Social Protection 2.0 Exploring Issues, Evidence and Debates in a Globalizing World

Ugo Gentilini* and Steven Were Omamo

Draft, February 2011

Abstract. This paper reviews the growing literature on social protection. While not new, the concept

evolved remarkably in recent years. It is approached from a multitude of perspectives, and intersects

with broader bodies of literature – particularly around public policy, pro-poor growth, rights,

humanitarian strategies, and aid effectiveness – as well as feeding into specific programmatic issues

(conditionality, targeting, transfer selection and delivery). This blend of challenges and approaches

has made debates often elusive and polarized. The paper examines the evolution and definitions of

social protection, and unbundles critical policy, institutional and implementation quandaries. Taken

together, these considerations shape a set of context-specific models of social protection. The four

core areas identified in the conclusions may help chart future directions for social protection research

and practice.

Keywords: Social protection, safety nets, risk, rights, public policy, insurance, transfers, foreign aid.

* Corresponding author. Comments are welcome and could be sent to Ugo.Gentilini@wfp.org. The authors are,

respectively, Policy Officer at WFP‟s HQ and Director of WFP‟s Liaison Office at the African Union. The paper only

reflects their personal views, not necessarily WFP‟s.

2

1. Introduction

In its most basic meaning, social protection is not a new concept. In essence, it captures how

members in societies support each other in times of distress, whereas societies are represented by

members of tribal communities, state taxpayers or group of nations. Over the centuries – from the

industrial revolution to the era of globalization – social protection has been a central tenet of

countries‟ social contract as economies become more formalized, market-oriented and

interconnected.

More recently, the concept has been conceptualized from a wide range of perspectives, ranging from

a macroeconomic stabilizer to needs-based emergency responses; from supporting households

managing risks to rights-based approaches. The overall frameworks that emerge point to multiple

objectives – spanning over assistance, insurance and social transformation – that intersect broader

traditional debates around public policies, development strategies, and aid effectiveness.

At the same time, discussion of social protection increasingly transcends national boundaries. While

OECD countries are facing significant challenges in welfare reform (The Economist 2010a, 2010b),

emerging economies are playing a growing role in shaping the global social protection agenda. While

their systems are still developing1, countries like Brazil, China and South Africa are proactively

experimenting, expanding and challenging policy models, hence bulging as new poles of innovation

in social protection (Barnett and Chalk 2010; Devereux 2010; Ribe et al. 2010). Furthermore, in

fragile states and contexts of protracted crises, social protection is also revitalizing longstanding

debates on reconciling humanitarian and developmental approaches (FAO 2010; Maxwell et al.

2010; Barrett et al. 2008).

Clearly, this blend of old and new dynamics not only redesigns trajectories in research, learning and

experience-sharing2, but also elevates the level of complexities for policy-making. As world

economies – and food systems within them – grow more interconnected and coexist with chronic

food insecurity (Naylor and Falcon 2010; Reardon et al. 2009), Tanzi‟s (2000) call for „imagination‟

in repositioning social protection in a globalizing world remains ever-compelling.

Taken together, these considerations suggest that the breadth and depth of issues that conflate in

social protection makes it a complex, fluid and sometimes elusive matter. Therefore, this paper aims

to unbundle and examine key factors that underpin current social protection debates. To this effect,

1 For example, according to the ILO (2010), the share of working-age population contributing to an old-age pension

schemes in OECD countries averages nearly 70 percent. That indicator, which signals the degree of formality and

integration of a social protection system, tends to be considerably lower in Brazil (45.2), China (22.6) and India (6.4).

More generally, the report estimated that “… only one-third of countries globally (inhabited by 28 percent of the global

population) have comprehensive social protection systems (…) [and that] only about 20 percent of the world‟s working-

age population (and their families) have effective access to comprehensive social protection” (ILO 2010, p.1). 2 For example, emerging countries are not only supporting advancements in low-income contexts – e.g. see the Africa-

Brazil Cooperation Program on Social Protection (Andrade 2008) – but also in OECD countries, as illustrated by a

Mexico-inspired conditional cash transfer program launched in New York City (Riccio 2010). As a recent symposium

report put it, „convergence‟ in global problems is encouraging „divergence‟ in solutions – that is “… homegrown recipes

to alleviate and/or eradicate poverty prove exportable in sometimes surprising ways” (IDS and JRF 2010, p.2).

3

the next section reviews the evolution and definitions of social protection; policy, institutional and

implementation issues are discussed in sections 3, 4 and 5 respectively. Section 6 illustrates a

typology of context-specific models, while section 7 discusses key conclusions and future directions.

2. Unpacking social protection

The exploration of social protection in scientific publications seems a relatively recent phenomenon.

For instance, between 1800 and 1900 references to social protection in the development literature

were almost inexistent3; the use of the term started to slightly raise from 1900 until 1980, at which

point references boomed by a steep six-fold increase until 2000. The widely documented „adjustment

with a human face‟ literature in the late 1980s and 1990s (World Bank 2000; Jolly 1991) was

followed by a period, the early and mid-2000s, during which many of the modern social protection

policy frameworks were formulated (DFID 2005; Devereux and Sabates-Wheeler 2004; Shepherd

2004; WFP 2004; ADB 2001; World Bank 2001). During that period, the literature flourished and

often revisited the role of social protection under a holistic and forward-looking perspective, as

opposed to its passive and narrow role played in the 1990s (Devereux 2003; Ravallion 2003;

Farrington and Gill 2002; Holzmann and Jorgensen 2001). In was in this context of new demand for

evidence and publication outlets that, for example, the World Bank‟s Social Protection Discussion

Paper Series was lunched, the first wave of impact evaluations of Mexico‟s PROGRESA-

Oportunidades program published, and academic journals devoted special issues to the topic

(Holzmann 2009; Conway and Norton 2002; Hoddinott et al. 2000).

By the mid-2000s, it was clear that social protection was influencing both the humanitarian and

development space (Devereux and Sabates-Wheeler 2007; Longley et al. 2006; Devereux 2006,

2001). Flagship programs like Brazil‟s Bolsa Familia and Ethiopia‟s Productive Safety Net

Programme (PSNP), for example, were indeed launched in 2003 and 2005 respectively (Fiszbein and

Schady 2009; GoE 2009). Over the next years, new research started exploring broader territories,

such as the interactions between social protection and climate change, entrepreneurship and social

justice (Davies et al. 2008; Barrett et al. 2007; Euzeby 2004). Dedicated regional policy research

hubs blossomed, including for example the Centre for Social Protection in Europe, the Regional

Hunger and Vulnerability Programme in Southern Africa, the International Policy Center for

Inclusive Growth in Latin America, the Social Protection in Asia Programme, and the Washington-

based Inter-American Social Protection Network4.

3 Estimates based on the Google Books Ngram Viewer tool, assembling a corpus of 5 million books spanning 1800-2000:

http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=social+protection&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothin

g=3. 4 See, respectively, http://www.ids.ac.uk/go/csp; http://www.wahenga.net/; http://www.ipc-undp.org/;

http://www.socialprotectionasia.org/default.asp; and http://www.socialprotectionet.org/english/index.html.

4

It was in the wake of global high food prices in 2007-08, however, that social protection became

more widely embedded into high-level agendas (EC and EUI 2010; OECD 2009; AU 2008; CAADP

2008). For example, world leaders called for “…social protection mechanisms such as safety nets

and social policies for the most vulnerable” (G8 Summit 2009, p. 2), pledged significant funding

“…for social protection for the poorest countries” (G20 Summit 2009, p. 8), and committed

themselves to “…support improved social protection programmes in places at risk of malnutrition or

food shortages” (DFID 2009, p. 35). While the causes and effects of the price-induced crisis remains

matter of debate5, at its peak virtually all existing recommendations included, among the most urgent

and cogent priorities, the introduction or expansion of social protection programs (Timmer 2010; UN

2009; HLC 2008; von Braun 2008; World Bank 2008). These measures were eventually

implemented in various countries although, as documented in ex-post reviews, resulting in different

levels of performance (Mousseau 2010; Zhang et al. 2010; Wodon and Zaman 2009). In the current

era of food price volatility, recommendations around social protection are likely to stay relevant and

rank on the top of international responses (Zoellick 2011; Fan 2010).

