000 2014 WFP 2015l Haiti transfer relief assistance Comedores Solidarios 39,000 2011 LAC database Honduras — — — — Hungary Integrated Child — — — India Development Services — — — — Indonesia — — — — Iran, Islamic Rep. Food rations from Public — — — Iraq Distribution System (PDS) Rural Feeding 4,000 2010 World Bank 2011f Jamaica Programme (Table continues next page) Appendixes 93 Appendix C. (Part 1) Program Inventory (Continued) Conditional cash transfer Unconditional cash transfer Country/ economy/ Number of Number of territory Program name beneficiaries Year Data source Program name beneficiaries Year Data source Jordan — — — — National Aid Fund 250,000 2011 WFP 2013a Kazakhstan Bota CCT 135,000 2010 World Bank Targeted social 104,100a 2012 SPeeD 2011g assistance Kenya — — — — Cash transfer for OVC 1,265,000 2015 Internal (CT-OVC) World Bank documentation Kiribati — — — — Elderly pension 2,090 2010 Helpage Kosovo — — — — Social Assistance 30,741 2013 SPeeD Scheme (Ndihma I and II) Kuwait Families with Students — — — Physical Disability — — — grant Grant Kyrgyz — — — — Monthly Benefit for 361,500 2012 World Bank Republic Poor Families with 2014c Children (MBPF) Lao PDR — — — — — — — — a Latvia — — — — Guaranteed minimum 121,833 2011 SPeeD income Lebanon — — — — Family and education — — — allowance Lesotho Child Grants Program 30,000 2012 World Bank Old-age social pensions 83,000 2012 World Bank (CGP) 2012b 2012b Liberia — — — — E-FED (Ebola 125,000 2014 Mercy Corps Food & Economic Development Program) Libya — — — — — — — — Lithuania — — — — Social benefit 50,000 2009 SPeeD Macedonia, CCT increased child 7,122 2014 SPeeD Social financial 44,852 2011 SPeeD FYR allowance assistance Madagascar CCT — — — Family allowance — — — Malawi — — — — Social Cash Transfer 143,741a 2014 Government of Scheme (SCTS) Malawi Malaysia — — — — Bantuan Rakyat 1 15,300,000 2014 World Bank 2015 Malaysia (BR1M) scheme Maldives — — — — Old-age pension 15,248 2012 Helpage scheme Mali Maternal Grants for 5,427 2007 World Bank 2011i JIGISEMEJIRI cash 5,000 2014 Government of Education (Bourses transfer program Mali Maman) Marshall — — — — — — — — Islands Mauritania — — — — WFP/Food Security 30,000a 2011 World Bank Commission cash 2014a transfer program Mauritius — — — — Noncontributory 180,770 2012 Helpage pension Mexico Prospera 25,631,340 2013 Government of 65 y mas 5,100,000 2013 Helpage Mexico 94 Appendixes Unconditional food and in-kind Country/ Number of economy/ Program name beneficiaries Year Data source territory Urban Targeted Food 115,000 2011 WFP 2013a Jordan Assistance — — — — Kazakhstan General relief food 635,000 2015 WFP 2015n Kenya distribution (GFD) — — — — Kiribati — — — — Kosovo — — — — Kuwait Wheelchairs, assistive 800 2012 World Bank 2014c Kyrgyz appliances for persons Republic with disabilities — — — — Lao, PDR — — — — Latvia — — — — Lebanon Nutrition Support for 134,000 2011 World Bank Lesotho Malnourished Children 2012b and Other Vulnerable Groups Nutrition intervention 31,500 2011 WFP 2015o Liberia (WFP) — — — — Libya — — — — Lithuania — — — — Macedonia, FYR Nutrition-related 52,000 2010 World Bank 2012c Madagascar transfers in kind Food stamps and 1,709,000 2011 WFP 2013c Malawi vouchers Milk program — — — Malaysia — — — — Maldives Government nutrition 450,000 2010 World Bank 2011i Mali program — — — — Marshall Islands Emergency food 585,000 2012 World Bank Mauritania distribution program 2014a Food stamps and — — — Mauritius vouchers Milk grant benefit 6,070,993 2009 LAC database Mexico (Table continues next page) Appendixes 95 Appendix C. (Part 1) Program Inventory (Continued) Conditional cash transfer Unconditional cash transfer Country/ economy/ Number of Number of territory Program name beneficiaries Year Data source Program name beneficiaries Year Data source Micronesia, — — — — — — — — Fed. Sts. Moldova — — — — Ajutor Social 27,152a 2010 SPeeD Mongolia — — — — Cash assistance to 125,600 2010 ADB 2012a elderly women Montenegro — — — — Family material 12,830a 2008 SPeeD support and benefits based on social care Morocco Tayssir 80,000 2008 World Bank Family allowances 538,000 2008 World Bank 2011d 2011d Mozambique — — — — Food Subsidy Program 291,604 2013 Instituto Nacional (Programa de Subsidio de Acção Social de Alimentos, PSA) (INAS) Myanmar — — — — — — — — Namibia Namibia Students 20,909 2013 Government of Provision of Social 175,659 2013 Government of Financial Assistance Namibia Assistance (funeral Namibia grants) Nepal — — — — Old-age pension 922,741 2014 Government of scheme Nepal Nicaragua Mi Beca familiar — — — Defensa Civil 403,016 2013 Government of Nicaragua Niger Projet de Filets Sociaux — — — Family allowance — — — Nigeria Kano CCT for Girls’ 16,271 2014 Government of Eradication of Extreme 47,746 2013 Government of Education Nigeria Poverty and Hunger/ Nigeria Cash transfer Oman — — — — — — — — Pakistan Benazir Income 51,000 2014  Government of Benazir Income 4,800,000 2014 Government of Support Program Pakistan Support Program Pakistan (BISP), CCT (BISP) component Palau — — — — — — — — a Panama Red de Oportunidades 72,773 2014 Government of Social pension 91,856 2014 Government of Panama Panama Papua New — — — — — — — — Guinea Paraguay Tekoporâ 554,484 2010 ECLAC Old-age social pensions 100,272 2014 Helpage Peru Juntos 3,881,875 2013 LAC database Pension 65 317,298 2014 Helpage a Philippines Pantawid Pamilyang 4,100,000 2014 Government of Tulong Para Kay Lolo 1,000,000 2013 Government of Pilipino Program (4Ps) the Philippines at Lola the Philippines Poland — — — — Family allowance 2,337,668 2013 SPeeD Qatar — — — — — — — — Romania Money for High School 79,810 2014 Government of Universal Child 3,886,850 2011 SPeeD Romania Allowance (UCA) 96 Appendixes Unconditional food and in-kind Country/ Number of economy/ Program name beneficiaries Year Data source territory — — — — Micronesia, Fed. Sts. — — — — Moldova Food stamp program 96,600 2010 ADB 2012a Mongolia — — — — Montenegro Un million de cartables 1,304,100 2008 Government of Morocco Morocco Programa de Apoio 125,000a 2013 Instituto Nacional Mozambique Social Directo de Acção Social (INAS) — — — — Myanmar — — — — Namibia — — — — Nepal Programa de Seguridad 54,217 2013 Government of Nicaragua Alimentaria Nutricional Nicaragua Saving Lives, Reducing 820,738a 2013 WFP 2015p Niger Malnutrition and Protecting Livelihoods of Vulnerable Populations Save the Children 7,000 2012 UNICEF 2012 Nigeria — — — — Oman         Pakistan — — — — Palau a Bono Familiar para la 9,200 2009 LAC database Panama compra de alimentos — — — — Papua New Guinea Programme to 1,904 2009 ECLAC Paraguay Progressively Decrease Child Work in the Streets: Food and Health Services Vaso de Leche 1,768,049 2010 LAC database Peru — — — — Philippines Food benefit (in-kind 856,315 2013 SPeeD Poland and cash) — — — — Qatar Food allowance (milk 2,060,061 2010 SPeeD Romania and bread) (Table continues next page) Appendixes 97 Appendix C. (Part 1) Program Inventory (Continued) Conditional cash transfer Unconditional cash transfer Country/ economy/ Number of Number of territory Program name beneficiaries Year Data source Program name beneficiaries Year Data source Russian — — — — Child allowances 10,500,000 2009 Russian Federal Federation State Statistics Service 2010 Rwanda — — — — Fond d’Assistance aux 21,039 2014 Government of Rescapees du Genocide Rwanda (FARG) Samoa — — — — Senior citizens benefit 8,700 2010 Helpage a São Tomé and Maes Carenciadas 6,120 2014 Government of Old-age social pension 3,000 2014 Government of Príncipe São Tomé and São Tomé and Príncipe Príncipe Saudi Arabia Support assistance 428,028 2011 World Bank 2012f Regular assistance: 370,846 2011 World Bank 2012f for school bags and divorced/widowed uniforms women Senegal CCT–Educational 5,000 2010 World Bank Child nutrition 26,300 2010 Garcia and Moore support for vulnerable 2013e program (NETS) 2011 children Serbia — — — — Child allowances 394,557 2013 SPeeD Seychelles — — — — Retirement pension 6,751 2013 Government of Seychelles Sierra Leone — — — — Orphans and — — — Vulnerable Children (OVC) benefits Slovak Motivation allowance 31,000 2011 Sundaram, Material need benefit 111,000 2011 Sundaram, Republic Strokova, and Strokova, and Gotcheva 2012 Gotcheva 2012 Slovenia — — — — Child benefits 371,000 2007 Government of Slovenia Solomon — — — —   — — — Islands Somalia — — — — Cash and Voucher 96,700 2011 Dunn and others Monitoring Group 2013 (CVMG) Program South Africa — — — — Child Support Grant 11,341,988 2013 Government of South Africa South Sudan — — — — — — — — Sri Lanka Grade C scholarship 85,000 2012 Government of Monthly assistance for 16,600a 2013 Government of and bursaries program Sri Lanka disabled Sri Lanka for school children St. Kitts and — — — — Assistance pensions 1,000 2008 World Bank Nevis 2009b St. Lucia — — — — Public assistance 3,133a 2014 Government of program St. Lucia St. Vincent and — — — — Public assistance relief 6,000 2009 World Bank 2010f the Grenadines Sudan — — — — Zakat 6,844,703 2013 Government of Sudan Suriname — — — — Old-age social pensions 44,739 2003 Helpage Swaziland — — — — Education Grant 118,219 2010 World Bank Scheme for OVCs (also 2012g known as the Bursary Scheme and Capitation Grant Scheme) Syrian Arab — — — — Social Welfare Fund — — — Republic 98 Appendixes Unconditional food and in-kind Country/ Number of economy/ Program name beneficiaries Year Data source territory — — — — Russian Federation Food stamps and — — — Rwanda vouchers — — — — Samoa Cantine for elderly poor 280 2014 Government of São Tomé and São Tomé and Príncipe Príncipe — — — — Saudi Arabia Commissariat à la 3,000,000 2010 World Bank 2013e Senegal Sécurité Alimentaire — — — — Serbia — — — — Seychelles Food assistance for — — — Sierra Leone people living with HIV/ TB (MOHS/WFP) — — — — Slovak Republic — — — — Slovenia — — — — Solomon Islands Targeted Supplementary 718,000 2011 WFP 2012c Somalia Feeding Program Social Relief of Distress — — — South Africa Supplementary Feeding 692,000 2011 World Bank South Sudan Program 2013b Samurdhia 1,500,000 2011 World Bank Sri Lanka 2012d Uniforms and shoes 2,000 2008 World Bank St. Kitts and 2009b Nevis — — — — St. Lucia Nutrition Support 1,000 2009 World Bank 2010f St. Vincent and Program the Grenadines General food 5,127,000 2011 WFP 2012b Sudan distribution program — — — — Suriname Food distribution 88,511 2010 World Bank Swaziland 2012g — — — — Syrian Arab Republic (Table continues next page) Appendixes 99 Appendix C. (Part 1) Program Inventory (Continued) Conditional cash transfer Unconditional cash transfer Country/ economy/ Number of Number of territory Program name beneficiaries Year Data source Program name beneficiaries Year Data source Tajikistan Conditional cash — — — Targeted social 11,184a 2012 SPeeD payments; allowances assistance (pilot) to large families and children Tanzania CCT part of Tanzania 400,000a 2010 World Bank 2011l TASAF — — — Social Action Fund (TASAF) Thailand — — — — Old-age allowance 5,698,414 2011 Helpage Timor-Leste Bolsa da Mae 15,150a 2012 Government of Transfers for the elderly 84,569 2012 Helpage Timor-Leste Togo CT for vulnerable 12,079a 2015 Government of CT to children 300 2010 World Bank children in Togo Togo (from 2 NGOs) 2012h (government and [Projet de Développement Communautaire] PDCplus) Tonga — — — — — — — — Trinidad and Targeted CCTs: Cash 35,906 2011 ECLAC Old-age social pensions 79,942 2011 Helpage Tobago transfer component Tunisia — — — — Programme National 235,000a 2011 World Bank d’Aide aux Familles 2013a Nécessiteuses (PNAFN) Cash transfers Turkey Şartlı Eğitim Yardımı 1,965,633a 2013 SPeeD 2022 Sayili Kanun 632,407 2013 SPeeD Kapsaminda Yapilan (old-age social pension) Turkmenistan — — — — — — — — Tuvalu — — — — — — — — Uganda — — — — Senior citizens grant 91,843a 2013 Government of Uganda Ukraine — — — — Child care benefit 1,515,600 2012 SPeeD United Arab — — — — — — — — Emirates Uruguay Asignaciones 527,704 2012 ECLAC Noncontributory 33,400 2013 Helpage Familiares pensions for old age and disability Uzbekistan — — — — Social assistance to 600,000 2011 CER 2014 poor families Vanuatu — — — — — — — — Venezuela, RB — — — — Old-age social pensions 531,546 2013 Helpage Vietnam Decree 49 and its — — — Social pensions 1,100,000 2011 Helpage revision, Decree 74/2013/ND-CP 100 Appendixes Unconditional food and in-kind Country/ Number of economy/ Program name beneficiaries Year Data source territory Food for tuberculosis 45,000 2011 WFP 2015q Tajikistan patients Most Vulnerable 570,000 2010 World Bank 2011l Tanzania Children (MVC) Program — — — — Thailand Ad hoc in-kind support — — — Timor-Leste Nutrition program by 25,914 2010 World Bank Togo UNICEF 2012h — — — — Tonga — — — — Trinidad and Tobago — — — — Tunisia GIDA YARDIMI (food 2,442,599a 2013 SPeeD Turkey assistance) — — — — Turkmenistan — — — — Tuvalu Protracted Relief and 352,495 2013 USAID Uganda Recovery Operations (PRRO) Uganda 200429–Stabilizing Food Consumption and Reducing Acute Malnutrition among Refugees and Extremely Vulnerable Households: Extremely Vulnerable Households component — — — — Ukraine — — — — United Arab Emirates Tarjeta Uruguay social 265,392 2013 ECLAC Uruguay Support for 475,000 2008 UNICEF 2009 Uzbekistan breastfeeding (YICF) — — — — Vanuatu — — — — Venezuela, RB a Housing support for the 500,000 2009 Castel 2010 Vietnam poor (Table continues next page) Appendixes 101 Appendix C. (Part 1) Program Inventory (Continued) Conditional cash transfer Unconditional cash transfer Country/ economy/ Number of Number of territory Program name beneficiaries Year Data source Program name beneficiaries Year Data source West Bank and — — — — Cash Transfer Program 115,951a 2014 MOSA Gaza (CTP) Yemen, Rep. Basic Education 39,791 2014 Progress report Social Welfare Fund 1,504,663a 2014 Progress report Support for Girls CCT (SWF) Zambia — — — — Social Cash Transfer 114,500 2012 World Bank 2012i Scheme Zimbabwe — — — — Harmonized cash 37,297 2013 Government of transfer Zimbabwe Source: World Bank, based on sources noted. Note: CCT = conditional cash transfer; COMCEC = Standing Committee for Economic and Commercial Cooperation of the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation; CT = cash transfer; ECLAC = Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean of the United Nations; IDPs = internally displaced persons; LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean; MDS = Ministry of Social Development and Fight Against Hunger; NGO = nongovernmental organization; OVC = Orphans and Vulnerable Children; SPeeD = Social Protection Expenditure and Evaluation Database for Europe and Central Asia; USAID = U.S. Agency for International Development; WFP = World Food Programme; — = not available. a. Data refer to a total number of households; all other beneficiary data refer to the number of individual beneficiaries. 102 Appendixes Unconditional food and in-kind Country/ Number of economy/ Program name beneficiaries Year Data source territory Food rations, in-kind 45,000a 2014 WFP 2015r West Bank and assistance Gaza Emergency Food and 4,313,631 2013 WFP 2015s Yemen, Rep. Nutrition Support to Food Insecure and Conflict-Affected People STEPS/OVC 204,251 2012 World Bank 2012i Zambia Assistance to Food 204,255a 2013 WFP 2015t Zimbabwe Insecure Vulnerable Groups Appendixes 103 Appendix C. (Part 2) Program Inventory School feeding Public works Country/ economy/ Number of Number of territory Program name beneficiaries Year Data source Program name beneficiaries Year Data source Afghanistan School feeding 740,000 2013 WFP 2015a Assets Creation 250,000 2014 WFP 2015a Programme Albania School feeding — — — Employment program 834 2013 SPeeD Algeria School feeding 31,000 2011 WFP 2013d — — — — Angola School feeding 221,000 2011 WFP 2013d — — — — Antigua and — — — — — — — — Barbuda Argentina Comedores Escolares 1,715,737 2010 LAC database Plan de Empleo 399,860 2010 LAC database Comunitario (PEC) Armenia School feeding 38,000 2011 WFP 2013d Work practice for 4,161 2014 SPeeD unemployed and disabled Azerbaijan — — — — — — — — Bahrain School feeding — — — — — — — Bangladesh School Feeding 1,930,000 2011 WFP 2013d Employment 1,400,000 2014 Government of Programme in poverty- Generation Program Bangladesh prone areas for the Poorest (EGPP) Belarus School feeding — — — Public works 80,700 2012 SPeeD Belize School feeding — — — — — — — Benin School feeding 324,000 2011 WFP 2013d Le Projet de services 12,000 2015 Government of program décentralisés conduits Benin 2015 par les communautés (PSDCC)  Bhutan School feeding 30,345 2011 WFP 2015b — — — — Bolivia School feeding 1,906,000 2011 WFP 2013d Empleo Digno e — — — Intensivo de Mano de Obra Bosnia and School feeding — — — — — — — Herzegovina Botswana School feeding 330,000 2011 WFP 2013d Ipelegeng (self- 19,431 2010 World Bank reliance) Labor- 2011a Intensive Public Works (LIPW) program Brazil National School 47,271,000 2011 LAC database Economia Solidaria— 534,053 2012 Government of Feeding Program Programa Economia Brazil Solidaria em Desemvolvimento Bulgaria School feeding — — — Direct job creation 17,892 2010 SPeeD Burkina Faso School feeding 2,209,000 2011 WFP 2013d WFP public works — — — (various programs) Burundi School feeding 190,000 2011 WFP 2013d WFP Public Works 32,405 2012 World Bank (excluding the ones 2014b through IFAD) Cabo Verde School feeding 86,000 2011 WFP 2013d Frentes de Alta — — — Intensidade de Mão de Obra (FAIMOs) Cambodia School feeding 756,000 2011 WFP 2013d Emergency Food 1,300a 2009 Subbarao and Assistance Project others 2013 Cameroon School feeding 55,366 2010 WFP 2013d — — — — Central African School feeding 284,000 2011 WFP 2013d Food for assets 89,000 2011 WFP 2015d Republic 104 Appendixes Fee waivers Country/ Number of economy/ Program name beneficiaries Year Data source territory — — — — Afghanistan Energy benefit 45,833a 2014 SPeeD Albania — — — — Algeria — — — — Angola — — — — Antigua and Barbuda — — — — Argentina — — — — Armenia — — — — Azerbaijan — — — — Bahrain n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Bangladesh Subsidies for housing 1,490,000 2011 World Bank Belarus and utilities 2011e — — — — Belize — — — — Benin — — — — Bhutan — — — — Bolivia — — — — Bosnia and Herzegovina — — — — Botswana — — — — Brazil Energy benefit 251,876 2013 SPeeD Bulgaria — — — — Burkina Faso Abolition of primary 471,274 2012 World Bank Burundi school fee 2014b — — — — Cabo Verde — — — — Cambodia — — — — Cameroon         Central African Republic (Table continues next page) Appendixes 105 Appendix C. (Part 2) Program Inventory (Continued) School feeding Public works Country/ economy/ Number of Number of territory Program name beneficiaries Year Data source Program name beneficiaries Year Data source Chad School feeding 265,072 2014 WFP 2012a Food for assets 325,000 2011 WFP 2012a Chile National board of 2,263,000 2011 WFP 2013d Employment 19,900 2012 Government of student aid and creation program Chile 2013 scholarships (PROEMPLEO) China School feeding 26,000,000 2011 WFP 2013d — — — — Colombia Programa de 4,032,237 2010 LAC database Programa de Empleo 14,300 2012 Government of Alimentación Escolar de Emergencia Colombia Comoros School feeding — — Community 3,800 2009 Subbarao and Development Support others 2013 Fund (FADC, in French) Congo, School feeding 854,546 2013 WFP 2013d WFP Public Works 3,145 2013 WFP 2015e Dem. Rep. Congo, Rep. School feeding 223,000 2011 WFP 2013d Public works project — — — Costa Rica School feeding 623,000 2013 Government of National employment 5,147 2011 LAC database Costa Rica Côte d’Ivoire School feeding 374,000 2011 WFP 2013d Post-Conflict 3,000 2009 Subbarao and Assistance Project others 2013 Croatia School feeding 152,000 2011 WFP 2013d — — — — Czech — — — — — — — — Republic Djibouti School feeding 16,814 2014 WFP 2015h Social Safety Net 5,129 2014 National Initiative Project for Social Development (INDS) Dominica School feeding — — — — — — — Dominican School feeding 1,320,116 2012 Government — — — — Republic of Dominican Republic Ecuador Programa de 1,789,000 2011 WFP 2013d My First Job Program 2,150 2010 LAC database Alimentación Escolar Egypt, School feeding 7,002,000 2011 WFP 2013d Labor Intensive 38,308 2014 WFP 2013d Arab Rep. Investment Project for Egypt El Salvador Programa de 1,453,118 2013 Government of Temporary Income 23,456 2013 Government of El Alimentacion Escolar El Salvador Support Program— Salvador Urban Equatorial — — — — — — — — Guinea Eritrea — — — — Public works — — Subbarao and others 2013 Estonia School feeding — — — — — — — Ethiopia School feeding 669,394 2013 WFP 2015i Productive Safety Net 6,889,910 2013 Government of Programa Ethiopia Fiji — — — — — — — — Gabon — — — — — — — — Gambia, The School feeding 159,000 2011 WFP 2013d — — — — Georgia — — — — — — — — 106 Appendixes Fee waivers Country/ Number of economy/ Program name beneficiaries Year Data source territory — — — — Chad — — — — Chile Medical assistance 41,900,000 2008 Umapathi, Wang, China and O’Keefe 2013 — — — — Colombia — — — — Comoros Indigent cards 6,000 2014 Government of Congo, Congo Dem. Rep. — — — — Congo, Rep. Education scholarships 113,202 2013 LAC database Costa Rica — — — — Côte d’Ivoire — — — — Croatia — — — — Czech Republic — — — — Djibouti — — — — Dominica Seguro Familiar de — — — Dominican Salud—Regimen Republic Subsidiado Programa Textos 2,350,622 2010 LAC database Ecuador Escolares — — — — Egypt, Arab Rep. Uniforms 1,386,767 2013 Government of El Salvador El Salvador — — — — Equatorial Guinea — — — — Eritrea Subsistence benefit 82,276a 2012 SPeeD Estonia to cover expenses for standard allotted living space — — — — Ethiopia Free Bus Fare Program — — — Fiji (FBFP) — — — — Gabon — — — — Gambia, The Domestic subsidies 59,741 2013 SPeeD Georgia (household allowance) (Table continues next page) Appendixes 107 Appendix C. (Part 2) Program Inventory (Continued) School feeding Public works Country/ economy/ Number of Number of territory Program name beneficiaries Year Data source Program name beneficiaries Year Data source Ghana Ghana School Feeding 1,740,000 2013 Government of Labour Intensive 26,718 2014 Government of Programme Ghana Public Works program Ghana (LIPW) Grenada School feeding — — — Debushing Program 400 2009 Subbarao and others 2013 Guatemala School feeding 3,052,000 2011 WFP 2013d — — — — Guinea School feeding 553,000 2011 WFP 2013d Productive Social — — — Safety Net Program Guinea-Bissau School feeding 126,000 2011 WFP 2013d — — — — Guyana School feeding 17,000 2011 WFP 2013d — — — — Haiti School feeding 818,828 2013 Haiti Economic National Project 450,000 2009 Subbarao and (cantines scolaire)— and Social of Community others 2013 nombre d’élève Assistance Fund Participation (FAES) Development (PRODEP, in French) Honduras Programa Escuela 1,460,000 2011 WFP 2013d Public works 13,000 2011 WFP 2015m Saludables Hungary School feeding — — — — — — — India School feeding 104,500,000 2014 India, Ministry Mahatma Gandhi 57,801,470 2014 India, Ministry of Health and National Rural of Health and Family Welfare Employment Guarantee Family 2015 2015 (MGNREG) Indonesia School feeding 125,000 2011 WFP 2013d National Community — — — Empowerment Program (PNPM Mandiri) Iran, School feeding 3,000 2011 WFP 2013d — — — — Islamic Rep. Iraq School feeding 555,000 2011 WFP 2013d — — — — Jamaica School feeding 311,000 2011 WFP 2013d — — — — Jordan School nutrition 115,000 2011 WFP 2013d Rural Food for Assets 42,000 2011 WFP 2013a Kazakhstan School feeding — — — “Road Map” program 247,000 2009 World Bank 2011g Kenya Regular school meals 791,000 2015 WFP 2015n Food-for-assets/cash- 702,000 2015 WFP 2015n program for-assets Protracted Relief and Recovery Operation (PRRO) Kiribati — — — — — — — — Kosovo — — — — — — — — Kuwait School feeding — — — — — — — Kyrgyz School feeding 400,000 2012 World Bank Public works — — — Republic 2014c Lao PDR School feeding 177,000 2011 WFP 2013d Poverty Reduction 118,000 2009 Subbarao and Fund others 2013 Latvia School feeding — — — Public works 15,406 2011 SPeeD Lebanon School feeding — — — — — — — Lesotho School feeding 445,000 2011 WFP 2013d Integrated Watershed 96,000 2012 World Bank Management Public 2012b Works Program 108 Appendixes Fee waivers Country/ Number of economy/ Program name beneficiaries Year Data source territory Capitation Grant 5,741,198 2013 Government of Ghana Programme Ghana — — — — Grenada — — — — Guatemala — — — — Guinea — — — — Guinea-Bissau — — — — Guyana Fee waiver for primary 1,399,173 2013 Haiti Economic Haiti education and Social Assistance Fund (FAES) — — — — Honduras — — — — Hungary — — — — India Social Health Insurance 86,400,000 2013 ADB 2013 Indonesia (Jamkesmas, including Jampersal) — — — — Iran, Islamic Rep. — — — — Iraq Programme of — — — Jamaica Advancement through Health and Education (PATH): Health grant — — — — Jordan — — — — Kazakhstan — — — — Kenya — — — — Kiribati — — — — Kosovo Housing Conditions — — — Kuwait Grant (permanent to temporary) Electricity 532,300 2012 SPeeD Kyrgyz compensation Republic — — — — Lao, PDR Housing benefit 185,146a 2012 SPeeD Latvia — — — — Lebanon — — — — Lesotho (Table continues next page) Appendixes 109 Appendix C. (Part 2) Program Inventory (Continued) School feeding Public works Country/ economy/ Number of Number of territory Program name beneficiaries Year Data source Program name beneficiaries Year Data source Liberia WFP school feeding 648,000 2011 WFP 2013d Economic recovery 20,000 2014 Mercy Corps for Ebola-affected households Libya — — — — — — — — Lithuania School meal 198,440 2009 SPeeD Temporary 6,000 2008 Government employment of Lithuania, promotion United Nations Development Programme, and European Commission 2009 Macedonia, — — — — — — — — FYR Madagascar School feeding 237,000 2011 WFP 2013d Cash-for-work 222,995 2010 World Bank component of 2012c the Emergency Food Security and Reconstruction Project Malawi School feeding 1,800,000 2014 Government of Public works program 259,540a 2014 Government of Malawi Malawi Malaysia School feeding — — — — — — — Maldives   — — — — — — — Mali School feeding 354,000 2011 WFP 2013d WFP food-for-work 180,000 2011 World Bank 2011i (various programs) Marshall School feeding — — — — — — — Islands Mauritania School feeding 150,000 2013 World Bank Food-for-work 50,000 2013 World Bank 2014a 2014a Mauritius School Feeding — — — Community — — — Programme infrastructure Mexico School feeding 5,164,000 2011 WFP 2013d Programa de Empleo 582,044 2010 LAC database Temporal Ampliado Micronesia, — — — — — — — — Fed. Sts. Moldova School feeding — — — Moldova Social 112,000 2009 Subbarao and Investment Fund others 2013 Mongolia School feeding 280,400 2009 ADB 2012a — — — — Montenegro — — — — — — — — Morocco School Feeding 1,423,000 2011 WFP 2013d National Initiative for 4,000,000 2009 World Bank Program (various Human Development 2011d programs) Support Project (INDH) Mozambique School Feeding 427,000 2011 WFP 2013d Programa de Accao 10,000 2014 Instituto Nacional (Alimentação Escolar) Social Produtiva de Acção Social (INAS) Myanmar — — — — — — — — Namibia National School 300,000 2013 Government of — — — — Feeding Programme Namibia to Orphans and Vulnerable Children Nepal School feeding (various 666,378 2014 Government of Karnali Employment 323,600 2014 Government of programs) Nepal Program Nepal 110 Appendixes Fee waivers Country/ Number of economy/ Program name beneficiaries Year Data source territory — — — — Liberia — — — — Libya Utility allowance 111,000 2009 SPeeD Lithuania (compensation for heating expenses) — — — — Macedonia, FYR — — — — Madagascar — — — — Malawi — — — — Malaysia Welfare assistance for 1,294 2010 ADB 2012b Maldives medical services within Maldives and abroad Cereal banks 1,800,000 2008 World Bank 2011i Mali — — — — Marshall Islands — — — — Mauritania School supplies 11,000 2008 World Bank 2011j Mauritius Education scholarships — — — Mexico — — — — Micronesia, Fed. Sts. Heating allowance 547,844a 2010 SPeeD Moldova Social Security for 108,200 2010 ADB 2012a Mongolia elderly Electricity bill subsidy 20,829a 2007 SPeeD Montenegro Villes Sans Bidonvilles 324,000a 2010 World Bank Morocco 2011d School fee waiver for 5,900,000 2010 World Bank Mozambique secondary schools 2011k — — — — Myanmar Disease control (ART) 120,029 2013 Government of Namibia Namibia — — — — Nepal (Table continues next page) Appendixes 111 Appendix C. (Part 2) Program Inventory (Continued) School feeding Public works Country/ economy/ Number of Number of territory Program name beneficiaries Year Data source Program name beneficiaries Year Data source Nicaragua School feeding 1,050,000 2013 Government of — — — — Nicaragua Niger School feeding (various 168,000 2011 WFP 2013d Public works — — — programs) Nigeria School feeding 155,000 2011 WFP 2013d Community Service, 35,000 2012 World Bank Women & Youth 2013d Employment Programme (including graduate internship scheme) SURE-P Oman — — — — — — — — Pakistan Tawana Pakistan 2,078,000 2011 WFP 2013d         initiative Palau — — — — — — — — Panama School feeding 461,000 2011 WFP 2013d Public works, training 110,095 2011 LAC database programs Papua New — — — — Public works program — — — Guinea Paraguay School feeding 10,000 2011 WFP 2013d — — — — Peru Qali Warma 2,700,705 2013 LAC database Programa para la 65,433 2013 LAC database Generación de Empleo Social Inclusivo “Trabaja Perú” Philippines Breakfast feeding 562,000 2013 Government of Food-for-Work for the — — — program the Philippines Internally Displaced Poland School feeding 730,000 2011 WFP 2013d Direct job creation 6,775 2011 SPeeD Qatar School feeding — — — — — — — Romania School feeding — — — Direct job creation 7,447 2010 SPeeD Russian School feeding 2,647,000 2011 WFP 2013d Regional public works 1,521,000 2009 World Bank Federation program 2010d Rwanda School feeding 25,000 2014 Government of Assistance to Refugees 19,234 2014 Government of Rwanda and Recovery Rwanda Operations for the Most Vulnerable Household (Food for Work) Samoa — — — — — — — — a São Tomé and School feeding 41,000 2014 Government of Grupo de Interesse 1,700 2014 Government of Príncipe São Tomé and de Manutenção de São Tomé and Príncipe Estradas (GIME) Príncipe Saudi Arabia School feeding — — — — — — — Senegal WFP School Lunch 764,000 2011 WFP 2013d — — — — Program Serbia School feeding — — — Public works 6,127 2012 SPeeD Seychelles School feeding — — — — — — — Sierra Leone School feeding (MEST/ 530,000 2011 WFP 2013d Rural Public Works 813,538 2011 World Bank WFP/DFID/others) and Shelter 2012e Programme, National Social Action Project (NS) Slovak School feeding — — — — — — — Republic Slovenia School feeding — — — — — — — 112 Appendixes Fee waivers Country/ Number of economy/ Program name beneficiaries Year Data source territory Paquetes educativos 300,000 2013 Government of Nicaragua soldarios Nicaragua — — — — Niger — — — — Nigeria — — — — Oman Social services 54,211 2008 World Bank Pakistan (medical) centers/ 2013c projects — — — — Palau Beca universal 478,574 2013 Government of Panama Panama — — — — Papua New Guinea — — — — Paraguay — — — — Peru PhilHealth-sponsored 8,400,000a 2013 Government of Philippines program the Philippines — — — — Poland — — — — Qatar Heating allowance 3,592,213 2009 SPeeD Romania Housing and heating 9,076,000 2009 Government of Russian subsidies Russia Federation — — — — Rwanda — — — — Samoa a Scholarships 841 2014 Government of São Tomé and São Tomé and Príncipe Príncipe — — — — Saudi Arabia — — — — Senegal — — — — Serbia — — — — Seychelles — — — — Sierra Leone — — — — Slovak Republic — — — — Slovenia (Table continues next page) Appendixes 113 Appendix C. (Part 2) Program Inventory (Continued) School feeding Public works Country/ economy/ Number of Number of territory Program name beneficiaries Year Data source Program name beneficiaries Year Data source Solomon — — — — Rapid Employment — — — Islands Program Somalia School feeding 76,000 2011 WFP 2013d Cash-for-work 780,000 2011 FAO 2013 Programme South Africa National School 9,159,773 2013 Government of Extended Public Works 350,068 2013 Government of Nutrition Programme South Africa Programme (EPWP) South Africa South Sudan School feeding 400,000 2011 WFP 2013d Food for assets 942,000 2011 World Bank 2013b Sri Lanka School Meal 890,404 2013 Government of Food for work — — — Program—Mid-day Sri Lanka Meal Program St. Kitts and School feeding — — — — — — — Nevis St. Lucia School feeding 7,466 2012 Government of Short-Term 9,487 2013 St. Lucia Social St. Lucia Employment Development Programme Fund (SSDF) St. Vincent and School feeding — — — Road Cleaning 3,000 2009 World Bank 2010f the Grenadines Program Sudan School Feeding 2,015,675 2013 Government of Food for assets 952,000 2011 WFP 2012b Programme Sudan Suriname   — — — — — — — Swaziland National School Meal 328,000 2011 WFP 2013d Pilot food for work — — — Program Syrian Arab School feeding 46,000 2011 WFP 2013d Public works program — — — Republic Tajikistan School feeding 330,000 2011 WFP 2013d Direct job creation — — — Tanzania Food for education 1,275,000 2011 WFP 2013d Food-for-Assets 58,202 2010 World Bank 2011l Creation Program (WFP) Thailand School feeding 1,677,000 2011 WFP 2013d Income generation — — — activities Timor-Leste School feeding 288,000 2011 WFP 2013d Cash-for-Work 55,000 2008 ADB 2009a program Togo School feeding 30,937 2014 Government of Public works 9,679 2014 Government of (government and Togo (PDCplus) Togo PDCplus) Tonga School feeding — — — — — — — Trinidad and School feeding — — — — — — — Tobago Tunisia School feeding 240,000 2011 WFP 2013d — — — — Turkey School Milk Project 6,182,368 2013 SPeeD Toplum Yararina 197,182 2013 SPeeD Calisma Programlari (TYCP) Turkmenistan — — — — — — — — Tuvalu — — — — — — — — a Uganda WFP School Feeding 112,511 2013 WFP (Country Northern Uganda 69,080 2013 WFP (Country Programme in Programme Social Action Fund II Programme Karamoja 2009–2014 Karamoja/Karamoja 2009–2014 Document) Productive Assets Document) Programme (KPAP) Ukraine School feeding — — — Direct job creation 45,500 2012 SPeeD 114 Appendixes Fee waivers Country/ Number of economy/ Program name beneficiaries Year Data source territory — — — — Solomon Islands — — — — Somalia — — — — South Africa — — — — South Sudan Free school uniform 3,973,909 2013 Government of Sri Lanka material program Sri Lanka — — — — St. Kitts and Nevis Education assistance 3,000 2008 World Bank St. Lucia 2009a — — — — St. Vincent and the Grenadines — — — — Sudan — — — — Suriname Fee waivers for health — — — Swaziland care — — — — Syrian Arab Republic — — — — Tajikistan National Agricultural 1,800,000 2012 World Bank 2011l Tanzania Input Voucher Scheme (NAIVS) Government — — — Thailand scholarship program Food Security Fund — — — Timor-Leste Free tuition for primary 1,286,653 2009 World Bank Togo and “préscolaire” 2012h public and community schools — — — — Tonga — — — — Trinidad and Tobago — — — — Tunisia Genel Sağlik Sigortasi 9,403,251a 2013 SPeeD Turkey Prim Ödemeleri (green card project) — — — — Turkmenistan — — — — Tuvalu Inclusive Education 1,182 2013 Program report Uganda for Girls Project—girls education component Housing and utility 1,845,300a 2012 SPeeD Ukraine allowances (Table continues next page) Appendixes 115 Appendix C. (Part 2) Program Inventory (Continued) School feeding Public works Country/ economy/ Number of Number of territory Program name beneficiaries Year Data source Program name beneficiaries Year Data source United Arab — — — — — — — — Emirates Uruguay School 256,000 2011 WFP 2013d Uruguay Trabaja 3,000 2012 ECLAC Feeding Programme Uzbekistan School feeding — — — Public Works 100a 2009 Subbarao and Employment Program others 2013 Vanuatu — — — — — — — — Venezuela, RB School feeding 4,031,000 2011 WFP 2013d — — — — Vietnam School feeding — — — Public Works Program — — — for Poor Unemployed or Underemployed Labourers West Bank School feeding 65,000 2014 WFP 2015r Cash for Work — — — and Gaza Program Yemen, Rep. School feeding 65,000 2011 WFP 2013d Labor-intensive works 361,514 2014 SFD reports by Social Fund for Development (SFD) Zambia School Feeding 850,000 2012 World Bank 2012i C-SAFE Zambia 22,412 2012 World Bank 2012i Program Project Zimbabwe SPLASH voucher 7,200a 2010 CaLP 2011 Food mitigation 140,500a 2013 Government of program program Zimbabwe Source: World Bank, based on sources noted. Note: ADB = Asian Development Bank; DFID = Department for International Development (United Kingdom); ECLAC = Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean of the United Nations; IFAD = International Fund for Agricultural Development; LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean; MEST = Ministry of Education, Science and Technology; MOSA = Ministry of Social Affairs; SPeeD = Social Protection Expenditure and Evaluation Database for Europe and Central Asia; WFP = World Food Programme; — = not available. a Data for beneficiaries marked with “a” refer to a total number of households; otherwise, data refer to the number of individual beneficiaries. 116 Appendixes Fee waivers Country/ Number of economy/ Program name beneficiaries Year Data source territory — — — — United Arab Emirates — — — — Uruguay — — — — Uzbekistan — — — — Vanuatu — — — — Venezuela, RB — — — — Vietnam Subsidized health 75,000a 2014 MOSA West Bank insurance and Gaza — — — — Yemen, Rep. — — — — Zambia — — — — Zimbabwe Appendixes 117 References ADB (Asian Development Bank). 2009a. Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste: Updating and Improving the Social Protection Index. Manila: Asian Development Bank. ———. 2009b. Republic of Fiji: Updating and Improving the Social Protection Index. Manila: Asian Development Bank. ———. 2012a. Mongolia: Updating and Improving the Social Protection Index. Manila: Asian Development Bank. ———. 2012b. Republic of Maldives: Updating and Improving the Social Protection Index. Manila: Asian Development Bank. ———. 2013. The Social Protection Index. Mandaluyong City, Philippines: Asian Development Bank. CaLP (Cash Learning Partnership). 2011. 3W Review of Cash and Voucher Programs in Zimbabwe: 2011 Update Report. Harare, Zimbabwe: CaLP. Castel, P. 2010. “Fiscal Space Social Protection Policies in Vietnam.” Paper for the 3rd China-ASEAN Forum on Social Development and Poverty Reduction, 4th ASEAN+3 High-Level Seminar. http://www.socialsecurityextension.org /gimi/gess/RessourcePDF.do;jsessionid=56e7bdd0fa0f77aee4f7c8e4d623514118bf8a88f4c58166e4942de8939a61d1 .e3aTbhuLbNmSe34MchaRahaLc3j0?ressource.ressourceId=20142. CER (Center for Economic Research). 2014. “Transformative Social Protection in a Transforming Economy and Society.” Development Dialogue. Center for Economic Research, Tashkent, Ukbekistan. 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. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2013. “Cash-Based Transfers in FAO’s Humanitarian and Transition Programming.” Guidance Note, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Friedman, 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. Garcia, M., and C. M. T. Moore. 2011. The Cash Dividend: The Rise of Cash Transfer Programs in Sub-Saharan Africa. Directions in Development Series. Washington, DC: World Bank. Government of Benin, Ministry of Decentralization, Local Governance, Public Administration and Regional Development. 2015. Decentralized Community Driven Services Secretariat. http://www.psdcc.org. Government of Cambodia, World Food Programme, and World Bank. 2009. “Safety Nets in Cambodia: Concept Note and Inventory.” Policy Note, World Bank, Washington, DC. Government of Chile. 2013. “Logros y Cifras.” Subsecretaria del Trabajo. http://www.subtrab.trabajo.gob.cl/?page _id=121. Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. 2015. https://nrhm-mis.nic.in/SitePages/Home.aspx. Government of Lithuania, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and European Commission. 2009. Inclusive Lithuania: Thought Analysis-Based Policy Dialogue Towards Effective Decision Making. Assessment Report. Vilnius, Lithuania: UNDP. Government of Romania, Ministry of Education. 2015. Money for High School, Program webpage. http://baniliceu.edu .ro/Rapoarte2010/jfile/Judete/index.html. Russian Federal State Statistics Service. 2010. “Social Status and Standard of Living of the Russian Population.” http:// www.gks.ru/bgd/regl/b11_44/IssWWW.exe/Stg/d02/09-21.htm. 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. 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. 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 Series. Washington, DC: World Bank. Umapathi, N., D. Wang, and P. O’Keefe. 2013. “Eligibility Thresholds for Minimum Living Guarantee Programs: International Practices and Implications for China.” Social Protection and Labor Discussion Paper 1307, World Bank, Washington, DC. UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund). 2009. Infant and Young Child Feeding Programme Review—Case Study: Uzbekistan. New York: UNICEF. ———. 2012. Integrated Social Protection Systems: Enhancing Equity for Children. New York: UNICEF. ———. 2013. Bangladesh Primary Education Stipends: A Qualitative Assessment. Directorate of Primary Education (DPE), and Power and Participation Research Centre. New York: UNICEF. UNOCHA (United Nations Office for Coordination and Humanitarian Affairs). 2015. “Humanitarian Response– Ethiopia.” https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/en/operations/ethiopia. WFP (World Food Programme). 2012a. “Budget Increase to PRRO Operation Chad 200289: Targeted Food Assistance for Refugees and Vulnerable People Affected by Malnutrition and Recurrent Food Crises.” World Food Programme, Rome. 118 Appendixes ———. 2012b. “Food Assistance to Vulnerable Populations Affected by Conflict and Natural Disasters.” Operation Document, EMOP 200151, World Food Programme, Rome. ———. 2012c. “Strengthening Food and Nutrition Security and Enhancing Resilience.” Operation Document, Protracted Relief and Recovery Operation (PRRO)—Somalia 200443, World Food Programme, Rome. ———. 2013a. “Assistance to Food-Insecure and Vulnerable Jordanians Affected by the Protracted Economic Crisis Aggravated by the Syrian Conflict.” Operation Document, PRRO 200537, World Food Programme, Rome. ———. 2013b. “Country Programme Egypt 2013–2017.” World Food Programme, Rome. ———. 2013c. “Malawi, Emergency Operation 200608: Budget Revision No.3.” World Food Programme, Rome. ———. 2013d. The State of School Feeding Worldwide. Rome: World Food Programme. ———. 2015a. “Afghanistan: WFP Activities.” World Food Programme, Rome. http://www.wfp.org/countries /afghanistan/operations. ———. 2015b. “Bhutan: WFP Activities.” World Food Programme, Rome. http://www.wfp.org/countries/bhutan /operations. ———. 2015c. “Bolivia: WFP Activities.” World Food Programme, Rome. http://www.wfp.org/countries/bolivia /operations/current-operations. ———. 2015d. “Central African Republic: WFP Activities.” World Food Programme, Rome. http://www.wfp.org /countries/operations. ———. 2015e. “Congo, Democratic Republic of: WFP Activities.” World Food Programme, Rome. https://www.wfp.org /countries/congo-democratic-republic-of/operations. ———. 2015f. “Congo, Rep. of: WFP Activities.” World Food Programme, Rome. http://www.wfp.org/countries /congo-republic-of/operations. ———. 2015g. “Côte D’Ivoire: WFP Activities.” World Food Programme, Rome. http://www.wfp.org/countries /c%c3%b4te-d-ivoire/operations. ———. 2015h. “Djibouti: WFP Activities.” World Food Programme, Rome. http://www.wfp.org/countries/djibouti /operations/current-operations. ———. 2015i. “Ethiopia: WFP Activities.” World Food Programme, Rome. https://www.wfp.org/countries/ethiopia /operations. ———. 2015j. “The Gambia: WFP Activities.” World Food Programme, Rome. http://www.wfp.org/countries /the-gambia/operations. ———. 2015k. “Guinea: WFP Activities.” World Food Programme, Rome. http://www.wfp.org/countries/guinea /operations. ———. 2015l. “Haiti: WFP Activities.” World Food Programme, Rome. http://www.wfp.org/countries/haiti/operations. ———. 2015m. “Honduras: WFP Activities.” World Food Programme, Rome. https://www.wfp.org/countries/honduras /operations. ———. 2015n. “Kenya: WFP Activities.” World Food Programme, Rome. http://www.wfp.org/countries/kenya/operations. ———. 2015o. “Liberia: WFP Activities.” World Food Programme, Rome. http://www.wfp.org/countries/liberia /operations. ———. 2015p. “Niger: WFP Activities. “ World Food Programme, Rome. http://www.wfp.org/countries/niger/operations. ———. 2015q. “Tajikistan: WFP Activities.” World Food Programme, Rome. http://www.wfp.org/countries/tajikistan /operations. ———. 2015r. “West Bank and Gaza: WFP Activities.” World Food Programme, Rome. http://www.wfp.org/countries /state-of-palestine/operations. ———. 2015s. “Yemen: WFP Activities.“ World Food Programme, Rome. http://www.wfp.org/countries/yemen /operations. ———. 2015t. “Zimbabwe: WFP Activities.” World Food Programme, Rome. http://www.wfp.org/countries/zimbabwe /operations. World Bank. 2009a. “Saint Lucia: Social Safety Net Assessment.” Policy Note, World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2009b. “St. Kitts and Nevis: Social Safety Net Assessment.” Policy Note, World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2010a. Bangladesh Poverty Assessment: Assessing a Decade of Progress in Reducing Poverty 2000–2010. Bangladesh Development Series, Paper No. 31. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2010b. Belize: Issues and Options to Strengthen the Social Protection System. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2010c. “Iran’s Subsidy Reform Program.” Internal document, World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2010d. Russian Labor Market: Monitoring Trends, Results 2010. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2010e. Social Assistance in Rural China: Tackling Poverty through Rural DIBAO. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2010f. “St. Vincent and the Grenadines: Social Safety Net Assessment.” Policy Note, World Bank, Washington, DC. Appendixes 119 ———. 2011a. Botswana: Challenges to the Safety Net. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2011b. Burkina Faso Social Safety Nets. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2011c. Cameroun: Filets sociaux. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2011d. Ciblage et protection sociale. Note d’orientation stratégique. Report No. AAA65—MA, Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2011e. Improving Targeting Accuracy of Social Assistance Programs in Belarus. Social Assistance Policy Note 68791. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2011f. Jamaica Social Protection Assessment. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2011g. Kazakhstan: Reforming the Last Resort Safety Net Program in an Upper-Middle-Income Country. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2011h. “Les filets sociaux au Bénin outil de réduction de la pauvreté.” Working Paper. World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2011i. Mali: Social Safety Nets. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2011j. Mauritius: Social Protection Review and Strategy. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2011k. Mozambique: Social Protection Assessment—Review of Social Assistance Programs and Social Protection Expenditures. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2011l. Tanzania: Poverty, Growth, and Public Transfers. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2012a. Angola: Social Protection Review. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2012b. Lesotho: Inequality, Transfers and Safety Nets (draft). Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2012c. Madagascar—Three Years into the Crisis: An Assessment of Vulnerability and Social Policies and Prospects for the Future. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2012d. Safety Nets in Sri Lanka: An Overview. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2012e. Sierra Leone: Social Protection Assessment. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2012f. “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. ———. 2012g. Swaziland: Public Transfers and the Social Safety Net. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2012h. Togo: Towards a National Social Protection Policy and Strategy. Report No. 71936-TG. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2012i. Zambia: Using Productive Transfers to Accelerate Poverty Reduction. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2013a. Consolidation and Transparency: Transforming Tunisia’s Health Care for the Poor. UNICO Studies Series No. 4. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2013b. Diagnostic Report of Social Safety Net Interventions in South Sudan. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2013c. Pakistan—Towards an Integrated National Safety Net System. Washington DC : World Bank.  ———. 2013d. “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. ———. 2013e. Republic of Senegal: Social Safety Net Assessment. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2014a. Building on Crisis Response to Promote Long-term Development. A Review of Social Safety Net Programs in the Islamic Republic of Mauritania. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2014b. Burundi: Assessment of Social Safety Nets. World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2014c. Kyrgyz Republic Public Expenditure Review Policy Notes: Social Assistance. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2014d. Social Protection Sector Review of Afghanistan.  Washington DC: World Bank. ———. 2015. Social Protection for a Productive Malaysia. Washington, DC: World Bank. 120 Appendixes Appendix D. Spending on Social Safety Net Programs Percent of GDP Other Total Country/ Conditional Unconditional Unconditional social social economy/ cash cash food and School Public Fee safety safety territory Year Source transfer transfer in kind feeding works waivers nets nets Afghanistan — — — — — — — — — — Albania 2014 SPeeD — 1.53 — — 0.01 0.03 0.04 1.60 Algeria — — — — — — — — — — Angola — — — — — — — — — — Antigua and — — — — — — — — — — Barbuda Argentina 2010–11 LAC database 0.41 0.79 0.11 0.02 0.26 — — 1.58 Armenia 2012 SPeeD — 1.38 — — .. 0.10 — 1.48 Azerbaijan 2011 SPeeD — 0.95 — — — — — 0.95 Bahrain 2010 Silva, Levin, and — 1.14 — — — — — 1.14 Morgandi 2013 Bangladesh 2014 Government of 0.09 0.24 0.44 0.05 0.21 0.05 — 1.09 Bangladesh Belarus 2013 SPeeD — 2.66 — — .. 0.22 — 2.89 Belize 2009 World Bank 2010b — 0.17 0.08 0.01 — 1.46 0.09 1.82 Benin 2010 World Bank 2011d — — .. 0.29 0.03 — .. 0.32 Bhutan 2009 ADB 2009a — — — — — — — 0.33 Bolivia 2013 Government of 0.29 1.06 0.02 — — — — 1.36 Bolivia Bosnia and 2010–11 SPeeD — 3.97 — — — — — 3.97 Herzegovina Botswana 2010 World Bank 2011a — 0.31 0.53 — 0.29 — 0.30 1.43 Brazil 2011 LAC database 0.44 1.87 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.01 — 2.42 Bulgaria 2012 SPeeD — 0.86 0.02 — 0.09 0.08 0.01 1.12 Burkina Faso 2010 World Bank 2011b — 0.01 0.38 0.42 0.01 0.01 — 0.83 Burundi 2012 World Bank 2014b — 0.65 1.44 0.54 1.44 0.10 0.05 4.21 Cabo Verde 2011 Helpage — 0.93 — — — — — 0.93 Cambodia 2009 ADB 2009b — — — — — — — 0.72 Cameroon 2010 World Bank 2011c — 0.13 .. .. 0.03 0.06 — 0.22 Central African — — — — — — — — — — Republic Chad — — — — — — — — — — Chile 2010 LAC database — 1.20 0.04 0.33 0.09 0.34 — 2.00 China 2009 ADB 2009e — — — — — — — 0.70 Colombia 2010 LAC database 0.35 0.47 0.04 — — 0.03 — 0.89 Comoros — — — — — — — — — — Congo, Dem. Rep. — — — — — — — — — — Congo, Rep. — — — — — — — — — — Costa Rica 2013 Government of 0.39 0.30 — — — 0.05 — 0.74 Costa Rica Côte d’Ivoire — — — — — — — — — — Croatia 2011 SPeeD — 3.63 — — — — — 3.63 Czech Republic — — — — — — — — — — (Table continues next page) Appendixes 121 Appendix D. Spending on Social Safety Net Programs (Continued) Percent of GDP Other Total Country/ Conditional Unconditional Unconditional social social economy/ cash cash food and School Public Fee safety safety territory Year Source transfer transfer in kind feeding works waivers nets nets Djibouti 2014 Government of 0.06 0.03 — — 0.09 — — 0.19 Djibouti; WFP 2015a Dominica — — — — — — — — — — Dominican 2012–13 Government 0.05 0.03 0.34 0.15 — 0.18 — 0.76 Republic of Dominican Republic Ecuador 2010 LAC database 0.97 0.61 0.03 0.03 .. 0.09 — 1.73 Egypt, Arab Rep. 2010 Silva, Levin, and — 0.17 — — — — — 0.17 Morgandi 2013 El Salvador 2013 Government of El 0.05 0.14 0.14 0.08 0.07 0.32 0.05 0.85 Salvador Equatorial Guinea — — — — — — — — — — Eritrea 2008 World Bank policy — — — — — — — 2.50 monitoring and reporting tools Estonia 2012 SPeeD — 2.18 0.21 — .. — 0.60 2.99 Ethiopia 2013 Government of — .. 0.34 0.03 0.77 — — 1.13 Ethiopia; WFP 2015b Fiji 2010 ADB 2012c 0.07 0.53 0.21 — — 0.02 — 0.84 Gabon — — — — — — — — — — Gambia, The 2010 World Bank policy — — — — — — — 1.00 monitoring and reporting tools Georgia 2012–13 SPeeD — 5.74 — — — 1.25 0.02 7.00 Ghana 2013 ILO 2013 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.21 0.01 0.10 — 0.43 Grenada — — — — — — — — — — Guatemala 2013 Government of 0.39 0.12 0.05 — — — — 0.56 Guatemala Guinea — — — — — — — — — — Guinea-Bissau — — — — — — — — — — Guyana 2014 Helpage — 1.04 — — — — — 1.04 Haiti — — — — — — — — — — Honduras 2010–12 Government of 0.69 0.16 .. 0.13 — — — 0.98 Honduras Hungary 2011 ESSPROS — — — — — — — 3.40 India 2014 Government of — 0.09 — 0.11 0.29 0.23 — 0.72 India Indonesia 2013 ADB 0.04 0.15 — 0.01 0.01 0.44 .. 0.65 Iran, Islamic Rep. — — — — — — — — — — Iraq 2012–13 Government of — 0.38 2.23 — — — .. 2.60 Iraq Jamaica 2010–11 World Bank 2011f — 0.11 0.11 0.21 — — 0.59 1.02 Jordan 2009 Silva, Levin, and — 0.56 — 0.11 — 0.01 — 0.68 Morgandi 2013 Kazakhstan 2012 SPeeD — 0.91 — — — — 0.10 1.01 (Table continues next page) 122 Appendixes Appendix D. Spending on Social Safety Net Programs (Continued) Percent of GDP Other Total Country/ Conditional Unconditional Unconditional social social economy/ cash cash food and School Public Fee safety safety territory Year Source transfer transfer in kind feeding works waivers nets nets Kenya 2010, Government of — 0.16 2.46 0.10 — 0.01 — 2.73 2014 Kenya Kiribati 2010 World Bank policy — — — — — — — 3.70 monitoring and reporting tools Kosovo 2013 SPeeD — 1.18 — — — — 0.03 1.21 Kuwait 2010 Silva, Levin, and 0.02 0.36 — — — 0.39 — 0.77 Morgandi 2013 Kyrgyz Republic 2013 SPeeD — 2.78 0.02 0.15 0.01 — — 2.96 Lao PDR 2009 ADB 2009c — — — — — — — 0.33 Latvia 2012 SPeeD — 0.77 0.02 — 0.09 0.09 .. 0.98 Lebanon 2013 Government of — 0.44 — — — 0.61 — 1.04 Lebanon Lesotho 2010 World Bank 2012a 0.10 3.69 0.30 1.48 0.70 0.30 — 6.58 Liberia 2010–11 World Bank 2012g — 0.06 1.03 1.00 0.12 — — 2.21 Libya — — — — — — — — — — Lithuania 2009 World Bank 2013a — — — — — — — 2.12 Macedonia, FYR 2012 SPeeD 0.03 1.11 — — — 0.02 0.01 1.17 Madagascar 2010 World Bank 2012b — — — — — — — 1.10 Malawi — — — — — — — — — — Malaysia 2013 World Bank 2015 — 0.60 0.03 0.11 — — — 0.74 Maldives 2010–11 ADB 2012d — 1.14 — — — 0.10 — 1.25 Mali 2009 World Bank 2011g — — 0.35 0.10 0.01 — — 0.46 Marshall Islands 2009 ADB 2009f — — — — — — — 1.05 Mauritania 2012 World Bank 2014a — 0.36 0.84 0.10 — — — 1.30 Mauritius 2009 World Bank 2011h — 2.95 0.24 0.02 — 0.13 — 3.34 Mexico 2010 LAC database 0.22 0.42 0.03 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.72 Micronesia, — — — — — — — — — — Fed. Sts. Moldova 2013 SPeeD — 1.49 — — — — — 1.49 Mongolia 2010 ADB 2012b — 4.18 — — — 0.16 0.05 4.39 Montenegro 2012–13 SPeeD — 1.62 0.07 — — — 0.09 1.77 Morocco 2009 World Bank 2011i 0.02 0.44 0.17 0.09 1.50 0.11 .. 2.35 Mozambique 2010 World Bank 2011j — 0.31 0.48 0.10 0.03 0.37 .. 1.29 Myanmar — — — — — — — — — — Namibia 2013–14 Government of 0.51 2.42 — 0.09 — — — 3.02 Namibia Nepal 2014 Government of — 1.14 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.02 1.32 Nepal Nicaragua 2013 Government of — 0.47 .. 0.19 — 1.79 — 2.45 Nicaragua Niger 2008 World Bank 2009a — 0.02 1.41 0.05 0.14 — — 1.62 Nigeria 2014 Government of — 0.01 — — 0.30 — — 0.30 Nigeria Oman — — — — — — — — — — (Table continues next page) Appendixes 123 Appendix D. Spending on Social Safety Net Programs (Continued) Percent of GDP Other Total Country/ Conditional Unconditional Unconditional social social economy/ cash cash food and School Public Fee safety safety territory Year Source transfer transfer in kind feeding works waivers nets nets Pakistan 2009 Government of — 1.27 — — — 0.57 0.04 1.89 Pakistan Palau — — — — — — — — — — Panama 2013–14 Government of 0.04 0.33 — — 0.18 0.20 — 0.75 Panama Papua New Guinea 2009 ADB 2009d — — — — — — — 0.01 Paraguay 2010 ECLAC 0.03 0.43 — — — — — 0.46 Peru 2011–13 LAC database 0.16 0.16 0.09 0.32 0.02 0.07 — 0.82 Philippines 2013 Government of 0.40 0.03 0.03 .. .. 0.11 0.01 0.57 Philippines Poland 2011 ESSPROS — — — — — — — 1.60 Qatar — — — — — — — — — — Romania 2012 SPeeD — 2.80 0.08 — .. — 0.15 3.12 Russian Federation 2010 Russian Federal — — — — — — — 3.30 State Statistics Service 2010 Rwanda 2011, World Bank 2012c; — 1.29 0.03 — 0.28 0.52 0.03 2.14 2014 Government of Rwanda Samoa 2014 Helpage — 0.89 — — — — — 0.89 São Tomé and — — — — — — — — — — Príncipe Saudi Arabia 2012 World Bank 2012e .. 0.71 — .. — — — 0.71 Senegal 2011 World Bank 2013b — 0.03 0.03 — — 0.05 — 0.11 Serbia 2013 SPeeD — 2.09 — — 0.01 .. — 2.10 Seychelles 2012 World Bank 2013c — 1.92 — — — — 0.40 2.32 Sierra Leone 2011 World Bank 2012d — 0.03 1.68 0.43 1.75 0.93 0.02 4.83 Slovak Republic 2011 ESSPROS — — — — — — — 2.20 Slovenia 2011 ESSPROS — — — — — — — 2.80 Solomon Islands — — — — — — — — — — Somalia — — — — — — — — — — South Africa 2013 Government of — 3.10 0.01 0.14 0.24 — 0.01 3.51 South Africa South Sudan — — — — — — — — — — Sri Lanka — — — — — — — — — — St. Kitts and Nevis 2008 World Bank 2009b — — — — — — — 1.60 St. Lucia 2011–13 LAC database — 0.19 — 0.06 0.28 — — 0.52 St. Vincent and the 2008 World Bank 2010a — — — — — — — 2.20 Grenadines Sudan 2013 Government of — 0.05 — 0.03 — — — 0.08 Sudan Suriname 2012 Helpage — 1.62 — — — — — 1.62 Swaziland 2010 World Bank 2012f — 1.43 0.21 0.10 0.08 0.25 .. 2.07 Syrian Arab 2010 Silva, Levin, and — — — — — — — 1.00 Republic Morgandi 2013 Tajikistan 2012 SPeeD 0.03 0.49 — — — — 0.10 0.62 (Table continues next page) 124 Appendixes Appendix D. Spending on Social Safety Net Programs (Continued) Percent of GDP Other Total Country/ Conditional Unconditional Unconditional social social economy/ cash cash food and School Public Fee safety safety territory Year Source transfer transfer in kind feeding works waivers nets nets Tanzania 2009 World Bank 2011k 0.02 — 0.22 0.03 0.02 — — 0.29 Thailand 2010 ADB 2012a — 0.34 0.08 0.08 — — — 0.50 Timor-Leste 2012 Government of 0.06 3.15 — 0.17 0.54 — — 3.93 Timor-Leste Togo 2010 World Bank 2011e — .. 0.37 0.04 — 0.18 — 0.60 Tonga — — — — — — — — — — Trinidad and 2012 — — 1.69 — — — — — 1.69 Tobago Tunisia 2013 World Bank 2013d — 0.38 — — — 0.16 0.01 0.55 Turkey 2013 SPeeD 0.05 0.51 0.10 0.02 0.04 0.37 0.22 1.32 Turkmenistan — — — — — — — — — — Tuvalu — — — — — — — — — — Uganda 2013–14 Government of 0.15 0.16 0.45 0.05 0.15 .. 0.07 1.02 Uganda Ukraine 2013 SPeeD — 3.02 0.20 — 0.09 0.64 — 3.96 United Arab — — — — — — — — — — Emirates Uruguay 2010 LAC database 0.43 0.61 0.01 — 0.03 — — 1.07 Uzbekistan — — — — — — — — — — Vanuatu 2009 ADB 2009g — — — — — — — 0.28 Venezuela, RB — — — — — — — — — — Vietnam 2010 Government of 0.20 0.26 — 0.02 — 0.05 — 0.52 Vietnam West Bank 2014 Ministry of Social — 4.69 0.10 — — 0.63 — 5.42 and Gaza Affairs Yemen, Rep. 2009 Silva, Levin, and — 0.75 — — 0.52 — — 1.27 Morgandi 2013 Zambia 2011 World Bank 2012h — 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.01 0.34 — 0.53 Zimbabwe 2013 Government of — 0.09 0.07 — .. 0.22 0.01 0.40 Zimbabwe Note: — = not available; .. = negligible. Appendixes 125 References ADB (Asian Development Bank). 2009a. Kingdom of Bhutan: Updating and Improving the Social Protection Index. Manila: Asian Development Bank. ———. 2009b. The Kingdom of Cambodia: Updating and Improving the Social Protection Index. Manila: Asian Development Bank. ———. 2009c. The Lao People’s Democratic Republic: Updating and Improving the Social Protection Index. Manila: Asian Development Bank. ———. 2009d. Papua New Guinea: Updating and Improving the Social Protection Index. Manila: Asian Development Bank. ———. 2009e. The People’s Republic of China: Updating and Improving the Social Protection Index. Manila: Asian Development Bank. ———. 2009f. The Republic of Marshall Islands: Updating and Improving the Social Protection Index. Manila: Asian Development Bank. ———. 2009g. Republic of Vanuatu: Updating and Improving the Social Protection Index. Manila: Asian Development Bank. ———. 2012a. Kingdom of Thailand: Updating and Improving the Social Protection Index. Manila: Asian Development Bank. ———. 2012b. Mongolia: Updating and Improving the Social Protection Index. Manila: Asian Development Bank. ———. 2012c. Republic of Fiji: Updating and Improving the Social Protection Index. Manila: Asian Development Bank. ———. 2012d. Republic of Maldives: Updating and Improving the Social Protection Index. Manila Asian Development Bank. ILO (International Labour Office). 2013. Rationalizing Social Protection Expenditure in Ghana (draft). Geneva: International Labor Organization. Russian Federal State Statistics Service. 2010. “Social Status and Standard of Living of the Russian Population.” http:// www.gks.ru/bgd/regl/b11_44/IssWWW.exe/Stg/d02/09-21.htm. 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. WFP (World Food Programme). 2015a. Djibouti: WFP Activities. World Food Programme, Rome. http://www.wfp.org /countries/djibouti/operations/current-operations. ———. 2015b. Ethiopia: WFP Activities. World Food Programme, Rome. https://www.wfp.org/countries/ethiopia /operations/current-operations. World Bank. 2009a. Niger: Food Security and Safety Nets. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2009b. “St. Kitts and Nevis: Social Safety Net Assessment.” Policy Note, World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2010a. “St. Vincent and the Grenadines: Social Safety Net Assessment.” Policy Note, World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2010b. Belize: Issues and Options to Strengthen the Social Protection System. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2011a. Botswana: Challenges to the Safety Net. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2011b. Burkina Faso Social Safety Nets. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2011c. Cameroun: Filets sociaux. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2011d. “Les filets sociaux au Bénin outil de réduction de la pauvreté.” Working Paper. World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2011e. Les filets sociaux au Togo: Rapport de synthèse. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2011f. Jamaica Social Protection Assessment. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2011g. Mali: Social Safety Nets. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2011h. Mauritius: Social Protection Review and Strategy. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2011i. Migration and Remittances Factbook 2011. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2011j. Mozambique: Social Protection Assessment—Review of Social Assistance Programs and Social Protection Expenditures. World Bank: Washington, DC. ———. 2011k. Tanzania: Poverty, Growth, and Public Transfers. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2012a. Lesotho: Inequality, Transfers and Safety Nets (draft). Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2012b. Madagascar—Three Years into the Crisis: An Assessment of Vulnerability and Social Policies and Prospects for the Future. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2012c. Rwanda Social Safety Net Assessment: Draft Report. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2012d. Sierra Leone: Social Protection Assessment. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2012e. “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. 126 Appendixes ———. 2012f. Swaziland: Public Transfers and the Social Safety Net. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2012g. World Bank 2012–2022 Social Protection and Labor Strategy: Resilience, Equity, and Opportunity. World Bank: Washington, DC. ———. 2012h. Zambia: Using Productive Transfers to Accelerate Poverty Reduction. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2013a. Europe and Central Asia Social Protection Database. Last updated Oct. 17, 2013. World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2013b. Republic of Senegal: Social Safety Net Assessment. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2013c. “Seychelles—Second Sustainability and Competitiveness Development Policy Loan Project.” World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2013d.  Vers une meilleure equite: Les subventions energetiques, le ciblage, et la protection sociale en Tunisie. Washington, DC: World Bank.  ———. 2014a. Building on Crisis Response to Promote Long-term Development. A Review of Social Safety Net Programs in the Islamic Republic of Mauritania. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2014b. Burundi: Assessment of Social Safety Nets. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2015. Social Protection for a Productive Malaysia. Washington, DC: World Bank. Appendixes 127 Appendix E. Policies, Institutions, and Administration Policy and strategy Institutions Administration Country/ economy/ Y/N/P Initial territory (Planned) Strategy name year Comment Comment Comment Afghanistan P n.a. n.a. The previous social An Interministerial Under the public pension protection strategy, included Committee (IMC) on scheme, a modern in the Afghanistan National social protection, including Management Information Development Strategy ministries and agencies System (MIS) is being (ANDS) for 2008–13, was involved in social protection, implemented. A similar system not updated as a result of has been formed. is planned for the Martyrs and the lengthy electoral and Disabled scheme, the program post-electoral processes in with the largest share in the 2014. The new government government social protection embarked on developing expenditure. a new social policy, which includes main elements of a social protection strategy, with particular focus on vulnerable groups. Albania Y Inter-sectorial Strategy 2007 The government has an — The administration of the on Social Inclusion overall social protection social protection system is strategy, which was updated currently paper-based, but in 2013 for the period the steps to automate the 2013–20. system have been finalized, with the establishment of a Management Information System in late 2013. The MIS is currently being tested and is expected to be operational in January 2014. Statistical monitoring information exists for all programs. Algeria Y Government’s Plan 2009 The Ministry of National The Ministry of National Algeria has a monitoring and of Action for the Solidarity has plans to revise Solidarity is in charge of evaluation (M&E) plan for Implementation of the the sector strategy. social assistance programs for social assistance programs. President’s Program  most vulnerable groups. Angola P n.a. n.a. The government has made The Basis of Social Protection — progress in developing a Law states that the basic general framework for social social protection scheme is protection, but faces the under the responsibility of challenge of devising an the Ministerio da Assistencia effective strategy and putting e Reinsercao Social (Minars). it into operation. Antigua and — — — — — — Barbuda Argentina Y — — There is an overall social ANSES, the National Social ANSES began to publish a protection strategy that is Security Administration, has quarterly report on its main dynamic, and has adapted the core role of coordination. social assistance program, the in recent years to the reality Efforts have been made to Universal Child Allowance. of labor markets and social formalize links between However, there are no conditions. national and provincial comprehensive reports or governments. evaluation strategies, although some programs (mostly in labor) are being evaluated. Armenia Y Poverty Reduction 2011 — — A new MIS will be developed Strategy  as part of the Social Protection Administration Project (SPAP) 2, which will allow for the delivery of integrated monitoring of beneficiaries. (Table continues next page) 128 Appendixes Appendix E. Policies, Institutions, and Administration (Continued) Policy and strategy Institutions Administration Country/ economy/ Y/N/P Initial territory (Planned) Strategy name year Comment Comment Comment Azerbaijan Y Poverty Reduction 2005 The social protection system — The Azerbaijan Ministry of Strategy  consists of both targeted Labor and Social Protection and categorical programs. of Population (MLSPP) had Recently, there has been a commissioned technical slight shift toward programs assistance to build a without means-testing. comprehensive M&E system and build internal staff capacity. A list of 100 social protection indicators has been developed based on the review of international best practices. The project’s next phase (after January 2014) will focus on Targeted Social Assistance (TSA) and social housing policy. Bahrain — — — — — — Bangladesh P National Social n.a. The NSPS is still awaiting The development of the The Statistics and Informatics Protection Strategy Cabinet approval. National Social Protection Division is implementing the (NSPS) Strategy is led by the Bangladesh Poverty Database Planning Commission. It (BPD), which will allow safety will provide a framework for net programs (and any other coordinating the existing 95 targeted programs) to adopt safety net programs. a more coordinated approach to targeting their beneficiaries more accurately. Belarus Y Social and Economic 2006 The government has clearly — Existing monitoring systems Development of formulated an objective are able to track the number, Belarus for 2006–2015 of reducing poverty. This types of beneficiaries, and objective was translated into budgets, but gaps remain. the overall strategy for social Evaluations are available for and economic development some programs. and the strategy documents for development of a social protection system. Belize P n.a. n.a. Belize continues to have The government has begun A new monitoring and strongly formulated social a process of reorganizing evaluation system in Belize was protection objectives and has institutional arrangements. launched: the Inter-Agency begun to put together the The Ministry of Human Public Safety management building blocks of a social Development, Social information system protection strategy. Transformation and Poverty (IPSMIS). This database Alleviation (MHD) and tracks institutional and social the Ministry of Education indicators across the Statistical (MOE) will be in charge Institute of Belize, the Ministry of implementing social of Education, the Ministry protection programs. The of Health, the Ministry of CCT Working Group for the Human Development, and BOOST Program still exists. the Ministry of Economic Development. These ministries and the Institute are also sharing a common targeting tool to identify the poorest families. The MOE and MHD are using the Single Identification System of Beneficiaries (SISB). (Table continues next page) Appendixes 129 Appendix E. Policies, Institutions, and Administration (Continued) Policy and strategy Institutions Administration Country/ economy/ Y/N/P Initial territory (Planned) Strategy name year Comment Comment Comment Benin Y Holistic Social — The Holistic Social Protection The Comité Socle de Progress has been made on Protection Paper Policy Paper was adopted in Protection Sociale, chaired by implementing a national early 2014. the Ministry of Development, unified beneficiary database has been the main body in to be housed in the Ministry charge of coordinating social of Family and Social Affairs. It protection programs. The is expected that the database Committee has been active will be complete by the end of in promoting coordination of 2015, with support from the programs and the building of Ministry of Health through common safety net systems its results-based financing such as targeting and registry. scheme. With the adoption of the Holistic Social Protection Strategy paper by the Conseil des Ministres, the Comité Socle de Protection Sociale has evolved into the National Social Protection Committee (Comité National de Protection Sociale) under the direct leadership of the President of the Republic. Bhutan P National Social n.a. The government has drafted a The draft social protection — Protection Policy for national social protection and and labor strategy includes Workers in Bhutan  labor (SPL) strategy to make a discussion of which the social protection system institutional arrangements more coherent. However, the are designed to formulate strategy largely focuses on a broader social protection expanding labor rights and strategy and its coordination. pension benefits to those in the formal sector but outside the civil service. Bolivia Y Red de Protección 2007 The Ministry of Development MDP and the Unidad de UDAPE has been Social y Desarrollo Planning (MDP) has a Análisis de Políticas Sociales implementing the new Integral Comunitario strategy (RPS-DIC) y Económicas (UDAPE) Monitoring System of Social (RPS-DIC) under the National have responsibility for the Programs since late 2013. Development Plan. direction, coordination, and MDP has started to implement monitoring of RPS-DIC. a Beneficiary Registry of Social Programs. The first phase of the registry is the consolidation of beneficiary databases of four social programs (BJA, MPED, Renta Dignidad, and Juancito Pinto). The second phase, expected for 2015, is the identification of potential beneficiaries of social programs through a household survey in poor urban areas. Bosnia and N n.a. n.a. — Responsibility for social Monitoring systems exist Herzegovina assistance is assigned at the entity level, only. The to different levels of administrative systems of the government: entity level two entities are not shared and (Federation of Bosnia and there is no coordination across Herzegovina and Republika programs, which could result Srpska), cantonal level (FBH), in economies of scale and help and municipal level (FBH identify gaps and duplication. and RS). (Table continues next page) 130 Appendixes Appendix E. Policies, Institutions, and Administration (Continued) Policy and strategy Institutions Administration Country/ economy/ Y/N/P Initial territory (Planned) Strategy name year Comment Comment Comment Botswana Y Social Development 2011 In 2011, Botswana, through — Botswana made important Framework Department of Social progress in establishing an Services, adopted a Social overall M&E system for public Development Framework that policies and programs, and covers the social protection some progress has been made aspects. in developing information systems for specific social assistance programs within the Ministry of Local Government. Brazil Y Brasil Sem Miséria 2011 — The Ministry for Social A secretariat (SAGI) is Plan (BSM) Development and Fight dedicated to M&E functions. Against Hunger (MDS) leads It tracks performance of the BSM. the main social protection programs, namely Bolsa Família and the many programs under the Brasil Sem Miséria plan. MDS has promoted the use of the Single Registry (Cadastro Único) as a platform and targeting mechanism for all social programs. Bulgaria Y — — Bulgaria has adopted — Existing monitoring systems a number of strategic are able to track basic data documents and action plans across all social protection related to the accomplishment programs. of the Europe 2020 strategy, including strategic directions and measures related to employment, social protection, and social inclusion, as well as multisectoral strategies such as the Strategy on Aging and Demographic Developments. Burkina Faso Y Strategy for Growth 2011 In 2011, the government, In 2013, the government In 2013/14, the government and Sustainable with the support of the put in place a National started a project to develop Development development partners, Permanent Secretariat for an M&E system for the new developed an action plan Social Protection (Conseil cash transfer program and to to implement the social National de la Protection undertake impact evaluations. protection strategy. The Sociale, CNPS) to serve as an In 2014, the government plan still needs to be interministerial coordination (CNPS) also started to operationalized. mechanism for social prepare a national targeting protection and social safety approach to use to improve nets. The CNPS is chaired the efficiency and effectiveness by the prime minister at of targeting safety net and the highest political level emergency programs to poor and includes a safety net and vulnerable groups and to coordinating body chaired build a registry of households by the Ministry of Social to improve coordination of the Action (MASSN) and a social system. insurance coordinating body chaired by the Ministry of Public Service. (Table continues next page) Appendixes 131 Appendix E. Policies, Institutions, and Administration (Continued) Policy and strategy Institutions Administration Country/ economy/ Y/N/P Initial territory (Planned) Strategy name year Comment Comment Comment Burundi Y National Social 2011 A PNPS was adopted in April A National Social Protection — Protection Policy 2011. Commission (CNPS) was (PNPS)  set up by a presidential decree in August 2012. This commission is chaired by the president. A Permanent Executive Secretary and a Technical Committee for the CNPS started operations in early 2014. Cabo Verde Y National Strategy of 2009 The government has The Ministry of Youth, To monitor the performance Social Protection developed a National Strategy Employment and Human of the system, the government of Social Protection, which is Resources Development is has developed an M&E system well articulated with the pillar responsible for government (Sistema de Seguimento e of Social Cohesion of the coordination in this sector, Avaliacao, SISA), which covers country’s Third Growth and and for the implementation of 80 percent of the government Poverty Reduction Strategy many of its programs. budget. The system integrates (GPRSP III, 2012). budget and financial execution information with physical execution. It also contains a logic framework for all programs included in the budget, which provides result and outcome indicators. The recent creation of the unique registry will allow greater monitoring of the sector. Cambodia Y National Social 2010 The government formulated The mandate was expanded The Monitoring Framework of Protection Strategy and adopted the National for the Council for the National Social Protection (NSPS, 2009–2013) Social Protection Strategy Agricultural and Rural Strategy has been developed. A (NSPS) in 2012. The Action Development to coordinate central targeting mechanism, Plan for implementing the the development and ID-Poor, will continue to be NSPS (2012–15) assigned implementation of the NSPS, the main tool for registering responsibilities, time frames including ensuring that the poor across Cambodia. It is and budgets. A Mid-Term effective interministerial fully managed by the Ministry Review of the NSPS took coordination mechanisms are of Planning. place in 2014. in place. Cameroon P n.a. n.a. The government is in the — — process of preparing a social protection strategy. Central N n.a. n.a. — Programs are implemented Some policy action has been African under the leadership of the taken to coordinate social Republic Ministry of Planning. assistance programs. Chad P Stratégie Nationale A National Social Protection The Ministry of Social — de Protection Sociale Strategy was prepared and Action, National Solidarity (SNPS) validated by a technical and Family has the role of committee established by the coordinating and monitoring government. The SNPS is yet the implementation of to be approved by the Council programs in partnership of Ministers before the official with other departments adoption by the National and with the support Assembly. of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The SNPS includes a set of proposals to establish new institutional arrangements to improve coordination, supervision, and implementation of social protection and labor policies. (Table continues next page) 132 Appendixes Appendix E. Policies, Institutions, and Administration (Continued) Policy and strategy Institutions Administration Country/ economy/ Y/N/P Initial territory (Planned) Strategy name year Comment Comment Comment Chile Y Intersectoral Social 2009 In 2009, Congress established A variety of specific — Protection System the Intersectoral Social mechanisms and Protection System to arrangements have been coordinate, monitor, and developed to promote evaluate the implementation coordination, including of current subsystems interinstitutional agreements, (extreme poverty, early national budgeting childhood development) and procedures, and an integrated to create new subsystems social information system. when needed. China Y 12th Five Year Plan 2011 The 12th Five Year Plan In 2012, a leading group In 2012, the Ministry of Civil (2011–2015) includes an overall strategy composed of MOHRSS, MOF, Affairs began to establish social for a set of social protection NDRC, ACFTU, and NSSF assistance (SA) centers at both programs. In November 2014, was formed to take various the national and subnational the Chinese Communist measures to coordinate levels, aiming to improve the Party’s 18th third plenum within social assistance monitoring and evaluation for outlined a reform proposal programs and between social social assistance programs. to deepen reforms so as to assistance and insurance address the second generation programs. issues of social protection and labor. Colombia Y National Development 2010 — The Ministry of Social The government is working Plan Protection operated to better align two major from 2002 to 2012. It was information systems: RUAF subsequently divided into (registry of beneficiaries) the Ministry of Labor and and SISBEN (targeting Ministry of Health and Social identification system). Protection. The government has a new entity to lead the national strategy against extreme poverty, UNIDOS. Comoros P Social Protection Policy n.a. The government, under the The Commissariat General au — leadership of the Ministry of Plan coordinates all policies. Health and Solidarity, started The Ministry of Health a participatory process in and Solidarity is in charge early 2014 to develop a of coordinating safety net social protection policy. The programs. policy is now ready to be presented to the cabinet for endorsement. Congo, P n.a. n.a. Efforts are underway A Social Protection Thematic — Dem. Rep. to develop a Social Group has been established Protection Note as an initial and meets regularly under building block toward a the leadership of the Ministry comprehensive policy. of Social Affairs and the Ministry of Employment. Congo, Rep. Y National Social 2012 There is currently a strategy The Ministry of Social A framework for monitoring Protection Action Plan for social protection and Affairs provides the core and evaluation of programs’ (PNAS, 2012–2016) policy, the National Social institutional home for social performance is in place, Protection Action Plan protection. A multisectorial as described in the PNAS, (PNAS), to be implemented steering committee on social but the main change was from mid-2012 to 2016. protection was established expected to happen in 2014 In 2013, the Ministry of and the first meeting was while LISUNGI is being Social Affairs demonstrated held in November 2014. implemented. strong commitment to The steering committee is have the PNAS approved expected to meet every six by the parliament. With the months. development of the LISUNGI project, the PNAS is expected to be approved soon. (Table continues next page) Appendixes 133 Appendix E. Policies, Institutions, and Administration (Continued) Policy and strategy Institutions Administration Country/ economy/ Y/N/P Initial territory (Planned) Strategy name year Comment Comment Comment Costa Rica Y Plan Nacional 2010 The government has an Social protection programs Beneficiaries are all captured de Desarrollo overall social protection are mainly implemented by by a unique registry (SIPO). (2010–2014)  strategy and a set of programs IMAS (Instituto Mixto de that deliver some elements of Ayuda Social) for the social prevention, protection, and assistance component, and promotion for large groups of Caja del Seguro Social for the population. social insurance. Côte d’lvoire Y Social Protection 2014 The country gained Following the approval of the — Strategy momentum following social protection strategy, analytical work and a the government established process put in place (with a a technical team within the multisectoral national social Ministry of Employment, protection team working Social Affairs and