Yet, while in principle there is consensus on the importance of social protection, its conceptual

boundaries and practical definitions remain open to different interpretations. Indeed, there is a wide

range of approaches on the rationale, scope, objectives and composition of social protection. Such

diversity makes it challenging to develop shared definitions that are both conceptually

comprehensive and technically relevant (Paitoonpong et al. 2008; Devereux and Sabates Wheeler

2007; Whiteford and Forster 2002). However, there a growing number of joint statements and policy

frameworks that attempts to identify common ground, or at least some degree of convergence,

among approaches (IDS et al. 2010; DFID et al. 2009; Sabates-Wheeler and Haddad 2005).

For example, it is widely recognized that safety nets are a subset of broader social protection

systems. The terms safety nets, social safety nets, social transfers or social assistance can be used

interchangeably. They include non-contributory transfers in cash, vouchers or in-kind (mostly food-

based), which can be unconditional or conditional (such as conditional cash transfers (CCTs) and

school feeding), or provided as wages in public or community works (food and cash-for-work6)

(Gentilini and Omamo 2009; Grosh et al., 2008; Adato et al. 2004). Safety nets also include other

5 Following longstanding issues around the „food price dilemma‟, there is also debate whether high food prices really

caused a crisis or could rather have benefited the poorest countries (e.g. see debate on Dani Rodrik and The Guardian‟s

weblogs: http://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/2010/11/are-high-food-prices-good-or-bad-for-poverty.html;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/jan/14/food-prices-agriculture-odi-burkina-faso-

ghana-indonesia-kenya-nicaragua). 6 There is a more subtle debate among practitioners around the trade-offs between the multiple objectives of public work

programs. In some contexts like Ethiopia or India, for example, this tension has generated deeper discussions on “what

constitutes a safety net” – that is, should public works be defined as safety nets when they play an entitlement function

(i.e. public works designed with more emphasis on the provision of transfers/wages as opposed to the quality of assets

built), or should they be incentive or asset-oriented (public works designed with more emphasis on the quality of assets

as opposed to the provision of transfers/wages) (Omamo et al. 2010; Del Ninno et al. 2009; Murgai and Ravallion 2005).

5

interventions to improve access to food and basic essentials, such as consumer price subsidies

(Alderman 2002).

In addition to safety nets, social protection includes parts of labour market interventions (e.g.

contributory pensions or minimum wages), a set of insurance products, and social services provided

as part of sectoral policies for education, health and nutrition (Bundy et al. 2009; Devereux et al.

2008; Greenblot 2007). These components are mapped out in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Components of social protection

Source: adapted from Gentilini and Omamo (2009)

Weather insurance products represent a common area between safety nets and insurance, especially

when the latter is used to trigger early disaster response and advance financing (Alderman 2010;

Hellmuth et al. 2009). Sectoral policies sometimes overlap with safety nets, as they combine the

supply (social services) and demand-side (incentives, transfers) of interventions – e.g. school feeding

and CCTs. However, the scope and range of labour markets and sectoral policies often go beyond

social protection, including interventions such as microcredit, teacher trainings, constructing health

clinics, and farmer subsidies (e.g. agricultural inputs). Overall, these three broad components of

social protection – transfers, insurance and social services – are often underpinned by a fourth pillar,

including rights and legislation, introduced to empower and enhance the status of the most

disadvantaged and marginalized in societies (e.g. minimum working-days provided by law).

Social protection components can take various forms. As a first-order distinction, it can be provided

publicly or privately. Public measures can be funded domestically (through tax revenues, budget

reallocation and commercial/market lending) or externally (by donors); private mechanisms can be

provided informally (not supported by law or contractual agreements, e.g. community sharing

arrangements), or formally through market transactions (e.g. insurance products). There could also

be combinations of forms, for example when governments are involved in providing market

insurance like in Mexico and Mongolia (Alderman and Haque 2007), when private sector is

6

contracted to deliver public social services such as in Nicaragua (Glassman et al. 2007), or in

instances when informal support is delivered through formal systems (e.g. money-transfer companies

for remittances). In section 6, we will further discuss how those compositions combine to shape

different social protection models.

3. Policy debates

As illustrated in the previous section, social protection is largely, although not entirely, about public

policy. Since in a number of low-income countries public measures are largely externally-financed,

decision-makers need to define the role of public action and, within it, the role of international aid. In

other words, developing countries need to often face concerns around a „double-dependency‟ –

general dependency on public-financed interventions, and specific concerns on aid dependency. As a

recent OECD policy statement put it, “… [donor] actions in [social protection] must be harmonised

and aligned with national policy, in line with the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and Accra

Agenda for Action” (OECD 2009, p. 15).

This complex policy scenario has led discussion on social protection to intersect, on one hand, with

the “what works agenda” – that is, social protection interventions are increasingly scrutinized

through robust impact evaluations, particularly randomized controlled trials and quasi/non-

experimental methods. While these initiatives has ignited a lively debate on the appropriateness of

individual evaluation methods (Deaton 2009; Ravallion 2009a; Duflo and Kramer 2008; Rodrik

2008), they underscored the importance of informing policy processes through credible evidence.

Such agenda is, on the other hand, somehow independent from the source of financing of the very

public interventions under scrutiny. Hence the relevance for social protection of the “aid

effectiveness agenda” which has, also in this case, generated passionate discussion (Collier 2010;

Clemens 2007; Easterly 2006; Sachs 2006). Concerns on dependency have also motivated

simulations on affordability of basic social protection measures, and a more in-depth examination of

the growth-effects of social protection interventions. These will be further explored hereafter.

Analyses on costs of social protection packages generally conclude that, despite conventional

wisdom, social protection is affordable even in low-income countries. Yet, there are some lingering

issues around sustainability. It seems unclear, for example, how „affordability‟ should be interpreted.

In some cases, the distinction on whether funds will come from domestic budgets or aid allocations is

gloomy; in other cases, any cost that falls within countries‟ GDP capacity – whether GDP shares are

single or double-digit – seems defined as „affordable‟. For example, in introducing the findings from

cross-country simulations, Pal et al. (2005, p.xii) claimed that “… the conclusions therefore are quite

clear. A basic social protection benefit package can be affordable if it is made a priority area of

national policy”. However, the analysis shows that costs for social protection would be highly

sensitive to assumed scenarios, and that for Ethiopia, for example, in 2015 those costs would range

7

from 9.2 to 44.6 percent of GDP7 (Pal et al. 2005). Therefore, future discussions on sustainability

should further clarify the notion of affordability and more fully account for different modelling

assumptions.

From another perspective, table 1 lists a sample of 10 countries in Southern Africa according to their

redistributive and domestic financing capacity. The former is measured by the marginal tax rate

(MTR) on the rich needed to close the poverty gap at $ 2/day (Ravallion 2009b), while the latter is

embodied by the net Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) as percentage of gross capital

formation (GCF)8.

Table 1. Domestic redistribution and financing capacity, selected countries

Country MTR at $2/day Net ODA as % of GCF

Ethiopia 100 64.7

Kenya 48.2 23.4

Lesotho 100 31.3

Malawi 100 80.6

Mozambique 55.6 109.4

South Africa 23.6 1.8

Swaziland 100 14.3

Tanzania 100 76.4

Uganda 100 49.1

Zambia 100 34.1

Average 82.7 48.5

Source: World Bank WDI online database, latest available data9; Ravallion (2009b).

Among those countries, the average MTR exceeds 80 percent – ranging from 23.6 (South Africa) to

100 in seven of them; conversely, the share of aid in GFC constitutes almost half of countries‟ gross

capital, ranging from 1.8 percent in South Africa to 109.4 percent in Mozambique10

. Following

Ravallion (2009b, p. 20), “… while the poorest countries appear to have weak capacity for attacking

poverty through income redistribution – given the sheer weight of poverty and thinness of the rich

strata in their starting distribution – with sufficient economic growth the tax rates on the rich required

for covering the poverty gap start to fall rapidly. So it makes sense for the relative emphasis on

growth versus redistribution, and the reliance on external aid, to change with the level of economic

7 Indeed, Pal et al (2005, p.x) also recognized that for contexts such as Ethiopia, “… the availability of donor financing

would be essential if internationally set benefit levels are to be met”. 8 The MTR ranges from 0 to 100, whereas 100 entails that the entire wealth of the rich (or even more, as 100 has been

truncated for simplicity) should be diverted for closing the poverty gap; GCF includes country‟s capital, including

infrastructure such as schools, roads, railways, hospitals and land improvements. 9 http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/DT.ODA.ODAT.GI.ZS (retrieved January 2011).