Vocational group and a multidonor Training with the mandate to coordination mechanism), work on the design of a social leading to the development safety net operation. The of a social protection strategy project is under preparation and an action plan. These and will be submitted to the were approved by the Council board in the fourth quarter of of Ministers in May 2014. Fiscal Year (FY) 2015. Croatia Y Strategy of Social 2011 — The Department of Social The contributory and Welfare Development  Policy is leading the social noncontributory programs protection coordination and have separate beneficiary proposing policy reforms. registries, although significant advances have been made with their interconnectivity at the national level to avoid errors of inclusion. A one-stop-shop was designed for all national social benefit programs for full deployment in mid-2014. Czech — — — — — — Republic Djibouti Y Social Protection 2012 The government formulated Given the cross-sectorial The sectorial strategy aims Strategy a Social Protection Strategy nature of the programs, at enhancing program and in 2012. The government ADDS coordinates with donor coordination through is working on scaling up other partners, including the development of a social the existing social safety the Ministry of Health and registry of the poor and net through the Djiboutian Ministry of Education. vulnerable. In the absence Social Development Agency of a comprehensive national (ADDS) and on designing identification system, the social new programs based on a registry will rely on biometric forthcoming Poverty and information to reduce double Social Impact Analysis. counting and misuse of resources. (Table continues next page) 134 Appendixes Appendix E. Policies, Institutions, and Administration (Continued) Policy and strategy Institutions Administration Country/ economy/ Y/N/P Initial territory (Planned) Strategy name year Comment Comment Comment Dominica Y Growth and Social 2012 The GSPS lacks The Planning and Public A National Beneficiary Protection Strategy comprehensiveness and Investment Unit (PPIU) Information System (NBIS) (GSPS) attention to improvements of the Ministry of Finance was designed for the Public in the social protection (MoF) has oversight in Assistance program, but its use system. This is being partially implementing the GSPS, was discontinued because of addressed through the including forging the concerns about the targeting development of an Integrated necessary interministerial tool. It still provides the Social Protection Strategy and interagency coordination. Ministry of Social Services, (ISPS). This is complemented Community Development and by attempts to improve Gender Affairs with an internal coordination in the social tool for program monitoring. protection system outlined in The ISPS seeks to address the ISPS. these challenges by laying out a framework for revising and rolling out the NBIS and for developing M&E systems for main social assistance programs. Dominican P n.a. n.a. The government is calling In 2009–10, important The targeting system, Republic for a new social protection institutional improvements SIUBEN—used to target the strategy in order to accelerate were made in terms of CCT, energy subsidies, and results in terms of poverty creating new cross-sectoral subsidized health insurance reduction, coordination, coordination mechanisms regime—was expanded and coverage, and results- with education and health updated in 2012 through a orientation. The process for services to help identify socioeconomic survey, now designing such a strategy is and monitor the reduction covering about 1.7 million just beginning. of supply-side gaps in basic households. A major objective social services. for 2014 was the application of the results of the SIUBEN 2 survey to the registries of key social programs (CCT, targeted subsidies) and services (subsidized health insurance, National Health Insurance Authority, or SENASA). The government is defining the mechanisms to update the rosters of beneficiaries for its targeted programs to reflect the updated 2012 SIUBEN socioeconomic survey. Ecuador Y National Plan 2013 The constitution and the The Ministry Coordinator of The MCDS is leading the 2013–2017 new National Plan for the Social Development (MCDS) monitoring process through second period of the current leads the institutional two main information systems: administration reinforce framework in charge of the the Social Registry (proxy- access to social security Social Protection Policy, and means test), and the Registry without discrimination jointly with the National of the Social Programs (RIPS). and extend its coverage to Secretary for Planning In terms of evaluation, the additional groups. Such (SENPLADES) leads the MCDS and SENPLADES extensions have served to National Strategy for Poverty share the responsibility for underline the need for reform Reduction. Ecuador is evaluating the main programs to establish a coherent and moving toward integrating and the second impact sustainable contributory different safety net programs evaluation of the BDH. and noncontributory social into the Vice-Ministry insurance (SI) system. of Social Protection and Mobility, consolidating the cash transfer program, Bono de Desarrollo Humano (BDH), as the centerpiece of the country’s social safety net. (Table continues next page) Appendixes 135 Appendix E. Policies, Institutions, and Administration (Continued) Policy and strategy Institutions Administration Country/ economy/ Y/N/P Initial territory (Planned) Strategy name year Comment Comment Comment Egypt, Y — — The government has clearly Five ministries administer — Arab Rep. formulated an objective the system. The Ministry of of reducing poverty and Manpower and Migration has formulated some (MOMM) directly oversees subsectoral social protection a network of employment strategies, such as the one offices providing job on youth employment. intermediation, but no A set of programs exists, active labor market policies which delivers elements of (ALMP). The Ministry is also prevention, protection, and in charge of the migration promotion. agenda. The Social Fund for Development (SFD) is a semi-autonomous governmental agency under the direct supervision of the prime minister and provides a training program for unemployed youth and redundant workers, and a microcredit program. Social insurance is overseen by the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Investments, and the Ministry of Health. The Ministry of Social Solidarity is in charge of the social safety net system; its main elements are food and fuel subsidies and cash transfers. El Salvador Y Universal Social 2013 As part of the National The Technical Secretariat The government has started Protection System Development Plan 2010– of the Presidency (STP), implementation of the single 2014, the government has oversees the SP system. registry of beneficiaries set up the Universal Social (RUP). The STP is also Protection System (SPSU) strengthening its M&E system: as the cornerstone of its the CCT already has an impact social policy strategy. A new evaluation, as well as the legislation is currently being Temporary Income Support discussed in congress, the Ley Program (PATI). de Desarrollo y Proteccion Social, aiming to provide a social protection as stated in the SPSU strategy. Equatorial Y Horizon 2020 2007 The National Economic — — Guinea Development Plan, Horizon 2020, seeks to reduce poverty and diversify the economy. The Plan includes three strategic objectives related to social protection (nos. 21–23). Eritrea N n.a. n.a. — — — Estonia — — — — — — Ethiopia Y Social Protection Policy 2014 The National Social Protection The Ministry of Labor and Significant work is being Policy was approved by Social Affairs (MOLSA) undertaken to develop the Council of Ministers in and Ministry of Agriculture management information November 2014. The policy (MOA) continues to play a systems for social protection has the broad objective of central coordination function and safety nets in Ethiopia. providing an overall social among stakeholders. protection system and creating an enabling environment in which Ethiopian citizens have equitable access to all social protection. (Table continues next page) 136 Appendixes Appendix E. Policies, Institutions, and Administration (Continued) Policy and strategy Institutions Administration Country/ economy/ Y/N/P Initial territory (Planned) Strategy name year Comment Comment Comment Fiji N n.a. n.a. “Build a Better Fiji for All” is The Department of Social The monitoring arrangements a national initiative that was Welfare (DSW), under the are in place to track the launched in 2007 through a Ministry of Social Welfare, number and type (category) People’s Charter for Change, Women and Poverty of program beneficiaries and Peace and Progress (PCCPP). Alleviation, is primarily budgets. The government has The reduction of poverty to responsible for alleviating been taking steps to modernize negligible levels is one of the poverty by providing welfare the system, including the pillars of the Charter. support and empowering transition from the e-Welfare people who are disadvantaged to e-Gov system. These in all the vulnerable sections efforts still need to be fully of the community, and accomplished. administering poverty alleviation programs. Gabon N n.a. n.a. Although the health — In 2008, the government insurance and social carried out a census of protection fund were vulnerable people. launched, there is currently no formal social protection policy in Gabon. Gambia, The P First National Social 2015 In the last year, the Given the relatively small size — Protection Policy government has made of the country, coordination significant efforts toward takes place under the auspices creating a national Social of the Vice President, who is Protection Strategy. A also the Minister of Women validation workshop for Affairs, and in her capacity the First National Social as Vice President oversees Protection Policy, organized the government activities in by the government and the education, health, nutrition, United Nations (UN) system, and social protection. was conducted in July 2014. The Strategy is a ten-year document from 2015 to 2025. Georgia Y Poverty Reduction 2013 Overall, Georgia has a good Within the Ministry of The Social Information Strategy social protection strategy Health, Labor and Social Management System is in and system. There has been Affairs (MoHLSA), the an implementation/testing significant progress, relative Social Services Agency stage to help improve the to many other countries in (SSA) is responsible for the targeting effectiveness of the region, in streamlining administration and delivery social assistance and enable different social benefit of Georgia’s social protection beneficiaries to access benefits schemes, targeting to the program, including health faster. poor, and maintaining a and pensions. With a fiscally sustainable family of widespread network of 68 social protection programs. regional and local offices, and a sophisticated MIS system, the SSA outperforms other countries in terms of monitoring its expenditures with up-to-date tracking facilities. (Table continues next page) Appendixes 137 Appendix E. Policies, Institutions, and Administration (Continued) Policy and strategy Institutions Administration Country/ economy/ Y/N/P Initial territory (Planned) Strategy name year Comment Comment Comment Ghana P National Social n.a. The government is devising a The MoGCSP has been The new MoGCSP is also Protection Strategy roadmap for completing the granted cabinet approval to initiating preliminary National Social Protection coordinate and oversee the discussions on designing a strategy and strengthening social protection sector. results framework and M&E the coordinating capabilities system for social protection of the Ministry of Gender, programs in the country. It Children and Social has adapted the Common Protection (MoGCSP). Targeting Mechanism as a basis to create a national targeting system. To further strengthen coordination, the MoGCSP received cabinet approval to develop a Ghana National Household Registry (GNHR). Through this initiative, a national household registry for social protection programs to effectively and efficiently target beneficiaries will be developed. Grenada Y Social Safety Net Policy 2013 This framework builds on The cross-sectoral technical Monitoring and evaluation Framework the 2009 Social Safety Net coordination committee systems are in the process of Assessment. This framework for the Support for being developed. M&E is a was approved by the cabinet Education, Empowerment critical area stressed under the in August 2013. and Development (SEED) new Social Safety Net Policy Program has been revived. Framework, thus allowing It is made up of experts in policy makers to make more health, education, housing, informed decisions about finance, and social protection existing programs. Efforts and is taking an active role in are being made to develop decision making about SEED, greater coordination among as well as social programs. programs through the creation of memorandums of understanding (MOUs) and regular intersectoral meetings. Guatemala N n.a. n.a. — — The recently approved and functioning Single Registry (RUU) can serve as a step in enhancing coordination across social programs. The RUU includes more than 108 social programs from different ministries, enabling the identification of beneficiaries receiving different program benefits. Guinea P n.a. n.a. The government formed a The Ministry of Social Monitoring and evaluation multisector group to oversee Affairs and Promotion of are periodic and tend to be the development of a social Women and Children is in project-based. protection strategy. However, charge of interventions for legal documents for the the protection of poor and establishment of this group vulnerable people. are not yet operational. (Table continues next page) 138 Appendixes Appendix E. Policies, Institutions, and Administration (Continued) Policy and strategy Institutions Administration Country/ economy/ Y/N/P Initial territory (Planned) Strategy name year Comment Comment Comment Guinea- N Poverty Reduction n.a. The government has social — — Bissau Strategy protection policies but has yet to formulate a social protection strategy. Social protection policies described in the National Poverty Reduction Strategy include a few programs targeting vulnerable groups, notably war veterans, the handicapped, and senior citizens. Guyana N n.a. n.a. — — An MIS system is operational. Haiti Y Thinking and Fighting — In May 2014, the Prime As part of PAARP, A national targeting system, a for a Haiti Without Minister’s Office launched coordination mechanisms unique beneficiary registry that Poverty: Action Plan its new plan, “Thinking and are being put in place. The can be used by various social for Accelerating the Fighting for a Haiti Without Ministry of Social Affairs programs, and an integrated Reduction of Extreme Poverty: Action Plan for (MAST) has the institutional service delivery model at the Poverty (PAARP) Accelerating the Reduction mandate for social protection. communal level are all being of Extreme Poverty” (Penser developed. et Lutter Vers une Haïti Sans Pauvreté: Plan d’Action pour Accélérer la Réduction de l’Extrême Pauvreté, PAARP). Honduras Y National Social 2013 In March 2012, the Social protection initiatives The Unique Registry Protection Policy government approved a and programs continue Participants (RUP) has been comprehensive National to be dispersed among revamped. The RUP database Social Protection Policy. eight or more different is composed of beneficiaries The Policy is expected to implementation ministries of most social programs. In consolidate a large number of and decentralized October 2014, a presidential programs (about 80). institutions. decree was issued to mandate the use of RUP as the targeting instrument for all social interventions, starting with 9 major programs (including Bono Vida Mejor), with a planned target of reaching 18 by the end of 2014. Hungary — — — — — — India N n.a. n.a. India has a strong legal — Initiatives such as the Unique framework, including Right Identification (UID) hold to Food and the Mahatma the potential of improving Gandhi National Rural coverage, implementation, and Employment Guarantee coordination across programs Act acts. India also has the in the future. In addition, Directive Principles of State there are many state-level Policy, although a coherent initiatives aimed at increasing social protection policy performance of social framework is not yet in place. protection programs utilizing information technology (IT) and innovations in administration. (Table continues next page) Appendixes 139 Appendix E. Policies, Institutions, and Administration (Continued) Policy and strategy Institutions Administration Country/ economy/ Y/N/P Initial territory (Planned) Strategy name year Comment Comment Comment Indonesia N n.a. n.a. Recently, the government In 2010, the president The TNP2K Secretariat released a Master Plan for elevated oversight of the established a M&E Working Poverty Reduction (MP3KI) poverty strategy to the Group in 2010 responsible as a comprehensive long-term National Team for the for establishing a single poverty reduction strategy Acceleration of Poverty monitoring system with for 2012–25. The strategy is Reduction (TNP2K), which is data from poverty reduction not a comprehensive social chaired by the Vice President programs. It also created protection strategy. and supported by a secretariat a national registry of 25 housed in his office. million poor and vulnerable households. A unified social protection card was issued to 15.5 million households entitling them to unconditional cash transfers (BLSM), the Rice Subsidy for the Poor (Raskin), and scholarship for poor students (BSM) benefits. An M&E working group established in the TNP2K Secretariat aims to improve M&E activities and collate data that can be used to track the performance of all social safety net programs. Iran, — — — — — — Islamic Rep. Iraq Y National Development 2013 The government began to — The new law has had a number Plan reform the social protection of positive outcomes, such policies in alignment with as improving targeting, the National Development introducing conditional Strategy and implementation cash transfers (CCTs) and of these reforms through the linkages with health and Emergency Social Protection education, involving civil Project (ESPP). The reforms society organizations, and included expanding the social improving the management safety net programs. information system (MIS) for registry and monitoring. The Iraqi government is also considering upgrading its MIS and applying proxy-means- testing. Jamaica Y Social Inclusion Policy 2013 In 2014, the government The Ministry of Labor A beneficiary recertification developed a social protection and Social Security is process is underway to ensure strategy. The challenge in the progressively implementing accuracy of targeting, and next few years will be to make a case management resources are being invested it operational. system, which will improve in M&E to improve tracking coordination among social and program effectiveness. assistance programs through The government is developing improved reference and a graduation strategy for the cross-reference systems. Programme of Advancement through Health and Education (PATH) beneficiaries that will entail tight collaboration and well-functioning articulation with other programs. (Table continues next page) 140 Appendixes Appendix E. Policies, Institutions, and Administration (Continued) Policy and strategy Institutions Administration Country/ economy/ Y/N/P Initial territory (Planned) Strategy name year Comment Comment Comment Jordan Y National Agenda 2007 The government has Institutional mechanisms There are systems to monitor developed a comprehensive are planned as part of the performance of safety nets strategy for social protection development of a National and labor market programs. as part of its National Unified Registry. The government is developing Agenda, as well as subsequent a National Unified Registry, updates and strategies, which ultimately will be the including the National main coordinating mechanism Employment Strategy (2012) for social safety nets and and the Poverty Reduction subsidy reform in the country. Strategy (2013). Kazakhstan Y Strategic Development 2010 The government has — Existing monitoring systems Plan 2020 a strategy for social can track numbers and types protection integrated in a of beneficiaries, spending, set of documents covering average benefits, and the like. employment, pensions, safety The Household Budget Survey nets, and social services. is periodically used for analysis of social protection programs. An indicator framework for social protection was developed and is used for reporting of results. Kenya Y National Social 2012 Legal changes on social The NSNP is being The upgrading of the Protection Policy protection were launched in implemented and forms management information (NSNP) 2013. A new Social Assistance the basis for harmonization systems for the main cash Bill was submitted to the and