10 In countries such as China, India, Indonesia, Mexico and Brazil, aid as percentage of GCF is less than 1 percent; in

South Africa and Egypt it is less than 5 percent. In countries like Liberia and Burundi, values reach a skyrocketing 742.1

percent and 286.3 percent respectively.

8

development”. While it is clear that, without growth, there might be limited scope for redistribution

(and that role is de facto played by aid-financed programmes), in situations of post-conflict countries,

for example, it is argued that social protection may reduce the likelihood of future conflicts

(Shepherd 2004), and hence should be promoted before sectoral and macro policies (Collier and

Hoeffler 2004). This may stem from the intrinsic value of signalling commitments to stability and

reconciliation, which may render post-crises environments more conducive for investments and

growth (Darcy 2004).

These considerations speak directly to the dilemma around the sequence of interventions to help

countries unlock poverty traps (Barrett et al. 2008) – or, in a stylized form, what measures countries

would need to prioritize in contexts of binding budgetary and capacity constraints. In those settings,

social protection has to compete with other interventions, hence generating possible tensions between

equity and efficiency, or – as we‟ll further discuss in section 4 – between rights and available

resources (Easterly 2009; Ravallion 2008, 2003; Whiteford 2006; Das et al. 2004; Moffitt 2002). As

the recent Future of Food and Farming report puts it, “… it is important not to view social protection

policies uncritically [since they] can compete with agriculture for political support” (Foresight 2011,

p.26). While the sequence of interventions are seldom confronted explicitly, it is often implicitly

discussed when devising ways to minimize potential trade-offs between equity and efficiency – in

other words, the literature on the growth-social protection relationship (Alderman and Hoddinott

2009; Barrientos and Scott 2008). In this regard, evidence shows that social protection can

potentially promote growth in four core ways.

The first one revolves around the accumulation of human capital. This includes, for example, direct

investments in nutrition. Evidence shows that better nutrition among children may – through the

combined effects of better cognitive development, school attainments and labour productivity – lead

to higher income streams as adults (Behrman et al. 2004). Conversely, the protection of human

capital during times of distress helps maintaining future potential11

. For example, in Ethiopia

Yamano et al. (2005) founded that children in drought-affected communities receiving food transfers

grew nearly 2 cm taller than those in non-receiving areas – an important factor, as stunting can be

closely related to earning potential (Strauss and Thomas 1998). Indeed, in Guatemala it is estimated

that nutrition interventions in early childhood led to higher wages in the order of 46 percent as adults

compared to non-recipients (Hoddinott et al. 2008). Similarly, in Zimbabwe lifetime earnings of

children affected by droughts in the 1980s was reduced by nearly 14 percent (Alderman et al. 2006).

A second stream of „growth-friendly‟ social protection is related to the adoption of higher-risk,

higher-income livelihood opportunities. Indeed, in some cases farmers may underperform because of

11

The „protection‟ function also includes preventing income poverty from further increasing, not only malnutrition. For

example, in Kyrgyzstan it is estimated that the existing social protection system prevented extreme poverty to increase by

24 percent, poverty gaps by 42 percent and the severity of poverty by 57 percent (Shepherd 2004).

9

overly-conservative farming practices. Social protection could play an important role by

guaranteeing a floor against which more rewarding models could be pursued. For example, in

Tanzania, a shift into low-risk, low-return crops by poorer households resulted in 20 percent lower

incomes per unit of land for households in the lowest quintile compared with the richest quintile

(Alderman and Hoddinott 2009). Most of the recent innovations in insurance and risk-transfer

products are designed to respond to those decision-making quandaries, essentially by exploring the

interconnections between risk, predictability and entrepreneurship (Vargas Hill and Torero 2009;

Barnett et al. 2008).

A third channel relates to the alleviation of some market failures. Examples include the deployment

of labour-intensive schemes to build infrastructures that connect markets, or that protect community

assets in times of covariate shocks; the design of transfers or insurance to liquidity-constrained

households whose needs may not be met by market forces alone (Dercon 2004); and finally, targeted

programs that generate local economic multipliers, hence revitalizing ossified markets (Davies and

Davey 2008).

Finally, social protection feeds into the broader research exploring the interplay between inequality,

poverty reduction and growth (or the „pro-poor growth‟ literature). There is new evidence suggesting

that some trade-offs between inequality and growth may be less pronounced than often perceived12

(Ravallion 2009c). In some countries such as Brazil, for example, evidence shows that redistributive

policies have played a key role in reducing poverty by complementing growth and market-oriented

policies (Ravallion 2009d). In other contexts such as China, however, the role of redistribution in

fostering growth seemed more limited (Dollar 2009; Ravallion 2009e).

Taken together, these streams of research have helped changing the perception of social protection

from being a mere cost to an investment in growth. Yet, there are important limitations and

implications should be drawn cautiously. For example, evidence around the „predictability factor‟ is

still limited13

. The focus of safety nets on the demand or access dimension may lead to under-invest

in the supply-side of interventions (e.g. education or social services), and vice-versa (Handa and

Davis 2006). More broadly, if investments in education (also including safety nets such as school

feeding and corresponding social services) are not matched by future job opportunities, there may be

little incentives to keep investing in education (Pritchett 2001). Sustainable growth-effects of safety

nets would likely require long time frames to fully realize (e.g. nutrition and education outcomes),

and such time horizon may conflict with shorter-term priorities of vulnerable households (Barrett

2007). More fundamentally, when social protection is pursuing similar objectives as other

12

For example, Chaudhuri and Ravallion (2006) differentiate between „good‟ and „bad‟ inequalities for growth, with the

former reflecting the role of economic incentives in fostering innovation and entrepreneurship, while the latter include

inequalities that prevent individuals from connecting to markets and investing in physical and human capital – in other

words, they reflect inequality in opportunities. 13

For example, it is unclear whether more predictability would encourage risk taking or rather foster moral hazard and

unintended dependencies (Barrett 2006).

10

interventions (e.g. reduce vulnerability of small farmers), there is a need to more fully gauge sectoral

opportunity costs (Foresight 2011). The design of interventions that create incentives for growth in

the longer term and that meet, compatibly with those incentives, short-term needs will likely remain

a crucial policy area in the coming years.

4. Institutional factors

The burgeoning interest in social protection springs from various sources, or „entry-points‟, all of

which entail some form of institutional reform and innovation. Social protection is emerging as a

platform to breaking the cycle of recurrent emergencies, enhancing systems‟ effectiveness and

efficiency, and building constituencies and promoting rights. These recent developments followed

the narrower role that social protection played in 1990s. At that time, social protection initiatives

were part of the „residualist‟ safety net agenda, primarily designed to mitigate adverse effects of

structural adjustment and economic reforms. Examples include programs like Procampo in Mexico,

Raskin in Indonesia, or Trabajar in Argentina (Hastuti 2008; Ravallion 2002; De Janvry et al. 2001).

In terms of more modern perspectives, the first entry point – breaking the cycle of relief – is based on

evidence that large shares of food insecure populations would need long-term assistance, regardless

of the occurrence of covariate shocks. Some chronic needs are therefore „predictable‟, and a

corresponding predictable level of support is required to address needs ex-ante, rather than with ex-

post emergency assistance. Clearly, such a risk management approach offers intriguing opportunities

for cross-fertilizing social protection and disaster risk reduction frameworks (Christoplos 2009;

Davies and Leavy 2009). This has triggered the shift from annual relief programmes to multi-annual

support in the PSNP in Ethiopia and the Hunger Safety Net Programme (HSNP) in Kenya (GoE

2009; DFID 2007). Some donors have also set out quantitative targets to this approach. For example,

DFID aims to “… to help build social protection systems to get help to 50 million people in over 20

countries over the next three years14

” (DFID 2009, p. 25).

However, preliminary quantitative studies have been cautious about their developmental impacts and

institutional linkages (Gilligan et al. 2009), as well as their ability to respond to emergencies

(Sabates-Wheeler and Devereux 2010; Save the Children, 2008). These gaps are often referred to as

vertical and horizontal institutional linkages: the former concern the organizational chain and the

decentralization of decision-making; the latter refer to the operational arrangements and partnerships

for linking safety nets with other food security interventions – help beneficiaries to „graduate‟ – or

emergency responses (Slater et al. 2006). In some contexts, relief responses are considered to be an

institutional activity that is separate from social protection. The latter is set to include a series of

long-term approaches to address chronic needs (e.g. transfers to the elderly), while emergency

14

In 2006, DFID‟s stated vision was to “… double to 16 million the number of people moved from emergency relief to

long-term social protection programmes by 2009” (DFID 2006, p.60).

11

programs is bound to addresses short-term acute needs. Yet, in practice the expansion of social

protection in emergencies could build upon existing temporary programs, while the latter could lay

the basis for longer-term interventions. Future institutional innovations should explore how support

broader sectoral developmental interventions and rapidly-scalable measures in emergencies

(Alderman 2010; Alderman and Haque 2006).

The second entry point for social protection is based on efforts to boost the effectiveness and

efficiency of existing systems. Social protection programmes are being often provided by different

ministries with different lines of responsibility and accountability, resulting in patchwork governance

and management. This may generate duplication of efforts, gaps in coverage and poor institutional

coordination. In other cases, programmes are implemented in isolation and lack a coherent policy

framework. This second entry point therefore aims at „weaving the net‟ and harnessing its full

potential. Activities for weaving the net include mapping, appraising, rationalizing, retargeting and

costing programmes, and the overall streamlining and coordination of processes15

. The review and

appraisal of social protection systems have been undertaken both at the regional and country levels

(PNA 2010; Ribe et al. 2010; GoC et al. 2009; UNICEF 2009; GoA 2008; GoM 2007; GoP 2007;

World Bank 2007a,b, 2006; Devereux and Macauslan 2006).

The third entry point leverages social protection for promoting social cohesion and rights-based

agendas (UN 2010; Barrientos and Hulme 2008a; Holmes and Jones 2009; Devereux and Sabates-

Wheeler 2004). The rights movements are often closely related to initiatives for advocating basic

packages of social protection (Townsend 2009). An example is the intergovernmental conference on

social protection held in Livingstone in 2006, with follow-up consultations in 2008. Sponsored by

the African Union and civil society, the events called on African governments to galvanize political

and economic commitment to social protection (AU 2008; AU and HAI 2008; GoZ and AU 2006).

Rights campaigns raise the importance of social protection in national policy agendas, although the

implications from rapidly institutionalizing social protection into national budgets and structures may

deserve further attention. To some extent, limited social protection is seen largely as a lack of

political will. For example, at a social protection workshop in Mozambique it was declared that

“…we [members of Parliament of Angola and Mozambique] reiterate that, with the requisite political

will, social transfers are affordable and that our governments should explore, prioritise and

implement social transfers in their various forms” (SADC Parliamentary Forum and RHVP 2009, p.

2). In the words of Green (2008, p.208), “… instead of treating poor people as „beneficiaries‟, (…)

social protection focuses on the rights and voices of poor people themselves, building an enduring

constituency and demand for state action, and so promoting the combination of active citizens and

effective states that is crucial to development.”

15

A related field of research is exploring options to enhance social protection within existing capacities, or without

increasing the fiscal space (Holmqvist 2010; Baunsgaard and Symansky 2009).

12

While broader issues related to sustainability have been discussed in section three, the large share of

aid and influence of external actors have led some authors to question the national ownership of the

social protection agenda16

(Devereux and White 2010; Nigussa and Mberengwa 2009; Chinsinga

2007). Indeed, domestic contributions for highly popular unconditional cash transfer programs, such

as those in Malawi and Zambia, only range from zero to 5 percent of program costs (McCord 2009).

As an evaluation put it, the donor community should “… reconsider the contradictions between two

of its primary objectives – namely its efforts to promote its own vision of social protection on the one

hand, and its efforts to secure government ownership of social protection policies and strategies on

the other” (Davies 2009, p.16).

Therefore, the support, institutionalization and handover of social protection from donors to

governments should be carefully designed. This requires approaches that put a premium on nimble

engagement on policy process.

Once a programme is institutionalized, it becomes more visible and formal. Eligible people can claim

their rights to access to the programme, and governments must be accountable in meeting their

obligations (Devereux et al. 2005). This is a critical step, although it becomes controversial when

bold long-term social protection commitments are institutionalized in low-capacity contexts – the

same that rely heavily on short-term or volatile external support, and have limited possibilities for

domestic financing. Approaches need to more accountable and compatible with prevailing cultural,

social and economic factors that shape countries‟ capacity at each stage of development. As recently

observed by Haddad (2010a), “… country-led opportunities for strengthening social protection in

Africa will not be commonplace. When they arise, the donors must be ready – not to produce their

own solutions but to support the reformers working in the countries they are trying to help”. A

bottom-up, demand-led, evidence-based, sequential and iterative approach to social protection is

likely to be more politically and economically sustainable than any, although well-intended,

ideologically-driven initiative.

5. Implementation quandaries

As discussions descend from institutional to implementation matters, three main areas are often

debated: the use of conditionality, targeting, and transfer selection. These implementation issues,

especially the first two, tend to catalyse significant shares of debate around social protection. In some

cases, they even overshadow deeper policy and institutional issues, with discussions being dominated

by narrow considerations on how to deliver a given transfer for some groups of people.

16

This may also include a longstanding concern by communities over „top-down‟ approaches to social protection, and

how systems can be influenced and strengthened from the „bottom-up‟ (Nigussa and Mberengwa 2009; Mgemezulu

2008; Morduch and Sharma 2002).

13

The debate around conditinalities unfolds at three levels – philosophical, technical and empirical.

Experiences with CCTs in Latin America have emphasized the importance of an integrated approach

to poverty, health, education and nutrition (Adato and Hoddinott 2010; Fiszbein and Shady 2009). A

CCT program requires beneficiaries to perform some activities – e.g. ensure children attendance of

school and medical visits – in exchange of a cash transfer. School feeding, including both on-site

feeding and take-home rations programs, also represents a form of „conditional food transfer‟, as it

requires school attendance to receive food (Bundy et al. 2009). According to some actors,

conditionality represents an imposition on beneficiaries (Freeland 2007), and that they may even

result disempowered (Molyneux 2009). Other actors suggest that conditional transfers do not force

people to change behaviours, but rather promote co-responsibility between governments and

citizens17

(Adato and Bassett 2008). In parallel to these philosophical divergences, studies have been

appraising the feasibility of introducing and maintaining CCT programs, suggesting that the

administrative and operational requirements are often a significant challenge in lower-capacity

settings (Heinrich 2007; Soares and Britto 2007; Schubert and Slater 2006). A growing number of

empirical studies are also investigating the comparative impacts of conditional and unconditional

transfers – in other words, how much of the outcomes are attributable to the complementary services

or the transfers per se. The evidence seems mixed, with experimental studies detecting a statistically

significant difference in favour of CCTs (De Brauw and Hoddinott 2011), while others have found

similar impacts between treatment arms (Baird et al. 2009). In general, discussions around CCTs

embody many of the considerations laid out for trade-offs between equity and efficiency. Indeed, as

underscored by Das et al. (2005), design choices around conditionality, the amount of transfers

provided, and the refinement and enforcement of eligibility criteria would all play a role in

addressing those trade-offs. The latter element – eligibility – is closely related to targeting, the next

area of programming controversy.

One of the most passionate areas of discussion around targeting is whether to target at all. Indeed,

targeting is often closely linked to rights-related approaches (section 4), especially as they propose

universal minimum incomes, or the right to basic social protection packages (Townsend 2009). From

other standpoints, targeting is deemed instrumental for maximizing programme effectiveness-

efficiency ratios, and minimizing leakages. A number of targeting methods have been developed –

e.g. means-testing, categorical, geographical, community-based, self-targeting – with comparative

advantages and limitations in various contexts and programs. However, the distinction between

vulnerability profiles, or between chronic and transitory poverty, becomes particularly blurred in

contexts of persistent poverty – e.g. countries like Mozambique or Niger where more than 90 percent

of the population lives on less than U$2/day (World Bank 2010). This is particularly compelling for

17

There are also approaches adopting „soft‟ conditionalities. These are based on initiatives to induce behavioural change,

but which do not envision program exclusion as a penalty for non-compliance.