consolidation of the transfer programs in the National Assembly that aims main cash transfer programs NSNP was completed in to further provide a legal and in the Ministry of Labor, 2014. These upgrades ensure policy framework for social Social Security and Services better fiduciary controls in protection. (MLSSS) and the Ministry of the programs and also more Devolution and Planning. In flexible delivery of payments, 2014, the programs within the if the need should arise. The NSNP developed a Program government has procured a Consolidation Strategy, new payment service provider, which will lead to increased which will offer biometric coordination of institutions payment mechanisms and an and functions involved option to use bank accounts. in delivering government The development of a Single cash transfer programs It is Registry is at an advanced anticipated that the NSNP stage and is expected to be will form the basis for a fully launched in 2015. coordinated social protection system at the national scale. Kiribati Y Kiribati Development 2012 Kiribati has one of the most Various agencies field an Improving updates of statistics Plan 2012–2015 extensive social assistance array of programs providing and relevant information programs in the East Asia protection, prevention, and for planning and policy and Pacific region. While promotion of social services formulation is one of the there is no specific social to households. strategies mentioned to help protection strategy, the economic growth and poverty Kiribati Development Plan alleviation in the Kiribati 2012–2015 acknowledges the Development Plan 2012–2015. need for providing protection to vulnerable groups such as women and children. (Table continues next page) Appendixes 141 Appendix E. Policies, Institutions, and Administration (Continued) Policy and strategy Institutions Administration Country/ economy/ Y/N/P Initial territory (Planned) Strategy name year Comment Comment Comment Kosovo P n.a. n.a. A White Paper (Social — Existing monitoring systems Protection Strategy) was can track the number and developed in 2008, but has types of beneficiaries and not yet been adopted. An budgets. New social assistance interagency Working Group and employment registries was established with the were introduced in early 2012. objective of developing a new social protection strategy. Kuwait — — — — — — Kyrgyz Y National Social 2011 The Strategy lays down — Existing monitoring systems Republic Protection measures to strengthen the can track numbers and types Development Strategy social safety net, reform the of beneficiaries, spending, and Action Plan system of social care, step average benefits, and the 2012–2014  up child protection, and like. The Kyrgyz Integrated improve social security for Household Survey is used the elderly. The government is to analyze social protection in the process of developing programs, with support from a new pension policy, which Development Partners. A provides for better protection registry of social assistance of the elderly from destitution beneficiaries, being rolled and strengthens old-age out by the Ministry of Social insurance. Development, is expected to improve coordination among the programs administered by the ministry. Lao PDR P n.a. n.a. The government continues — — to have poverty reduction among its declared objectives but has not yet formulated a social protection strategy. Various UN agencies have in their development plan a goal of helping the government establish a social protection framework and have it finalized by 2015, linked to the 7th National Socio- Economic Development Plan (NSEDP). Latvia — — — — — — Lebanon Y National Social 2011 The government has poverty — — Development Strategy reduction among its declared objectives and has developed a Social Sector Strategy. Some policies have been implemented, including its National Poverty Targeting Program (NPTP). (Table continues next page) 142 Appendixes Appendix E. Policies, Institutions, and Administration (Continued) Policy and strategy Institutions Administration Country/ economy/ Y/N/P Initial territory (Planned) Strategy name year Comment Comment Comment Lesotho Y National Social 2014 The government recently The Ministry of Social The National Information Protection Strategy approved a National Development leads and System for Social Assistance Social Protection Strategy coordinates the social (NISSA) serves as a national that sets out to “provide protection agenda. registry for beneficiaries of comprehensive inclusive safety net programs. social protection that reduces poverty, vulnerability and inequality, increases resilience to risks and shocks, promotes access to services and to the labor market, and stimulates economic growth and social stability.” Liberia Y Social Protection 2012 The Social Protection Strategy — In 2013, a single-set of Strategy and Policy and Policy provides a solid indicators for a common MIS framework for addressing was developed and a MIS vulnerabilities over the next database was populated with 17 years covered by the beneficiary information from country’s long-term plan. the country’s largest social safety net programs (excluding school feeding). Libya — — — — — — Lithuania — — — — — — Macedonia, Y National Strategy for 2010 The government has The Inter-ministerial A unique registry of social cash FYR Alleviation of Poverty developed an overall strategy Working Group is responsible beneficiaries, the Cash Benefits and Social Exclusion for social protection, the for preparing the annual Management Information (2010–2020) National Strategy for programs, as well as System (CBMIS), was Alleviation of Poverty and coordinating and reporting developed and is an important Social Exclusion, and a set of on implementation of the tool in defining policies to programs that aim to improve strategy to the government. improve the functioning resilience, opportunity, and of the system. Recently the equity for large groups of the social assistance database was population. linked with the administrative registries in the Employment Service Agency, Cadastre Agency, and the Pension and Disability Insurance Fund. Madagascar P n.a. n.a. The social protection policy The Ministry of Population, The Ministry of Social is expected to be finalized by Social Protection and Gender Protection has proposed to June 2015. is making a big effort to build an M&E system for the initiate the coordination social protection sector under of key social protection the planned World Bank- programs. The Ministry financed Social Safety Net has created the Ad Hoc Project. This IT-based system Committee for Social would enable the ministry Protection. to effectively monitor and evaluate the performance of key social protection programs. (Table continues next page) Appendixes 143 Appendix E. Policies, Institutions, and Administration (Continued) Policy and strategy Institutions Administration Country/ economy/ Y/N/P Initial territory (Planned) Strategy name year Comment Comment Comment Malawi Y Social Support Policy  2013 The government approved Coordination is under The government has a the Social Support Policy the Ministry of Finance central M&E department in in July 2012. By April 2013, Economic Planning and the Ministry of Economic the National Social Support Development, within its Planning and Development Programme was also Directorate of Poverty that captures information from approved to operationalize Reduction and Social the district level, where the the policy. Protection. The ministry programs are implemented. has the structure in place to coordinate the many interventions in place in the country through the National Steering Committee (NSC), a high-level committee comprising principal secretaries and development partners. Malaysia N n.a. n.a. — Seven ministries implement Existing monitoring systems 39 social safety net programs. can track the number and types of beneficiaries and budgets of individual programs. Maldives Y Social Protection Act 2014 The Social Protection Act The major agencies delivering Most programs have was introduced in early 2014 social protection and labor functioning monitoring to provide a legal framework programs are the National mechanisms to track for a number of existing Social Protection Agency the number and types of social protection schemes, (NSPA), the Maldives beneficiaries, as well as as well as a broad vision for Pension Administration expenditures. There have the national social protection Office (MPAO), and Ministry been efforts to develop shared system. Specific regulations of Youth and Sports (MoYS). administrative systems, are being prepared, but the A coordination mechanism is including common and implementation plan for yet to be formalized. improved targeting and the Act has not been fully monitoring systems. developed. Mali Y National Action Plan 2011 In August 2011, the A National Strategic Steering Existing monitoring systems for the Extension of government adopted a Committee for Social can track basic data. Social Protection National Action Plan for Protection (Conseil National Evaluations are available for the Extension of Social d’Orientation Strategique some programs. Protection, which aims at de la Protection Sociale, improving the resilience, CNOS-PS) to coordinate the equity, and opportunity social protection programs for large groups of the was scheduled to be created population. in early 2012. However, the political situation put a hold on the creation of the committee. Marshall N n.a. n.a. — The Marshall Islands Social — Islands Security Administration (MISSA) administers old-age and disability benefits via the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) Social Security Retirement Fund, and works together with the Ministry of Health in collecting Health Fund contributions. (Table continues next page) 144 Appendixes Appendix E. Policies, Institutions, and Administration (Continued) Policy and strategy Institutions Administration Country/ economy/ Y/N/P Initial territory (Planned) Strategy name year Comment Comment Comment Mauritania Y National Social 2013 The strategy was adopted by The government has placed The Ministry of Economic Protection Strategy the Council of Ministers in responsibility for the Affairs and Development June 2013. Implementation of strategy’s implementation directly implements the the strategy began in 2014. with the Ministry of national social registry, Economic Affairs and to ensure that it is a tool Development, which has that can be used by all established a technical unit programs, irrespective of tasked with coordinating their institutional bases. The the implementation of actual launch of the registry the strategy. There is a is scheduled for the first functioning Interministerial half of 2015. The first wave Steering Committee to pilot of data collection in 2015 is the strategy, and an associated expected to register 30,000 Technical Committee households. The social registry to validate the design of will provide information interventions. and facilitate targeting for all social programs in Mauritania, starting with the national social transfer program. Mauritius Y Social Protection 2010 The government completed a The Ministry of Social The government is rolling out Review and Strategy Social Protection Review and Security implements the main a single registry (the Social Strategy in 2010. social assistance program, Register of Mauritius, SRM), Social Aid. which started by integrating databases for Social Aid and the National Empowerment Foundation (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 Development 2013 Mexico has a well-defined — In 2013, the Social Ministry Plan national policy for social (SEDESOL) started taking development, together with steps to develop a unified a comprehensive strategy to social information system that reduce poverty. would capture information on beneficiaries (and potential beneficiaries) of existing social programs, and on the benefits they are receiving. Micronesia, N n.a. n.a. — — — Fed. Sts. Moldova N n.a. n.a. — — Each government agency has its own MIS that is able to track the number and types of beneficiaries. The social assistance MIS is being enhanced to keep track of a broader set of performance indicators. It is developing links with social insurance agency data as well as other public registries to simplify the application process for beneficiaries and verify eligibility.   (Table continues next page) Appendixes 145 Appendix E. Policies, Institutions, and Administration (Continued) Policy and strategy Institutions Administration Country/ economy/ Y/N/P Initial territory (Planned) Strategy name year Comment Comment Comment Mongolia N n.a. n.a. — Some institutional Monitoring arrangements arrangements promote are in place to track the coordination of programs number and type (category) of and policies within the social program beneficiaries, as well protection system. as budgets. An intersectoral database of poor households and registry of beneficiaries is being developed. Montenegro Y Strategy for Social 2008 Montenegro implemented a The strategy and policies Existing monitoring systems and Child Protection Strategy for Social and Child for social assistance are can track the number and (2008–2012) Protection (2008–2012), elaborated at the central level types of beneficiaries and and is now implementing by the Ministry of Labor budgets. Evaluations are a Strategy for Integration and Social Welfare (MLSW). available for some programs. of People with Disabilities The implementing agencies The programs are largely (2008–2016), a National include Centers for Social integrated. The social Action Plan for Gender Work (decentralized bodies assistance and child protection Equality, and a set of of MLSW) and their branch programs, along with some programs that will deliver the offices. social care services, are basic elements of prevention, accessed with the same or protection, and promotion for similar eligibility criteria. vulnerable population groups. Morocco N n.a. n.a. — — — Mozambique Y National Strategy for 2010 The National Strategy for Coordination within the By end-2014, a proper Social Protection  Social Protection was initially Basic Social Protection management information defined for a five-year period Susbsector falls under the system was expected to be (2010–14). The government Coordination Council for operational. has started an evaluation the Basic Social Protection process for the strategy, which Subsystem, which became will facilitate the development operational in 2013 and aims of the Strategy for 2015–19. to increase coordination between the four prongs of the Basic Social Protection Subsector. Myanmar P n.a. n.a. In 2013, the Social Protection — A first step in the Sector Working Group establishment of monitoring (SPSWG), chaired by the and evaluation systems in Ministry of Social Welfare, social assistance programs is Relief and Resettlement being initiated through pilots, (MSWRR), was established such as for the Ministry of and tasked with developing Education’s School Stipends a social protection strategy program. through dialogue with relevant ministries. A draft strategy was produced toward the end of 2014 and is in the process of being endorsed by the government. Namibia Y Vision 2030 Strategy 2004 The government’s overall — Basic data (such as numbers social protection strategy is of beneficiaries, services articulated in the long-term delivered, and spending) Vision 2030 Strategy, which are tracked. Evaluations are sets goals for protecting conducted for some programs. the vulnerable (including orphans, the elderly, and the disabled) and promoting the welfare of youth and women in the context of reducing poverty. (Table continues next page) 146 Appendixes Appendix E. Policies, Institutions, and Administration (Continued) Policy and strategy Institutions Administration Country/ economy/ Y/N/P Initial territory (Planned) Strategy name year Comment Comment Comment Nepal P National Social n.a. The government began Different government In 2013, the Ministry of Protection Strategy preparing a 10-year national entities—including Federal Affairs and Local social protection strategy/ the National Planning Development (MoFALD) framework in 2011 but has Commission, Ministry established a MIS for its cash not yet finalized it. of Finance, Ministry of transfer programs, which was Federal Affairs and Local rolled out in 2 districts, to be Development, Ministry of expanded to an additional 12 Education, and the Poverty districts. The government had Alleviation Fund—have already been delivering cash begun working together, via banks in all urban areas. An under the auspices of the electronic database, combined Ministry of Finance, to with electronic transfers and ensure the coordination of the development of “poverty social protection schemes identity cards,” is expected across different ministries. to improve transparency of the fund flow and enhance efficiency of transfers. Nicaragua Y National Human 2012 The government developed The national welfare system The Ministry of the Family, Development Plan the NHDP 2009–2013 and is overseen by the Social Adolescents and Children (NHDP) 2012–2016 created the National Social Cabinet for the Family (MIFAN) completed the Welfare System in 2008. and Solidarity, consisting design of its unified registry In 2013, the government of a coordinator and the of beneficiaries of social undertook a review of these Ministers of Finance, Health, programs and continues to two instruments to align Education, and the Family, advance in creating interfaces different approaches into a Youth and Children. with the MIS of the Ministry systemic social assistance of Health to share information strategy. Starting in 2013, the about beneficiaries. MIFAN updated version of the NHDP has used this registry to roll 2012–2016 was put in place. out its model with family grants in 2013 and is designing the impact evaluation of this program. Niger Y National Social 2011 In October 2013, the The Consultative The system can monitor and Protection Strategy government held its Interministerial Committee evaluate the impact of the first national social on Social Protection created main safety net programs. protection forum, aimed at in August 2013 to coordinate operationalizing the National SP interventions is still in Social Protection Strategy, place. However, program and leading to stronger coordination efforts continue ownership of this strategy by to be sector-specific. key stakeholders. Nigeria P National Social n.a. The new policy framework The social protection policy The National Planning Protection Policy is expected to be presented framework is expected to Commission has M&E Framework (draft) to the National Assembly bring the current social systems for all targeted SSN immediately after the safety net interventions in interventions. The introduction forthcoming national the country into a better of a National Identity elections. coordinated system. Card system is planned. The system is expected to be coordinated with the targeting and identification system for the social protection administrative and coordinating system. Oman — — — — — — (Table continues next page) Appendixes 147 Appendix E. Policies, Institutions, and Administration (Continued) Policy and strategy Institutions Administration Country/ economy/ Y/N/P Initial territory (Planned) Strategy name year Comment Comment Comment Pakistan Y National Social 2007 In 2007, the government — Most social protection Protection Strategy approved its National Social programs can track the Protection Strategy. Under number and types and benefits the leadership of the Federal received by their beneficiaries. Planning Commission, The payment delivery for the government started Benazir Income Support consultations with the Programme (BISP) is being provinces and embarked on improved, moving away from the process of developing a reliance on the postal service National Social Protection to technology-based payment Framework. mechanisms such as debit cards, smartcards, and mobile phones. The BISP targeting system is being shared with over 20 federal and provincial social protection programs. Palau — — — — — — Panama N n.a. n.a. — Secretaría Técnica del The Social Development Gabinete Social Ministry (MIDES) has implemented a Unified Registry of Beneficiaries (RUB) of MIDES programs, which is functional. Papua New P Social Protection Policy n.a. A first draft of the Social — The government is working to Guinea Protection Policy has been complete the e-Identification submitted to the Department system. Work has already for Community Development begun to input beneficiary (DfCD), with the elderly and data into a database, which disabled as the initial target will greatly help identify beneficiaries. In 2014, the beneficiaries. However, this DfCD, with support from project may not be ready when the World Bank, UNICEF, implementation of the Social and the United Nations Protection Policy begins in Capital Development Fund 2015. (UNCDF), drafted an umbrella Social Protection Policy. Paraguay N n.a. n.a. — A Social Cabinet competes The Single Registry of with the Technical Secretary Beneficiaries has not yet been for Planning to coordinate operationalized. the sector. Peru Y Crecer para Incluir 