14

initiatives that envision predetermined rigid thresholds for program eligibility and enrolment – such

as the „poorest 10 percent‟ – like the cash transfer programs in Malawi and Zambia (Schubert and

Huijbregts 2006; Schubert 2005). While these schemes have grown in popularity, they have also

stimulated severe criticism on their targeting methods (RHVP 2008). It is important to strike a

balance between ensuring that benefits reach vulnerable populations, and avoiding artificial

boundaries among and within almost equally vulnerable communities (Ellis 2008; Mgemezulu

2008).

The third social protection implementation quandary revolves around transfer selection – hence

particularly pertinent for safety nets – as exemplified by the „cash versus food‟ debate. While the

discussion is longstanding (Coate 1989), Devereux (2006, p. 11) noted that “…the „cash versus food‟

debate has become unnecessarily polarised, even acrimonious. It is also spurious and misdirected”.

However, the increase in practical implementation and empirical attention has shed light on the

underlying conditions for guiding transfer selection processes. It is now widely recognized, for

example, that the choice of the most appropriate transfer hinges on proper assessment of context-

specific factors. These include programme objectives, the functioning of markets, implementation

capacities, delivery mechanisms, security conditions, cost-efficiency analysis, and beneficiaries‟

preferences (Gentilini 2007). The application, in particular, of cutting-edge technology for cash and

voucher delivery (e.g. smart cards, mobile phones) is receiving considerable attention (Vincent and

Cull 2011; Barca et al. 2010). Such options offer expanded scope for enhancing program design and

forging public-private partnerships. Yet, while attractive and „smart‟, the choice of technology

shouldn‟t substitute for response analysis and decision-making processes, out of which they only

represent a specific component (Omamo et al. 2010; Barrett et al. 2009).

Overall, while experience with cash-based programs in low-income countries is growing, a number

of evidence gaps remain. This stems not only from the general features of the initiatives (small-scale,

short-term and donor-financed) (Davies 2009; Save the Children 2009; Devereux and Coll-Black

2007), but also from the effectiveness in pursuing specific outcomes, such as child malnutrition, that

are widely documented in higher-capacity contexts18

(Leroy et al. 2009; Fernald et al. 2008; Aguero

et al. 2007). The appropriateness of cash-based responses in the immediate aftermath of emergencies

remains matter of discussion19

(Sabates-Wheeler and Devereux 2010; Save the Children 2008;

Harvey and Savage 2006), and so is the debate around what constitutes an „acceptable level‟ of

evidence to inform the scale-up of programs (Miller 2009).

18

Evidence in low-capacity contexts tends to be qualitative and descriptive, with few experimental or quasi-experimental

trials to explore for causal effects; Sharma (2006) is one of the few exceptions. However, also food-based interventions

require more robust evaluations. Also in this case, Adelman et al. (2008) and Kazianga et al. (2009) are among the few

experimental studies available. In general, there is a need for further robust cash and food comparative studies, such as

the one by Ahmed et al. (2009), while more evidence on voucher and combined cash and food-based programs is also

required. 19

In those contexts, practitioners have to navigate various trade-offs and competing demands between rigour and

flexibility, timeliness and documentation, and scale and control (Gentilini et al. 2011).

15

6. Emerging models

Taken together, the various components and forms of social protection, as well as the set of policy,

institutional and implementation issues, delineate a number of possible models of social protection.

As mentioned in section 1, not only various middle-income countries are emerging as beacons of

R&D in social protection, but also a number of low-income countries are positioning themselves as

proactive social protection players. Yet, the genuine process of experimenting, learning and adapting

practices seems sometimes substituted by a process of replication of predefined approaches. While

sharing lessons from different countries is key to innovate and advance knowledge and practice, it

would be important to identify the extent to which lessons would be relevant elsewhere – the

„portability‟ of social protection (Haddad 2010b) – and how to best suit them to contexts.

Drawing from existing literature, tools20

, data and case studies, it‟d be useful to set out a typology of

social protection models, including „limited‟, „emerging‟ and „consolidated‟ social protection

systems (Gentilini 2009; Gentilini and Omamo 2009; Ravallion 2009b; Barrientos and Hulme 2008b;

Grosh et al. 2008; Shepherd 2004). While those models present differing array of objectives,

administrative, financing and political factors, innovations are emerging across the board. Figure 2

illustrates those models as shaped by the level of integration and coordination, financing source,

redistribution capacity, and the balance of safety nets (non-contributory) versus insurance

(contributory) instruments.

Figure 2. An illustrative typology of social protection models

Consolidated

HighLow

Financing

source

Limited

HighLow

0

100Aid

Domestic

Ratio = Insurance/safety nets

Redistribution

capacity (MTR)

“Programs”

“Systems”

Integration & coordination

(legislation, labor markets, ministries)

Emerging

20

Tools to appraise countries‟ social protection capacities include, inter alia, the World Bank‟s Automated Analysis of

the Distributional Impact of Social Protection Programmes (ADePT-SP), and ILO‟s Social Protection Expenditure and

Performance Reviews (SPERs).

16

The boundaries of the clusters are often fluid, and the typology does not imply a predefined linear

pathway for introducing or expanding social protection. Rather, it broadly illustrates different

configurations based on prevailing conditions, while detailed exploration of the dynamics and

causality of countries‟ pathways may be an area of further research. Our static model, instead, is

particularly useful to frame debates and highlight contextual challenges.

Countries with „consolidated‟ systems primarily include OECD and advanced economies, where

social protection is institutionalized in national domestic budgets, structures, fiscal and expenditure

regimes, and overall political processes. Social security, equity and welfare are among the key

objectives that shape the social contract between the state and citizens (Dethier 2009; OECD 2008,

2007; De Neubourg et al. 2007; Lindert 2005; Alesina and Glaeser 2004). Systems are primarily

insurance-based, linked to formal labour markets, delivered through electronic and digital solutions,

and financed domestically. Yet, there are also non-contributory safety net programs. For instance, in

the United States about 10 percent of the population benefit from the Supplemental Nutrition

Assistance Program (SNAP). With a budget of about US$37.5 billion/year, SNAP is the largest

voucher-based safety net in the world (USDA 2007).

Countries with „emerging‟ systems are those where social protection has begun to be

institutionalized. These include most of South-East Asian, Middle-East and Latin American

countries. However, there are wide differences in such model. Some countries may lay at the

intersection between emerging and limited systems (e.g. Ecuador, Nicaragua), while others may

present features common in countries with consolidates systems (e.g. China, Turkey). In these

contexts, international assistance has a limited role, and systems are largely domestically funded.

Basic social protection is sometimes mandated by law, such as in India (SCCI 2008); safety nets are

mainly cash-based or, like in most countries in the Middle-East, government-subsidized; formal

contributory pensions are expanding, and both the public and private sectors offer market insurance

products (Kabeer et al. 2010; WFP 2010, 2009; Alderman and Haque 2007; Gilligan and Ahmed

2007; Regalia and Castro 2007; Lindert et al. 2006). However, there is scope for significant

improvements of these systems‟ coordination, coverage, effectiveness and efficiency (Ribe et al.

2010; Gao et al. 2009; Baulch et al. 2006; Giambiagi and de Mello 2006; Sumarto et al. 2003).

Finally, countries with „limited‟ systems includes contexts with high needs (poverty, food insecurity

and/or malnutrition rates) combined with limited fiscal space and redistribution capacity – e.g.

countries with high MTR and aid shares presented in table 1. Under this model, two core sub-clusters

can be identified. On one hand, there are post-conflict and fragile states, where most social protection

is provided through donor-funded safety nets, often in the form of large humanitarian responses to

recurrent emergencies. Examples include Liberia, Somalia, Sudan, Haiti and Afghanistan (FAO

2010; Harvey 2009; Save the Children et al. 2009; GoA 2008, 2002). On the other hand, there are

countries that are laying the basis for longer-term social protection systems. Examples include

17

Ethiopia (PSNP), Malawi, Mozambique, Kenya (HSNP), Cambodia and Bangladesh. While informal

social protection still plays an important role, markets may allow a wider use of cash-based safety

nets, and some insurance products might also appear (Maxwell et al. 2010; GoC 2009; UNICEF

2008; GoM 2007; World Bank 2006; WFP 2005; Morduch and Sharma 2002). However, domestic

funding of social protection is very limited compared to external financing (Ellis et al. 2009; McCord

2009).