2011 Implementation of the The Ministry of Development Implementation of the (Growth for Inclusion) strategy has continued, with and Social Inclusion M&E system has advanced, revisions of some programs (MIDIS) has been tasked and more data is available and expansions of others. with coordinating the at MIDIS. Further work is implementation of the necessary to expand it and five most important social open it to public access. All protection programs. social programs are expected to use the national target system. A unique registry of beneficiaries is being developed, along with an integrated complaints and redress mechanism. (Table continues next page) 148 Appendixes Appendix E. Policies, Institutions, and Administration (Continued) Policy and strategy Institutions Administration Country/ economy/ Y/N/P Initial territory (Planned) Strategy name year Comment Comment Comment Philippines Y Social Protection 2012 The Social Protection Strategy In 2009, the Social All major agencies involved in Operational and Policy is defined by the Development Committee the design and implementation Framework and Social Protection Operational (SDC) of the NEDA of social protection policies Strategy Framework, which was approved the creation of have established record developed in a participatory a Subcommittee on Social keeping and monitoring manner through extensive Protection. It is co-chaired systems. A data sharing consultations with by the Department of Social software/tool will be launched government, agencies, civil Welfare and Development soon to increase awareness and society, and development and NEDA. use of the National Household partners. It was approved Targeting System for Poverty by the National Economic Reduction (NHTSPR) and Development Authority database by national agencies, (NEDA) in 2012. local governments, the private sector, and nongovernmental organizations that implement their own assistance programs. Poland Y Social Assistance Law 2004 The government has an The Ministry of Labor and The ministry has a overall social protection Social Policy is responsible sophisticated administrative strategy and a well-designed for developing policy in social system to administer its set of programs, both on assistance, social insurance, programs and track results of the contributory and the and labor market policies. the main programs. noncontributory side. In 2014, the government made a number of important reforms. Parliament passed an ambitious pension reform. Qatar — — — — — — Romania Y Social Assistance 2011 In early 2011, Romania The Ministry of Labor All the social protection Reform Strategy approved a new Law on effectively coordinates the sectors have well developed IT Pensions, a Labor Code, and delivery of most social systems, which allow a good a Social Assistance Strategy assistance programs, social monitoring and evaluation for social assistance benefits. services, and labor market of beneficiaries and funds. In late 2011, Romania policies. Regular monitoring of approved a Framework Law performance indications has on Social Assistance. In 2013, begun. The implementation of Romania drafted or approved impact evaluations is not yet several sectorial strategies. fully institutionalized. In 2014, the Ministry of Labor aimed to finalize two other key strategies (ex ante conditionalities for absorbing European Funds): the Strategy of Social Inclusion and the Active Aging Strategy. Russian N Concept of Long- n.a. A comprehensive poverty — — Federation Term Socio-Economic reduction strategy, which Development of the would include specific social Russian Federation protection interventions, until 2020 has not been developed yet; however, the first attempts at formulating a poverty reduction strategy were made in the Concept of Long-Term Socio-Economic Development of the Russian Federation until 2020. (Table continues next page) Appendixes 149 Appendix E. Policies, Institutions, and Administration (Continued) Policy and strategy Institutions Administration Country/ economy/ Y/N/P Initial territory (Planned) Strategy name year Comment Comment Comment Rwanda Y National Social 2011 An NSPS was developed A sector working group Rwanda is developing an Protection Strategy through a consultative (SWG) established in 2008 integrated management (NSPS) process. has fostered increased information system (MIS) that coordination of the includes a unified registry. social protection sector, The MIS design work was regularly bringing together completed in 2012, and government, development implementation piloting began partners, and civil society in October 2013. organizations to discuss policy/strategy and implementation issues, review progress, and make recommendations. The Ministry of Local Development (MINALOC) serves as the coordinator for SP in Rwanda, with its Local Development Agency (LODA) as the main implementing body. Samoa N n.a. n.a. — The Ministry of Women, — Community and Social Development remains as the main coordination point for social protection programs in Samoa. São Tomé and Y National Social 2014 — Some public social protection — Príncipe Protection Policy and programs exist under Strategy (PENPS) the responsibility of two institutions. The National Institute of Social Security (INSSS) manages social security contributions from formal employment in the private and public sectors. The Directorate of Social Protection of the Ministry of Labor and Solidarity assists vulnerable people through social programs funded by the state budget. Saudi Arabia — — — — — — Senegal Y National Social 2005 The government has The newly created Délégation The Délégation Générale has Protection Strategy developed an overall strategy Générale à la Protection been tasked with the overall for social protection, which Sociale et la Solidarité monitoring and evaluation was recently approved and Nationale is responsible for of the sector and a unique endorsed by the different the coordination of the sector. registry of programs. The sectors and development government has implemented partners. a unique registry (with 75,000 households in 2013) that will be used to target multiple programs and articulate interventions and should increase coordination. (Table continues next page) 150 Appendixes Appendix E. Policies, Institutions, and Administration (Continued) Policy and strategy Institutions Administration Country/ economy/ Y/N/P Initial territory (Planned) Strategy name year Comment Comment Comment Serbia Y Social Welfare 2005 The government has — The Ministry of Labour, Development Strategy strategies and action plans for Employment, Veteran and the basic elements of social Social Policy (MLESP) is in protection social insurance, the process of completion of a labor market policy, social a centralized management assistance, and social services, information system that will including the National help improve coordination Strategy for the Development between the Centers for Social of Social Protection. Work, social care institutions, and MLESP. Seychelles Y — — Seychelles has a The Agency for Social The ASP rolled out the comprehensive social Protection (ASP) was created integrated management protection system. in 2012 by merging the Social information system for the Security Fund and Social SWA and has made progress Welfare Agency (SWA) to on establishing automated improve the efficiency and cross-checks with relevant governance of the social government agencies to protection system. support the implementation of the means test. Sierra Leone Y National Social 2013 The social protection agenda In 2012, a National Social The quality of M&E systems Protection Policy is detailed in the country’s Protection Authority was continues to vary across (Agenda for Prosperity) third-generation Poverty created by parliament to programs, though information Reduction Strategy Paper lead coordination in the on number and types of (PRSP) (2013–2018), dubbed sector. The National Social beneficiaries and budgets is Agenda for Prosperity. Protection Secretariat has generally available. A growing been established and is hosted number of impact evaluations at the National Commission are being carried out. for Social Action (NaCSA). Slovak — — — — — — Republic Slovenia — — — — — — Solomon N n.a. n.a. The Solomon Islands has a — — Islands Social Welfare Act, but no current social protection strategy framework is being implemented. Somalia — — — — — — South Africa Y White Paper for Social 1997 South Africa has put in place — A new electronic biometric Welfare a well-developed publicly card payment system was provided social protections successfully rolled out in system that consists of two 2014 to all social benefit main pillars of social grants beneficiaries. and social insurance. South Sudan P South Sudan n.a. The SSDP 2011–2013 The government has created — Development Plan includes social protection a Social Protection Core (SSDP) interventions under Team led by the Ministry the Social and Human of Gender, Child and Social Development Pillar. A draft Welfare to coordinate and National Social Protection facilitate the development Policy Framework is yet to be of a comprehensive social finalized. protection policy. (Table continues next page) Appendixes 151 Appendix E. Policies, Institutions, and Administration (Continued) Policy and strategy Institutions Administration Country/ economy/ Y/N/P Initial territory (Planned) Strategy name year Comment Comment Comment Sri Lanka P n.a. n.a. The Department of National The government has been The government intends to Planning at the Ministry of interested in coordinating transform its extensive social Finance and Planning has several social assistance safety net system into an embarked on developing a programs and schemes using integrated one, which will social protection strategy. the Divineguma program. not only provide relief against The Divineguma Act was deprivation but also prevent presented and debated by deprivation and promote Parliament and has been capability and productivity. certified into law. St. Kitts and Y National Social 2011 St. Kitts and Nevis provides The recent approval of the The social protection strategy Nevis Protection Strategy numerous social assistance, social protection strategy and will facilitate improved M&E social insurance benefits, and a move to its implementation through the development labor market programs, now phase is expected to establish of information systems and guided by an overall Social coordination mechanisms. capacity building. Protection Strategy that has been approved by the cabinet. St. Lucia P n.a. n.a. The reform process is divided — M&E of social protection and into four phases. Phase I, labor (SPL) programs will which is being implemented, also improve once the MIS includes the formulation of for social programs has been a National Social Protection developed under the current Policy. reform. A proxy-means- test, Saint Lucia’s National Eligibility Test (SL-NET), has been developed. St. Vincent N n.a. n.a. The government has a variety — Most programs collect basic and the of social assistance programs, information; however, this Grenadines ALMPs, and a social is not always systematically insurance system, but lacks collated.  an overall social protection strategy that defines objectives and principles for the sector. Sudan N n.a. n.a. The government has The Ministry of Welfare and The government is introducing completed the preparation of Social Security is in charge electronic payments through an Interim Poverty Reduction of the overall coordination collaboration with Sudan’s Strategy Paper (I-PRSP). It of the social protection Central Bank. recognizes the importance initiatives. of social protection, but the social protection section of the I-PRSP is brief on current activities and does not identify challenges, or strategy and priority actions. Suriname — — — — — — Swaziland P n.a. n.a. The government intends to The Department of Social — establish an interministerial Welfare has been housed in committee to oversee the the Deputy Prime Minister’s development of a safety net Office since 2009. It is strategy. responsible for Swaziland’s largest cash transfer programs and is also responsible for overseeing social care services. Syrian Arab — — — — — — Republic (Table continues next page) 152 Appendixes Appendix E. Policies, Institutions, and Administration (Continued) Policy and strategy Institutions Administration Country/ economy/ Y/N/P Initial territory (Planned) Strategy name year Comment Comment Comment Tajikistan P n.a. n.a. Tajikistan is in the process In 2014, the social protection The government is establishing of consultations with function was transferred to a consolidated registry for various stakeholders and the Ministry of Health. social protection programs. development partners on It is expected that the system the new social protection will be launched in mid-2015. strategy. The new MIS registry system is expected to substantially improve the capacity of the government to plan and monitor implementation of its key poverty-related interventions. Tanzania P n.a. n.a. The government is finalizing The government created a A national monitoring a draft of a National Social supervisory agency for the system exists for capturing Protection Framework pension industry that will performance of the National (NSPF), which aims to regulate all pension-related Strategy for Growth and improve coordination and issues—except financial Reduction of Poverty (NSGRP speed up the implementation issues, which will be regulated II). Social protection indicators of social protection policies by the central bank. The have been developed and designed to improve the Social Security Regulatory incorporated in the national lives of the poor and Agency (SSRA), covering all monitoring system. Most most vulnerable groups. pension schemes and health programs can track numbers of The process includes the insurance services, was beneficiaries and budgets. preparation of an Action recently formed to enforce Plan for operationalizing the the Act. Framework. Thailand Y Eleventh National 2012 The government has an The Ministry of Social Existing monitoring systems Economic and Social overall strategy for social Development and Human track the number and type Development Plan protection and a set of Security (MOSDHS) is the of beneficiaries and budgets programs that deliver core agency responsible devoted to programs. prevention, protection, and for coordinating all social promotion services for large protection programs. groups of the population. The government is working toward developing a universal social protection system by 2017, called the Welfare Society, a policy announced under the previous government. Timor-Leste N n.a. n.a. There is no overarching — The Ministry of Social government-wide social Solidarity will incorporate an assistance policy. M&E module into its MIS, which is currently under development. Togo P n.a. n.a. A Social Protection Strategy The National Social Monitoring & evaluation and a budgeted action plan Protection Promotion systems exist for most were validated in November Committee provides programs. Discussions have 2013 by the main national directions and coordinates started with the technical stakeholders. The government all social protection activities and financial partners and has not yet adopted this in Togo. The Ministry of the government to develop strategy document. Employment and Social a national targeting system, Security is the lead structure which is the first step toward for social protection, in a national registry, in order to collaboration with the streamline social protection Ministry of Social Action. interventions. (Table continues next page) Appendixes 153 Appendix E. Policies, Institutions, and Administration (Continued) Policy and strategy Institutions Administration Country/ economy/ Y/N/P Initial territory (Planned) Strategy name year Comment Comment Comment Tonga P n.a. n.a. Tonga does not have an — — overall social protection strategy. However, the government is making progress toward addressing this. The 2014–15 budget specifically refers to developing clear policy-based and financially affordable social protection schemes, to support vulnerable groups such as the elderly and disabled. Trinidad and P National Poverty n.a. For fiscal year 2013–14, the — The main social protection Tobago Reduction Strategy Ministry of the People and programs have monitoring Social Development set as and information systems and objectives the development of collect the main information. a National Poverty Reduction The country implements a Strategy. Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey to monitor Millennium Development Goals. It also implements a periodical Survey of Living Conditions. The latest version was conducted in 2013. Tunisia Y — — Tunisia has developed Tunisia has taken steps In 2012, the government a comprehensive social toward consolidating its main launched a new project to protection and labor (SPL) social assistance programs develop a unified registry system. under a single Directorate of and improved monitoring of Social Promotion. beneficiaries. Turkey N n.a. n.a The government has an Social assistance programs The government intends to overall strategic approach are provided through the implement an alternative for social protection and Social Assistances General proxy-means-test for all its a comprehensive set of Directorate in Ministry of programs in 2015. The MoFSP programs, but this strategy Family and Social Policies has an active and well-staffed has not been documented as (MoFSP). research department that a formal strategy paper. carries out analysis of the social assistance system (as well as primary data collection). This research is used to inform policy changes. However, research is not made publicly available; as a result, the quality of this research is not known. Turkmenistan Y Social Protection of the 2012 The government has an — — Population Code overall framework for social protection (2012 Code). (Table continues next page) 154 Appendixes Appendix E. Policies, Institutions, and Administration (Continued) Policy and strategy Institutions Administration Country/ economy/ Y/N/P Initial territory (Planned) Strategy name year Comment Comment Comment Tuvalu Y Te Kakeega II 2005 While there is no formal The Department of — (National Strategies national social protection Community Affairs in the for Sustainable strategy, the government’s Ministry of Home Affairs Development national development and Rural Development 2005–2015) strategy, Te Kakeega II (MHARD) focuses on (National Strategies for monitoring and developing Sustainable Development a social policy to address 2005–2015) includes many poverty and hardship. It areas that target improvement also lobbies and coordinates in life for all. the activities of other departments within MHARD and other stakeholders in social development. Uganda Y Social Protection 2012 The Ministry of Gender Social assistance programs A national monitoring system Strategy, within the Labor and Social are coordinated under the exists to capture performance Uganda National Development, with the Ministry of Gender, Labor of the National Development Development Plan support of development and Social Development— Plan. Most programs can partners, has launched a with the exception of the track numbers of beneficiaries social protection sector Public Sector Pension Fund and budgets. Evaluations are review to develop an effective and the Armed Forces carried out in large programs and efficient social protection Pension Fund. like the Northern Uganda system and strengthen the Social Action Fund (NUSAF) strategy. and the cash transfer program, but are not carried out systematically across programs. Ukraine Y National Poverty 2010 The government has clearly — Existing monitoring systems Reduction Strategy formulated an objective of can track the number and 2010–2015  reducing poverty, which types of beneficiaries and was translated into its budgets, but gaps remain. overall strategy for social and economic development and presidential strategy for economic development. United Arab — — — — — — Emirates Uruguay Y Social Equity Plan 2007 The Social Cabinet The National Social Policies The two main institutions, coordinates policies, within Council unites the Ministries BPS and Ministry of Social the framework of the Social of Finance, Labor, Social Development (MIDES), have Equity Plan, which aims at Development, Health, strong monitoring systems eliminating extreme poverty Education, and the Banco de that produce and disseminate and increasing equality. Previsión Social (BPS). This performance indicators on a council holds interministerial regular basis. Data are shared meetings and also has among institutions through a operational committees that single system (SIIAS) that is work on implementation managed collaboratively by issues. all agencies. The new SIIAS system will also produce cross- sector monitoring reports. Uzbekistan Y Welfare Improvement 2012 The government has an Importantly, the same M&E information is very Strategy for 2012–2015 overall policy for social ministry is in charge of both basic and could improve to protection as part of its labor and social assistance capture standard performance broader strategy to improve policies. indicators such as coverage, the well-being of the targeting, and poverty impact. population. The government has expressed an interest in establishing a registry of beneficiaries. Common administrative systems are used for all cash transfer programs. Vanuatu N n.a. n.a. — — — (Table continues next page) Appendixes 155 Appendix E. Policies, Institutions, and Administration (Continued) Policy and strategy Institutions Administration Country/ economy/ Y/N/P Initial territory (Planned) Strategy name year Comment Comment Comment Venezuela, RB N n.a. n.a. No social protection strategy — — is in place, though poverty reduction is clearly stated as an objective in national development plans. Vietnam Y National Social 2011 In 2012, the government The Ministry of Labor, — Protection Strategy adopted a resolution on social Invalids and Social Affairs (2011–2020) protection that will guide has begun promoting greater government policy until harmonization and reduced 2020. It covers labor market fragmentation of SSN policy, social insurance, social programs. assistance, social services, and poverty reduction. West Bank — — — — — — and Gaza Yemen, Rep. P Social Protection n.a. A new legal and policy The Republic of Yemen has The major safety net programs Strategy framework is being not yet institutionalized a have a well-developed implemented. The system of coordination. database and MIS, which government has initiated are supporting management an overall Social Protection processes and decision Strategy and accompanying making. This information policies for protection of the system was instrumental in population. making the safety net program more responsive to the recent political and economic crisis. Zambia Y National Social 2014 The cabinet approved a new Some attempt has been The National Social Protection Protection Policy, Social Protection Policy in made to coordinate social Policy should provide a basis chapter in the Fifth June 2014. assistance programs, with for harmonization of programs National Development the Ministry of Community and also a comprehensive Plan Development, Mother and monitoring and evaluation Child (MCDMC) providing system. Work on a Single overall coordination. Registry of Beneficiaries was initiated in 2014, and has proceeded up to the stage of defining a road map for its development. Zimbabwe P n.a. n.a. The government began Coordination and monitoring The government developed a developing a National Social of social protection MIS for key social safety net Protection Policy in 2014. programs is mainly through programs. The system records the Ministry of Public and updates beneficiary data Service Labor and Social and accommodates add-on Welfare decentralized at the case management software. provincial and district level. The ministry is in the process of integrating the MIS to accommodate all social safety net programs and link it to all provincial and district offices. Source: World Bank, based on a World Bank internal monitoring tool. Note: “Initial year” refers to either the year the social protection strategy was approved or the year of its effectiveness; ACFTU = All-China Federation of Trade Unions; ALMP = active labor market policy; CCT= conditional cash transfer; CT = conditional transfer; IT = information technology; M&E = monitoring and evaluation; MIS = management information system; MOF = Ministry of Finance; MOHRSS = Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security; N = no strategy available; n.a. = not applicable (the country does not have a national strategy or policy in place); NDRC = National Development and Reform Commission; NSSF = National Council for Social Security Fund; P = planned; PRSP = Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper; SA = social assistance; SI = social insurance; SP = social protection; SPL = social protection and labor; SSN = social safety net; UN = United Nations; Y = strategy available; — = not available. 156 Appendixes Appendix F. Performance Indicators (All Social Safety Nets) Benefit Gini Poverty Coverage incidence Adequacy inequality headcount Poverty gap reduction reduction reduction Country/economy/ Survey Poorest Poorest Poorest (%) (%) (%) territory year 20% Total 20% 20% Total (all hh) (all hh) (all hh) Afghanistan 2007 23.6 15.3 6.7 41.3 27.6 0.2 1.0 2.2 Albania 2008 45.8 33.2 14.3 6.4 6.3 1.6 6.6 15.6 Algeria — — — — — — — — — Angola — — — — — — — — — Antigua and Barbuda — — — — — — — — — Argentina 2010 21.8 9.4 40.0 19.2 11.0 0.8 2.9 7.1 Armenia 2009 34.0 23.0 32.4 33.1 17.0 4.8 13.0 31.4 Azerbaijan 2008 87.0 87.5 18.0 75.5 36.0 31.1 59.2 81.8 Bahrain — — — — — — — — — Bangladesh 2010 24.8 14.6 24.7 6.1 4.9 1.0 3.8 8.6 Belarus 2010 68.9 58.3 29.2 18.5 7.2 6.8 17.8 36.1 Belize 2009 18.5 16.3 18.7 23.4 8.6 0.2 0.7 2.2 Benin 2003 — — — — — — — — Bhutan 2007 1.6 1.0 15.3 3.0 2.1 .. 0.1 0.2 Bolivia 2007 73.3 54.4 9.3 35.2 7.8 1.1 8.4 9.9 Bosnia and Herzegovina 2007 21.8 20.5 13.2 27.7 17.1 3.2 12.0 22.1 Botswana 2009 89.5 70.3 16.6 20.1 7.1 3.0 15.4 31.3 Brazil 2009 53.2 21.1 33.2 24.1 14.5 2.0 8.5 20.0 Bulgaria 2007 57.6 39.5 24.5 16.9 9.5 5.3 14.2 26.0 Burkina Faso 2009 — — — — — — — — Burundi — — — — — — — — — Cabo Verde 2008 25.3 21.9 14.8 19.3 7.1 1.3 7.6 14.7 Cambodia 2008 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.3 10.5 -0.1 .. .. Cameroon 2007 0.2 1.4 0.8 28.3 18.4 .. 0.6 1.2 Central African Republic — — — — — — — — — Chad — — — — — — — — — Chile 2009 95.6 83.2 24.1 17.0 7.2 3.4 17.2 29.0 China — — — — — — — — — Colombia 2012 61.1 41.7 21.3 13.1 5.2 0.7 4.2 8.9 Comoros 2004 — — — — — — — — Congo, Dem. Rep. 2005 4.7 5.5 4.5 9.0 5.4 .. .. 0.1 Congo, Rep. 2005 1.0 0.9 10.5 136.7 74.6 0.3 1.3 5.6 Costa Rica 2009 69.6 44.6 — — — — — — Côte d’Ivoire 2002 3.3 5.8 — — — — — — Croatia 2008 46.3 23.6 41.8 16.1 7.7 2.7 7.3 20.3 Czech Republic — — — — — — — — — Djibouti 2012 30.9 10.8 53.8 20.9 11.9 0.9 2.4 7.6 Dominica 2002 10.6 8.0 2.4 31.2 21.0 0.5 4.4 4.8 Dominican Republic 2009 35.2 23.7 25.7 10.9 5.0 1.0 5.7 8.7 Ecuador 2010 85.6 64.7 27.9 25.1 11.4 3.1 13.3 23.4 Egypt, Arab Rep. 2008 54.9 44.9 17.6 5.0 3.6 1.4 5.8 11.7 El Salvador 2009 67.2 42.6 43.9 9.3 6.2 0.3 1.4 2.9 Equatorial Guinea — — — — — — — — — Eritrea — — — — — — — — — Estonia — — — — — — — — — (Table continues next page) Appendixes 157 Appendix F. Performance Indicators (All Social Safety Nets) (Continued) Benefit Gini Poverty Coverage incidence Adequacy inequality headcount Poverty gap reduction reduction reduction Country/economy/ Survey Poorest Poorest Poorest (%) (%) (%) territory year 20% Total 20% 20% Total (all hh) (all hh) (all hh) Ethiopia 2010 16.2 13.2 — — — — — — Fiji 2008 11.2 9.6 13.7 30.3 14.0 1.0 5.7 11.2 Gabon 2005 49.1 44.8 5.8 14.0 21.1 0.2 0.8 1.9 Gambia, The 1998 1.1 2.9 2.1 6.3 4.0 .. 0.5 0.4 Georgia 2011 51.6 31.3 37.0 48.8 22.6 5.4 12.8 35.4 Ghana 2013 6.2 6.1 11.7 69.5 29.7 .. 0.1 0.4 Grenada — — — — — — — — — Guatemala 2006 61.0 48.3 19.5 22.7 7.9 2.9 11.8 23.7 Guinea — — — — — — — — — Guinea-Bissau — — — — — — — — — Guyana — — — — — — — — — Haiti 2001 1.0 0.8 5.7 1.1 0.6 .. .. .. Honduras 2011 63.0 49.3 17.3 18.2 4.2 0.7 5.0 7.1 Hungary 2007 81.6 59.6 34.1 36.9 13.9 12.7 29.5 53.8 India 2009 20.8 17.2 — — — — — — Indonesia 2009 65.0 41.1 — — — — — — Iran, Islamic Rep. — — — — — — — — — Iraq 2006 86.4 80.0 18.2 4.3 2.3 2.0 8.6 14.9 Jamaica 2010 85.5 67.3 44.1 9.3 4.6 1.2 7.3 10.5 Jordan 2010 83.3 65.7 22.7 6.9 4.0 3.0 10.4 24.8 Kazakhstan 2007 42.3 29.1 22.4 5.1 3.3 1.0 4.9 8.1 Kenya 2005 34.4 20.0 7.9 5.1 8.0 0.1 1.7 3.4 Kiribati 2006 4.8 4.6 8.8 8.9 5.6 0.1 0.9 1.2 Kosovo 2006 16.2 7.0 38.8 48.3 34.0 4.0 7.5 26.4 Kuwait — — — — — — — — — Kyrgyz Republic 2006 15.7 8.5 36.2 53.1 26.0 2.7 8.9 21.4 Lao PDR 2007 — — — — — — — — Latvia 2008 40.1 40.2 17.0 20.2 7.8 3.1 10.0 22.6 Lebanon 2004 3.2 4.8 — — — — — — Lesotho 2014 64.1 51.6 17.3 — — — — — Liberia 2007 63.0 61.2 .. — 6.9 .. .. .. Libya — — — — — — — — — Lithuania 2008 68.1 58.7 24.6 18.5 6.5 4.4 14.6 29.8 Macedonia, FYR — — — — — — — — — Madagascar 2010 2.2 0.9 8.9 17.3 24.1 -0.1 0.2 0.7 Malawi 2010 19.4 20.2 10.8 8.2 4.1 .. 0.2 0.7 Malaysia 2008 93.8 82.8 20.8 6.5 1.7 1.3 6.3 13.3 Maldives 2004 3.1 3.8 25.7 34.4 7.4 0.1 0.2 1.7 Mali 2009 — — — — — — — — Marshall Islands 1999 — — — — — — — — Mauritania 2008 30.3 33.5 7.2 56.7 44.1 4.8 18.7 33.8 Mauritius 2006 44.7 40.6 14.2 41.4 24.9 10.2 31.1 54.6 Mexico 2010 74.2 48.9 29.6 41.9 17.9 5.2 18.8 36.1 Micronesia, Fed. Sts. 2000 4.6 6.3 3.6 50.6 20.0 0.9 6.9 12.0 Moldova 2010 41.7 33.8 26.8 21.9 9.0 4.1 13.9 28.0 (Table continues next page) 158 Appendixes Appendix F. Performance Indicators (All Social Safety Nets) (Continued) Benefit Gini Poverty Coverage incidence Adequacy inequality headcount Poverty gap reduction reduction reduction Country/economy/ Survey Poorest Poorest Poorest (%) (%) (%) territory year 20% Total 20% 20% Total (all hh) (all hh) (all hh) Mongolia 2007 91.7 83.2 22.6 15.5 6.3 6.0 22.3 36.2 Montenegro — — — — — — — — — Morocco 2009 50.1 36.8 — — — — — — Mozambique 2008 7.7 5.4 — — — — — — Myanmar — — — — — — — — — Namibia 2003 19.3 9.8 — — — — — — Nepal 2010 47.7 38.7 15.7 3.7 2.6 0.7 4.8 7.1 Nicaragua 2005 66.0 47.2 — — — — — — Niger 2011 2.6 2.7 — — — — — — Nigeria 2010 1.3 1.7 11.1 5.0 2.2 .. 0.1 0.3 Oman — — — — — — — — — Pakistan 2009 13.7 12.6 11.6 12.1 12.2 1.1 6.6 11.8 Palau 2006 8.7 2.9 25.2 8.3 10.5 0.1 0.9 1.8 Panama 2008 79.0 52.0 48.7 9.5 2.7 0.3 1.3 4.5 Papua New Guinea 2009 1.9 3.4 2.3 2.1 1.7 .. 0.1 0.1 Paraguay 2009 58.9 40.1 39.7 18.8 13.5 0.2 1.5 3.0 Peru 2009 84.6 57.0 56.4 16.5 11.0 0.8 3.0 8.9 Philippines 2013 57.3 27.4 45.2 20.9 11.6 2.4 12.5 27.3 Poland 2005 71.0 50.6 41.9 48.9 14.2 12.2 25.5 57.6 Qatar — — — — — — — — — Romania 2008 79.5 55.4 31.7 18.6 8.3 6.9 17.8 36.3 Russian Federation 2007 46.8 28.2 — — — — — — Rwanda 2005 0.4 1.4 0.9 2.4 3.2 .. .. .. Samoa — — — — — — — — — São Tomé and Príncipe — — — — — — — — — Saudi Arabia — — — — — — — — — Senegal 2011 7.3 10.3 3.6 5.5 6.2 –0.1 1.2 2.2 Serbia 2007 21.8 11.9 30.7 20.4 12.6 1.9 6.1 13.0 Seychelles — — — — — — — — — Sierra Leone 2011 34.6 30.2 15.1 .. .. .. .. .. Slovak Republic 2009 95.6 83.2 38.4 14.4 4.4 7.1 15.8 28.9 Slovenia — — — — — — — — — Solomon Islands 2005 1.1 1.6 4.0 25.5 13.0 .. 0.3 0.5 Somalia — — — — — — — — — South Africa 2010 83.4 58.5 — — — — — — South Sudan — — — — — — — — — Sri Lanka 2006 52.1 29.7 32.5 6.7 4.0 1.3 5.8 12.1 St. Kitts and Nevis — — — — — — — — — St. Lucia — — — — — — — — — St. Vincent and the — — — — — — — — — Grenadines Sudan — — — — — — — — — Suriname — — — — — — — — — Swaziland 2010 70.9 51.6 13.7 21.7 15.7 2.8 11.7 27.7 Syrian Arab Republic 2003 — — — — — — — — (Table continues next page) Appendixes 159 Appendix F. Performance Indicators (All Social Safety Nets) (Continued) Benefit Gini Poverty Coverage incidence Adequacy inequality headcount Poverty gap reduction reduction reduction Country/economy/ Survey Poorest Poorest Poorest (%) (%) (%) territory year 20% Total 20% 20% Total (all hh) (all hh) (all hh) Tajikistan 2011 13.0 9.8 7.6 1.3 2.4 .. 0.4 0.7 Tanzania 2008 79.1 77.4 4.1 4.5 6.9 -0.1 1.2 1.2 Thailand 2009 85.4 70.4 7.4 2.5 3.7 .. 0.1 0.1 Timor-Leste 2007 23.5 26.3 0.9 1.2 9.8 1.1 9.2 17.8 Togo 2006 — — — — — — — — Tonga — — — — — — — — — Trinidad and Tobago — — — — — — — — — Tunisia — — — — — — — — — Turkey 2012 57.5 21.2 38.4 10.5 7.7 1.2 3.5 9.9 Turkmenistan — — — — — — — — — Tuvalu — — — — — — — — — Uganda 2009 75.7 66.8 — — — — — — Ukraine 2006 53.5 47.4 23.3 15.9 7.2 4.7 15.4 29.3 United Arab Emirates — — — — — — — — — Uruguay 2009 84.6 42.2 41.5 12.8 6.3 2.2 9.4 20.0 Uzbekistan — — — — — — — — — Vanuatu — — — — — — — — — Venezuela, RB 2006 5.0 4.7 — — — — —  — Vietnam 2006 43.3 20.9 13.8 20.5 16.5 1.8 6.7 14.0 West Bank and Gaza 2007 22.5 11.5 38.5 2.5 1.6 0.1 .. 1.2 Yemen, Rep. 2005 17.0 13.4 22.9 6.5 3.3 0.4 2.0 3.6 Zambia 2010 1.0 0.6 — — — — — — Zimbabwe — — — — — — — — — Source: ASPIRE. Note: Indicators are calculated using national representative household surveys and are available at www.worldbank.org/aspire. When interpreting ASPIRE 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 considerably across countries. As a consequence, ASPIRE indicators are not fully comparable across program categories and countries; however, they provide approximate measures of social protection systems performance. “Poorest 20%” refers to households in the bottom quintile of the national consumption or income distribution. hh = household; — = not available; .. = negligible. 160 Appendixes Appendix G. Coverage of Social Safety Nets, by Program Type Percent of households in the poorest quintile of the national consumption or income distribution Country/economy/ Survey Unconditional Conditional Social Food and School Public Fee Other territory year cash transfers cash transfers pensions in-kind feeding works waivers SSNs Afghanistan 2007 0.5 — —  0.4 1.4 23.3 — — Albania 2008 16.8 — 0.4 —  —  0.1 — 36.2 Algeria — — — — — — — — — Angola — — — — — — — — — Antigua and Barbuda — — — — — — — — — Argentina 2010 — 18.7 — — — 2.5 — 1.6 Armenia 2009 23.4 — — 14.6 0.2 — — 2.6 Azerbaijan 2008 86.4 — — 3.2 — — 8.0 22.1 Bahrain — — — — — — — — — Bangladesh 2010 0.3 14.6 9.4 0.7 — 0.8 0.2 0.8 Belarus 2010 42.9 — — — — — — 53.4 Belize 2009 3.3 — 5.2 — 03.3 n.a. 1.1 9.2 Benin — — — — — — — — — Bhutan 2007 — — — — — — — 1.6 Bolivia 2007 — 69.3 10.7 — — — — — Bosnia and Herzegovina 2007 3.5 — 18.7 — — — — — Botswana 2009 0.3  — 1.5 — 85.7 — — 32.5 Brazil 2009 — 52.1 1.9 — — — — — Bulgaria 2007 40.9 — 21.4 — — 5.4 13.2 2.5 Burkina Faso — — — — — — — — — Burundi — — — — — — — — — Cabo Verde 2007 .. — 21.5 — — — — 4.6 Cambodia 2008 — — — — — — — 0.5 Cameroon 2007 0.1 — — — — — — 0.1 Central African Republic — — — — — — — — — Chad — — — — — — — — — Chile 2009 64.1 26.5 12.5 84.4 66.1 — 44.8 22.5 China — — — — — — — — — Colombia 2012 1.4 34.0 4.1  — 37.2 — 2.2 3.8 Comoros — — — — — — — — — Congo, Dem. Rep. 2005 4.4 — — — — — — 0.3 Congo, Rep. 2005 — — — — — — — 1.0 Costa Rica 2009 7.5 18.1 — 15.0 55.1 — 6.8 22.4 Côte d’Ivoire 2002 1.0 — — — — — — 2.3 Croatia 2008 45.8 — 0.2 1.7 — — 1.0 0.8 Czech Republic — — — — — — — — — Djibouti 2012 5.8 — — 27.0 — — .. — Dominica 2002 10.6 — — — — — — — Dominican Republic 2009 35.2 — — — — — — — Ecuador 2010 — 52.4 0.1 73.4 39.9 — — 24.5 Egypt, Arab Rep. 2008 8.6 — — 51.8 — — —  — El Salvador 2009 16.4 — — 34.1 62.9 — 1.0 45.3 Equatorial Guinea — — — — — — — — — Eritrea — — — — — — — — — Estonia — — — — — — — — — Ethiopia 2010 — — — 3.6 — 14.0 — — (Table continues next page) Appendixes 161 Appendix G. Coverage of Social Safety Nets, by Program Type (Continued) Percent of households in the poorest quintile of the national consumption or income distribution Country/economy/ Survey Unconditional Conditional Social Food and School Public Fee Other territory year cash transfers cash transfers pensions in-kind feeding works waivers SSNs Fiji 2008 7.1 — — — — — — 4.1 Gabon 2005 — — 0.2 47.3 — — — 2.3 Gambia, The 1998 — —  — — — — — 1.1 Georgia 2011 34.6 — 0.7 8.7 — — 37.4 1.6 Ghana 2013 0.2 — —  — — — 4.7 1.3 Grenada — — — — — — — — — Guatemala 2006 — — — 56.7 14.2 — 10.0 2.6 Guinea — — — — — — — — — Guinea-Bissau — — — — — — — — — Guyana — — — — — — — — — Haiti 2001 — — — 0.3  — — 0.8 — Honduras 2011 — 9.6 1.1 0.6 57.1 — 9.6 0.1 Hungary 2007 76.9 — 0.3 0.3 — — 22.2 9.4 India 2009 — — — — — 20.8  — — Indonesia 2009 — — — — — — 65.0  — Iran, Islamic Rep. — — — — — — — — — Iraq 2006 83.2 — — 14.6 — — — 0.2 Jamaica 2010 10.0 42.3 12.3 — 63.0 — 46.7 2.3 Jordan 2010 18.0 —  — — — — — 79.5 Kazakhstan 2007 2.7 — 36.7 0.2 — — — 6.7 Kenya 2005 24.3 — — 21.4 — — — 2.0 Kiribati 2006 4.8 — —  — — — — — Kosovo 2006 14.9 — — 2.6 — — — — Kuwait — — — — — — — — — Kyrgyz Republic 2006 14.3 — —  — — — — 1.7 Lao PDR — — — — — — — — — Latvia 2008 34.8 — 0.8 1.3 — — 4.7 5.7 Lebanon 2004 — —  —  — — — — 3.2 Lesotho 2014 3.7 2.2 17.9 4.2 48.7 12.4 — 4.7 Liberia 2007 — —  — 19.7 18.1 3.9 54.6 — Libya — — — — — — — — — Lithuania 2008 62.5 — 6.8 — — — — 6.9 Macedonia, FYR — — — — — — — — — Madagascar 2010 0.2 — — — — — — 2.0 Malawi 2010 0.4 — — 3.4 14.7 2.0 — 0.4 Malaysia 2008 93.6 — — — — — — 9.1 Maldives 2004 2.0 — — — — — 1.6 — Mali — — — — — — — — — Marshall Islands — — — — — — — — — Mauritania 2008 — — — — — — — 30.3 Mauritius 2006 7.4 — 38.7 — — — 2.0 5.2 Mexico 2010 2.8 45.0 4.2 7.1 — 0.2 57.3 3.0 Micronesia, Fed. Sts. 2000 4.6 — — — — — — — Moldova 2010 23.5 — 9.1 — — — 23.4 9.9 Mongolia 2007 91.7 — — — — — — 2.0 Montenegro — — — — — — — — — (Table continues next page) 162 Appendixes Appendix G. Coverage of Social Safety Nets, by Program Type (Continued) Percent of households in the poorest quintile of the national consumption or income distribution Country/economy/ Survey Unconditional Conditional Social Food and School Public Fee Other territory year cash transfers cash transfers pensions in-kind feeding works waivers SSNs Morocco 2009 0.8 0.6 — 45.3 13.4 — — 2.9 Mozambique 2008 7.7 — — 0.1 — — — — Myanmar — — — — — — — — — Namibia 2003 — — 19.3 — — — — — Nepal 2010 0.1 — 16.0 5.9  — 10.2 — 28.1 Nicaragua 2005 — — — 15.1 63.0 — — 0.8 Niger 2011 2.6 — —  — — — — — Nigeria 2010 — — — 0.4 — 0.3 — 0.6 Oman — — — — — — — — — Pakistan 2009 12.3 0.1 — 2.3 — — — 2.1 Palau 2006 8.7 — — — — — — — Panama 2008 2.4 27.1 — 5.5 74.5 — — 19.6 Papua New Guinea 2009 1.9 — —  — — — 0.1 — Paraguay 2009 — 8.2 — 45.5 46.8 — — 0.1 Peru 2009 — 29.7 — 78.1 45.3 — — 13.7 Philippines 2013 2.3 50.8 — 10.1 — 1.4 — 9.7 Poland 2005 60.3 — 4.1 — — — 15.3 25.5 Qatar — — — — — — — — — Romania 2008 76.8 — 5.7 — — — — 24.7 Russian Federation 2007 39.6 — 3.7 0.7 — — 8.7 3.8 Rwanda 2005 0.4 — — — — — — — Samoa — — — — — — — — — São Tomé and Principe — — — — — — — — — Saudi Arabia — — — — — — — — — Senegal 2011 — — — 3.5 — — 2.3 1.8 Serbia 2007 21.3 — 0.6  — — — — 0.1 Seychelles — — — — — — — — — Sierra Leone 2011 0.1 — 3.5 31.5 — — — 1.3 Slovak Republic 2009 86.0 — 28.0 — 7.5 — 3.5 20.0 Slovenia — — — — — — — — — Solomon Islands 2005 1.1 — — — — — — — Somalia — — — — — — — — — South Africa 2010 71.6 — 38.1 — — — 1.2 0.1 South Sudan — — — — — — — — — Sri Lanka 2006 51.2 — 4.0 — — — — — St. Kitts and Nevis — — — — — — — — — St. Lucia — — — — — — — — — St. Vincent and the — — — — — — — — — Grenadines Sudan — — — — — — — — — Suriname — — — — — — — — — Swaziland 2010 4.0 — 34.7 — — — — 55.0 Syrian Arab Republic — — — — — — — — — Tajikistan 2011 0.3 — 0.6 — — — 6.7 7.0 Tanzania 2008 — — — 3.5 77.9 0.4 — 1.1 Thailand 2009 4.3 — 60.6  — 60.2  — — 1.3 (Table continues next page) Appendixes 163 Appendix G. Coverage of Social Safety Nets, by Program Type (Continued) Percent of households in the poorest quintile of the national consumption or income distribution Country/economy/ Survey Unconditional Conditional Social Food and School Public Fee Other territory year cash transfers cash transfers pensions in-kind feeding works waivers SSNs Timor-Leste 2007 — —  — 23.3 — 0.2 — — Togo — — — — — — — — — Tonga — — — — — — — — — Trinidad and Tobago — — — — — — — — — Tunisia — — — — — — — — — Turkey 2012 18.5 — 9.9 29.1 — — 47.5 2.7 Turkmenistan — — — — — — — — — Tuvalu — — — — — — — — — Uganda 2009 3.1 — — 6.6 7.3 — — 71.3 Ukraine 2006 29.1 — —  — — — 2.5 32.7 United Arab Emirates — — — — — — — — — Uruguay 2009 — 79.6 — 15.8 39.4 0.9 — — Uzbekistan — — — — — — — — — Vanuatu — — — — — — — — — Venezuela, RB 2006 — 0.3 — — — — — 4.7 Vietnam 2006 2.4 — 12.6 — — — 26.4 34.2 West Bank and Gaza 2007 8.1 — — 15.4 — — — — Yemen, Rep. 2005 11.1 — 3.3 0.1 3.0 0.4 1.1 0.4 Zambia 2010 1.0 — — — — — — — Zimbabwe — — — — — — — — — Source: ASPIRE. Note: Indicators are calculated using national representative household surveys and are available at www.worldbank.org/aspire. When interpreting ASPIRE 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 considerably across countries. As a consequence, ASPIRE indicators are not fully comparable across program categories and countries. However, they provide approximate measures of social protection systems performance. Social pensions refer to periodic cash transfers to the elderly outside or supplemental to the contributory pension system; the transfers include veteran and disability noncontributory pensions. n.a. = not applicable; — = not available; SSN = social safety net. 164 Appendixes Environmental Benefits Statement The World Bank Group is committed to reducing its environmental foot- print. In  support of this commitment, the Publishing and Knowledge Division leverages electronic publishing options and print-on-demand technology, which is located in regional hubs worldwide. Together, these initiatives enable print runs to be lowered and shipping distances decreased, resulting in reduced paper consumption, chemical use, greenhouse gas emissions, and waste. The Publishing and Knowledge Division follows the recommended standards for paper use set by the Green Press Initiative. The majority of our books are printed on FSC certified paper, with nearly all contain- ing 50–100 percent recycled content. The recycled fiber in our book paper is either unbleached or bleached using Totally Chlorine Free (TCF), Pro- cessed Chlorine Free (PCF), or Enhanced Elemental Chlorine Free (EECF) processes. More information about the Bank’s environmental philosophy can be found at http://crinfo.worldbank.org/wbcrinfo/node/4.