Taken together, these considerations suggest that there are deep differences between an integrated

„system‟ of social protection and a „collection of programs‟ (World Bank 2011; Kanbur 2009). While

many developing countries have a number of individual social protection instruments in place, the

low level of coordination, integration, financing and redistributive capacity may limit their ability to

establish a system per se.

7. Conclusions and future directions

The paper reviewed the growing literature on social protection. In particular, we navigated the

different approached underpinning the concept, and identified some common elements to define the

composition and forms of social protection. We explored the old and new streams of research that

conflated into the debate, laid out key policy, institutional and implementation quandaries, and

overlaid those factors to illustrate different models of social protection. Overall, four broad

interconnected issues and challenges emerge from our analysis. Taken together, these considerations

may help shape future directions for social protection research and practice.

Context matters. All countries have social protection measures in place. However, the objectives,

composition, forms, scale and funding modalities vary dramatically. This diversity has generated

different typologies of social protection, which call for context-specific approaches as shaped by

prevailing administrative, institutional and implementation issues. In particular, more attention

should be paid to the challenges faced by crisis-prone, low-income and food insecure countries21

.

Cross-country lessons and support could help inform how to introduce or expand politically and

financially-sustainable systems consistently with countries‟ prevailing conditions. This would

include a comprehensive approach to social protection – that is, promoting a fuller consideration of

the range of policy and institutional issues here discussed, rather than primarily focusing on

implementation mechanics or rights alone.

Systems, not programs. The process of moving from a collection of programs to an institutionalized

system entails addressing key trade-offs along the policy, institutional and implementation spectrum.

This includes navigating choices around short and longer-run interventions; productivity and equity;

21

As part of such process, there is a need to further investigate factors shaping countries‟ social protection pathways, as

well as developing new ways to measure and quantify countries‟ capacity to provide social protection.

18

domestic and external support; or rights and affordability. Some of the trade-offs may be mitigated,

while others may be more difficult to reconcile. Confronting these competing priorities requires a

pragmatic approach to social protection, as opposed to ideology-driven debates that often ignore or

oversimplify key trade-offs. To this effect, social protection platforms should not be developed in

isolation, but rather be part of broader consultations to inform decision-making on investment

priorities alongside other sectors. This would also help better nesting social protection within

developmental initiatives, as well as strengthening the institutional linkages for scaling-up in

emergencies. In order to be politically and financially sustainable – in order to build a system – the

gradual establishment of social protection systems should be an integral part of countries‟

comprehensive development vision.

Advance evidence-based agendas to inform decision-making. In general, more systematic and robust

comparative social protection evaluations are needed, including a wider use of randomized controlled

trials and other evaluation methods as appropriate22

. These initiatives should be part of a coherent

research framework23

to inform decision makers about performance (impacts and costs) of social

protection interventions. This includes validating alternative safety net transfers, as well as

comparing them to insurance and social services, and gauge opportunity costs from other

productivity-enhancing interventions. The research agenda should be multidisciplinary, including

drawing from economics, sociology and psychology; driven by program objectives or outcomes (e.g.

looking for best interventions to improve well defined dimensions such as nutrition or education);

articulated by context, and elaborating, for example, from the models here illustrated; testing how

program design – e.g. conditionality, transfer modality, delivery mechanisms, distribution frequency

– influence program outcomes; and capturing both short and longer-term effects (e.g. effects risk-

taking, impacts of food markets, or labour supply). The research agenda should be complemented by

mechanisms to ensure accountable and transparent translation of credible body evidence into

decision-making24

.

Repositioning social protection in a changing world. Globalization is not limited to high and middle-

income countries, and social protection policies in all countries should recognize the world‟s

growing interconnectedness. In low-income countries, this includes accounting more explicitly for

the changing nature of food systems, growing urbanization, the exponential diffusion of technology,

volatile food prices, rapid capital flows and more mobile labour markets. Those developments should

22

The combination of methods would ensure that issues around both internal and external validity are addressed. 23

As noted by Hayek (1973, p.60), “… an experiment can tell us only whether any innovation does or does not fit into a

given framework. But to hope that we can build a coherent order by random experimentation with particular solutions of

individual problems and without following guiding principles is an illusion”. 24

For example, pilots could explore the application to social protection of new aid models such as „pay-for-performance‟

and „cash-on-delivery aid‟, both underpinned by principles of transparency, co-responsibility and feedback mechanisms

(Basinga et al. 2010; Birsdall and Savedoff 2010).

19

alert and inspire governments on how to modernize social protection systems in an era of

globalization. For example, the growing disconnect between international food prices and „real‟ food

demand-supply dynamics (i.e. food prices being increasingly detached from agriculture and wrapped

into commodity markets), there may be scope for governments to further consider virtual food

reserves as part of the measures to provide countercyclical safety nets25

. New initiatives that connect,

harness and realigns incentives of civil society, private sector and public institutions may offer fresh

perspectives and uncharted opportunities for repositioning social protection to meet 21st Century-

challenges.

25

The high volatility in food prices suggests that the time to setup responses to protect food insecure consumers/net

importing countries is tight (and so is for farmers/net-food exporting countries to seize opportunities). So as food prices‟

upward acceleration increase, governments need quicker action planned ex-ante. In this regard, further studies may

explore the feasibility for government to engage, in some way, in commodity markets themselves (e.g. buying shares in

times of low prices) and in managing virtual food reserves throughout. The latter would become „real‟ or monetized in

times of need (von Braun and Torero 2009). In other words, in addition to traditional safety net responses, governments

may find it effective to tap virtual reserves to cushion price-generated crises.

20

References

Adato, M. & Hoddinott, J. (2010) Conditional Cash Transfers in Latin America. (Eds). Johns

Hopkins University Press.

Adato, M. & Bassett, L. (2008) What Is the Potential of Cash Transfers to Strengthen Families

Affected by HIV and AIDS? A Review of the Evidence on Impacts and Key Policy Debates. IFPRI,

paper prepared for the Joint Learning Initiative on Children and HIV/AIDS. Washington DC.

Adato, M., Ahmed, A. & Lund, F. (2004) Linking Safety Nets, Social Protection, and Poverty

Reduction: Directions for Africa. IFPRI, 2020 Africa Conference Brief No.12. Washington DC.

ADB (Asian Development Bank) (2001) Social Protection Strategy. Manila.

Adelman, S., Alderman, H., Gilligan, D. & Lehrer, K. (2008) The Education and Nutrition Impacts

of Alternative Food for Education Programs in Northern Uganda. Paper presented at the conference

Social Protection for the Poorest in Africa: Learning from Experience (Entebbe, 8-10 Sept.).

Aguero J., Carter, M. & Woolard, I. (2007) The Impact of Unconditional Cash Transfers on

Nutrition: The South African Child Support Grant. IPCIG, Working Paper No.39. Brasilia.

Ahmed, A., Quisumbing, A., Nasreen, M., Hoddinott, J. & Bryan, E. (2009) Comparing Cash and

Food Transfers to the Ultra Poor in Bangladesh. IFPRI, Research Monograph No.163. Washington

DC.

Alderman, H. (2010) Safety Nets Can Help Address the Risks to Nutrition from Increasing Climate

Variability. Journal of Nutrition 140(1S-II):148S-152S.

Alderman, H. (2002) Subsidies as Social Safety Nets: Effectiveness and Challenges. World Bank,

Social Protection Discussion Paper No.0224. Washington, DC.

Alderman, H. & Hoddinott, J. (2009) Growth-Promoting Social Safety Nets. In von Braun, J., Vargas

Hill, R. & Pandya-Lorch, R. (eds.) The Poorest and Hungry. Assessments, Analyses, and Action.

IFPRI. Washington DC.

Alderman, H. & Haque, T. (2007) Insurance Against Covariate Shocks: The Role of Index-Based

Insurance in Social Protection in Low-Income Countries in Africa. World Bank, African Human

Development Series Working Paper No.95. Washington DC.

Alderman, H. & Haque, T. (2006) Countercyclical Safety Nets for the Poor and Vulnerable. Food

Policy 31(4): 372-383.

Alesina, A. & Glaeser, E. (2004) Fighting poverty in the US and Europe: A World of Difference.

Oxford University Press.

Andrade, M. (2008) Building Bridges between Brazil and Africa: Sharing the Brazilian Experience

and Identifying African Demands. IPCIG, Brasil & Africa Newsletter 3: 5.

AU (African Union) (2008) Social Policy Framework for Africa. CAMSD/EXP/4(I). Windhoek.

AU & HAI (HelpAge International) (2008) Investing in Social Protection in Africa. Regional

Experts Meeting on Social Protection (Kampala, 28-30 April).

Baird, S., McIntosh, C. & Ozler, B. (2009) Designing Cost-Effective Cash Transfer Programs to

Boost Schooling among Women in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Bank, Policy Research Working

Paper No.5090. Washington DC.

Barca, V., Hurrell, A, MacAuslan, I., Visram, A. & Willis, J. (2010) Paying Attention to Detail: How

to Transfer Cash in Cash Transfers. Oxford Policy Management, Working Paper No.2010-04.

Oxford.

Barnett, S. & Chalk, N. (2010) Building a Social Safety Net: China Embarks on an Effort to Improve

Both Pensions and Health Care in the World‟s Most Popular Nation. Finance & Development 47(3):

34-35.

21

Barnett, B., Barrett, C. & Skees, J. (2008) Poverty Traps and Index-Based Risk Transfer Products.

World Development 36(10): 1766-1785.

Barrett, C. (2007) Displaced Distortions: Financial Market Failures and Seemingly Inefficient

Resource Allocation in Low-Income Rural Communities. In Bulte, E. & Ruben, R. (eds.)

Development Economics Between Markets and Institutions: Incentives for Growth, Food Security

and Sustainable Use of the Environment. Academic Publishers.

Barrett, C. (2006) Food Aid‟s Intended and Unintended Consequences. FAO, ESA Working Paper

No. 06-05. Rome.

Barrett, C., Bell, R., Lentz, E. & Maxwell, D. (2009) Market Information and Food Insecurity

Response Analysis. Food Security 1(1): 151‐168.

Barrett, C., Carter, M. & Ikegami, M. (2008) Poverty Traps and Social Protection. World Bank,

Social Protection Discussion Paper No.0804. Washington DC.

Barrett, C., Carter, M., Chantarat, S., McPeak, J. & Mude, A. (2007) Altering Poverty Dynamics

with Index Insurance: Northern Kenya‟s HSNP+. Cornell University, BASIS Brief. Itaha.

Barrientos, A. & Hulme, D. (2008a) Social Protection for the Poor and Poorest. (Eds). Palgrave.

Barrientos, A. & Hulme, D. (2008b) Social Protection for the Poor and Poorest in Developing

Countries: Reflections on a Quiet Revolution. Brooks World Poverty Institute, Working Paper

No.30. Manchester.

Barrientos, A. & Scott, J. (2008) Social Transfers and Growth: A Review. Brooks World Poverty

Institute, Working Paper No.52. Manchester.

Basinga, P., Gertler, P., Binagwaho, A., Soucat A., Sturdy, J. & Vermeersch, C. (2010) Paying

Primary Health Care Centers for Performance in Rwanda. World Bank, Policy Research Working

Paper No.5190. Washington DC.

Baulch B., Wood, J. & Weber, A. (2006) Developing a Social Protection Index for Asia.

Development Policy Review 24(1): 5-29.

Baunsgaard T. & Symansky, S. (2009) Automatic Fiscal Stabilizers: How Can They be Enhanced

Without Increasing the Size of Government? IMF, Staff Position Note No.09/23. Washington DC.

Behrman, J., Alderman, H. & Hoddinott, J. (2004) Malnutrition and Hunger. In Lomborg, B. (ed.)

Global Crises, Global Solutions. Cambridge University Press.

Birsdall, N. & Savedoff, W. (2010) Cash on Delivery. A New Approach to Foreign Aid. CGD.

Washington DC.

Bundy, D., Burbano, C., Grosh, M., Gelli, A., Jukes, M. & Drake, L. (2009) Rethinking School

Feeding: Social Safety Nets, Child Development and the Education Sector. World Bank. Washington

DC.

Chaudhuri, S. & Ravallion, M. (2006) Partially Awakened Giants: Uneven Growth in China and

India. World Bank, Policy Research Working Paper No.4069. Washington DC.

Chinsinga, B. (2007) The Social Protection Policy in Malawi: Processes, Politics and Challenges.

Future Agricultures, Working Paper. Zomba.

Christoplos, I. (2009) Food Security: A Strategic Interface in the Human Dimension of Climate

Change. Report prepared for the Commission on Climate Change and Development. London.

Clemens, M. (2007) Smart Samaritans: Is There a Third Way in the Development Debate? Foreign

Affairs 86(5): 132-140.

Coate, S. (1989) Cash versus Direct Food Relief. Journal of Development Economics 30(2): 199-

224.

22

Collier, P. (2010) Social Protection in Resource-High Low-Income Countries. Background paper to

the European Report on Development 2010. Brussels and Florence.

Collier, P. & Hoeffler, A. (2004) Aid, Policy and Growth in Post-Conflict Societies. European

Economic Review 48(5): 1125-1145.

Conway, T. & Norton, A. (2002) Nets, Ropes, Ladders and Trampolines: The Place of Social

Protection within Current Debates on Poverty Reduction. Development Policy Review 20(5): 533-

540.

CPRC (Chronic Poverty Research Centre) (2008) Chronic Poverty Report 2008-09: Escaping

Poverty Traps. Manchester.

Darcy, J. (2004) Conflict and Social Protection: Social Protection in Situations of Violent Conflicts

and Its Aftermath. Report prepared for DFID, Theme Paper No.5. London.

Das, J., Do, Q.T. & Ozler, B. (2005) Reassessing Conditional Cash Transfer Programs. World Bank

Research Observer 20(1): 57-80.

Davies, M. (2009) DFID Social Transfers Evaluation Summary Report. IDS, Research Report

No.60. Brighton.

Davies, M. & Leavy, J. (2009) Connecting Social Protection and Climate Change Adaptation. IDS,

Focus Issue No.2. Brighton.

Davies, M, Leavy, J., Mitchell T. & and Tanner, T. (2008) Social Protection and Climate Change

Adaption. Report prepared for the Commission on Climate Change and Development. Brighton.

Davies, S. & Davey, J. (2008) A Regional Multiplier Approach to Estimating the Impact of Cash

Transfers: The Case of Cash Transfers in Rural Malawi. Development Policy Review 26(1): 91-111.

De Brauw, A. & Hoddinott, J. (2011) Must Conditional Cash Transfer Programs Be Conditioned to

Be Effective? The Impact of Conditioning Transfers on School Enrollment in Mexico. Journal of

Development Economics (in press).

De Janvry, A., Sadoulet, E. & Davis, B. (2001) Cash Transfer Programs with Income Multipliers:

PROCAMPO in Mexico. World Development 29(6): 1043-1056.

De Neubourg, C., Castonguay, J. & Roelen, K. (2007) Social Safety Nets and Targeted Social

Assistance: Lessons from the European Experience. World Bank, Social Protection Discussion

Paper No.0718. Washington DC.

Deaton, A. (2009) Instruments of Development: Randomization in the Tropics, and the Search for

the Elusive Keys to Economic Development. Princeton University. Princeton.

Del Ninno, C., Subbarao, K. & Milazzo, A. (2009) How to Make Public Works Work: A Review of

the Experiences. World Bank, Social Protection Discussion Paper No.0905. Washington DC.

Dercon, S. (2004) Risk, Poverty and Public Action. In Dercon, S. (ed.) Insurance Against Poverty.

Oxford University Press.

Dethier, J-J. (2009) Social Security: What Can Developing Countries Learn from Developed

Countries?. In von Braun, J., Vargas Hill R. & Pandya-Lorch, R. (eds) The Poorest and Hungry.

Assessments, Analyses, and Action. IFPRI. Washington DC.

Devereux, S. (2010) Building Social Protection System in Southern Africa. Background paper to the

European Report on Development 2010. Brussels and Florence.

Devereux, S. (2006) Cash Transfers and Social Protection. Paper presented at the workshop Cash

Transfer Activities in Southern Africa (Johannesburg, 9-10 Oct.).

Devereux, S. (2001) Livelihood Insecurity and Social Protection: A Re-Emerging Issue in Rural

Development. Development Policy Review 19(4): 507-519.

23

Devereux, S. & White, P. (2010) Social Protection in Africa: Evidence, Politics, Rights. Poverty &

Public Policy 2(3): 53-77.

Devereux, S. & Coll-Black, S. (2007) Review of Evidence and Evidence Gaps on the Effectiveness

and Impacts of DFID-Supported Pilot Social Transfer Schemes. Report prepared for DFID. London.

Devereux, S. & Sabates-Wheeler, R. (2007) Editorial Introduction: Debating Social Protection. IDS

Bulletin 28(3): 1-7.

Devereux, S. & Macauslan, I. (2006) Review of Social Protection Instruments in Malawi. Report

prepared for DFID. Brighton.

Devereux, S. & Sabates-Wheeler, R. (2004) Transformative Social Protection. IDS, Working Paper

No.232. Brighton.

Devereux, S., Sabates-Wheeler, R., Dorward, A., Poulton, C., Guenther, B. & Al-Hassan, R. (2008)

Linking Social Protection and Support to Small Farmer Development. Report prepared for FAO.

Rome.

Devereux, S., Marshall, J., MacAskill, J. & Pelham, L. (2005) Making Cash Count: Lessons from

Cash Transfer Schemes in East and Southern Africa for Supporting the Most Vulnerable Children

and Households. Save the Children, HAI & IDS. London and Brighton.

DFID (2009) Eliminating World Poverty: Building Our Common Future. London.

DFID (2007) Reducing Extreme Poverty, Vulnerability and Hunger in Kenya: Developing a National

Social Protection Framework, 2007-2017. Nairobi.

DFID (2006) Eliminating World Poverty: Making Governance Working for the Poor. London.

DFID (2005) Social Transfers and Chronic Poverty: Emerging Evidence and the Challenge Ahead.

Practice Paper. London.

DFID, Help Age Int., Hope & Homes for Children, IDS, ILO, ODI, Save the Children UK, UNDP,

UNICEF & World Bank (2009) Joint Statement on Advancing Child-Sensitive Social Protection.

New York.

Dollar, D. (2009) Lessons from China to Africa. World Bank, Policy Research Working Paper

No.4531. Washington DC.

Duflo, E. & Kremer, M. (2008) Use of Randomization in the Evaluation of Development

Effectiveness. In Easterly, W. Reinventing Foreign Aid. (Ed.) The MIT Press. Cambridge.

Easterly, W. (2009) Human Rights are the Wrong Basis for Healthcare. Financial Times (FT.com):

October 12.

Easterly, W. (2006) Reliving the 50s: the Big Push, Poverty Traps, and Takeoffs in Economic

Developments. Journal of Economic Growth 11(2): 289-318.

EC (European Commission) & EUI (European University Institute) (2010) Social Protection for

Inclusive Development: A New Perspective in EU Cooperation with Africa. 2010 European Report

on Development. Brussels and Florence.

Ellis, F. (2008) We Are All Poor Here: Economic Difference, Social Divisiveness, and Targeting

Cash Transfers in Sub-Saharan Africa. Paper presented at the conference Social Protection for the

Poorest in Africa: Learning from Experience (Entebbe, 8-10 Sept.).

Ellis, F., Devereux, S. & White, P. (2009) Social Protection in Africa. Elgar Publishing. UK.

Euzeby, A. (2004) Social Protection: Values to be Defended! International Social Security Review

57(2): 107-117.

Fan, S. (2010) Five Steps to Prevent a Repeat of the 2007-08 Food Crisis. IFPRI. Washington DC.

24

FAO (2010) The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2010: Addressing Food Insecurity in

Protracted Crises. Rome.

Fernald, L., Gertler, P. & Hou, X. (2008) Cash Component of Conditional Cash Transfer Program Is

Associated with Higher Body Mass Index and Blood Pressure in Adults. Journal of Nutrition

138(11): 2250-2257.

Fiszbein, A. & Schady, N. (2009) Conditional Cash Transfers: Reducing Present and Future

Poverty. World Bank. Washington DC.

Foresight (2011) The Future of Food and Farming: Challenges and Choices for Global

Sustainability. UK Government Office for Science. London.

Freeland, N. (2007) Superfluous, Pernicious, Atrocious and Abominable? The Case Against

Conditional Cash Transfers. IDS Bulletin 38(3): 75-78.

G20 Summit (2009) Global Plan for Recovery and Reform: the Communiqué from the London

Summit. London.

G8 Summit (2009) Joint Statement on Global Food Security: L’Aquila Food Security Initiative.

L‟Aquila.

Gao, Q., Garfinkel, I. & Zhai, F. (2009) Anti-Poverty Effectiveness of the Minimum Living Standard

Assistance Policy in Urban China. Review of Income and Wealth 55(1): 630-655.

Gentilini, U. (2009) Social Protection in the „Real World‟: Issues, Models and Challenges.

Development Policy Review 27(2): 147-166.

Gentilini, U. (2007) Cash and Food Transfers: A Primer. WFP, Occasional Paper No.18. Rome.

Gentilini, U. & Omamo, S.W. (2009) Unveiling Social Safety Nets. WFP, Occasional Paper No.20.

Rome.

Gentilini, U., Ansar, S., & Herbinger, W. (2011) Planning and Implementing Cash Transfers in

Emergencies: Practical Insights from Flood-Affected Pakistan. WFP, Islamabad.

Giambiagi, F. & de Mello, L. (2006) Social Security Reform in Brazil: Achievements and Remaining

Challenges. OECD, Economics Department Working Paper No.534. Paris.

Gilligan, D. & Ahmed, A. (2007) On the Promise and Limitations of Conditional Cash Transfer

Programs: Evidence of Impacts from Turkey. IFPRI. Washington DC.

Gilligan, D., Hoddinott, J. & Seyoum, A. (2009) An Analysis of Ethiopia‟s Productive Safety Net

Programme and Its linkages. Journal of Development Studies 45(10): 1684-1706.

GoA (Government of Afghanistan) (2008) National Development Strategy 2008-2013: A Strategy

for Security, Governance, Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction. Kabul.

GoA (2002) From Humanitarian Assistance to Social Protection. Paper prepared for the Afghanistan

Support Group Meeting (Oslo, 17-18 Dec.).

GoC (Government of Cambodia), WFP & World Bank (2009) Cambodia Safety Net Review: Draft

Policy Note. Phnom Penn.

GoE (Government of Ethiopia) (2009) Food Security Programme 2010-2014. Addis Ababa.

GoM (Government of Malawi) (2007) Social Protection Strategy (draft). Lilongwe.

GoP (Government of Pakistan) (2007) A Social Protection Strategy to Reach the Poor and the

Vulnerable. Islamabad.

GoZ (Government of Zambia) & AU (2006) Livingstone Call for Action: A Transformative Agenda

for the 21st Century. Livingstone.

Green, D. (2008) From Poverty to Power: How Active Citizens and Effective States Can Change the

World. Oxfam International.

25

Greenblot, K. (2007) Social Protection in the Era of HIV and AIDS: Examining the Role of Food-

based Programming. WFP, Occasional Paper No.17. Rome.

Grosh, M., Del Ninno, C., Tesliuc, E., & Ouerghi, A. (2008) For Protection and Promotion: The

Design and Implementation of Effective Safety Nets. World Bank, Washington DC.

GTZ (2007) Extending Social Protection in Health: Developing Countries‟ Experiences, Lessons

Learnt and Recommendations. Eschborn.

Haddad, L. (2010a) Has Social Protection in Africa Lost Its Way? Development Horizons weblog,

June 6.

Haddad, L. (2010b) The Politics and Portability of Social Protection. Development Horizons weblog,

November 18.

Handa, S. & Davis, B. (2006) The Experience of Conditional Cash Transfers in Latin America and

the Caribbean. Development Policy Review 24(5): 513-536.

Harvey, P. (2009) Social Protection in Fragile States: Lessons Learned. In OECD (ed.) Promoting

Pro-Poor Growth: Social Protection. Paris.

Harvey, P. & Savage, K. (2006) No Small Change. Oxfam GB Malawi and Zambia Emergency

Cash-Transfer Programme: A Synthesis of Key Learning. ODI, London.

Hastuti, N. (2008) The Effectiveness of the Raskin Program. SMERU Research Institute. Jakarta.

Hayek, F. (1973) Law, Legislation and Liberty – Volume 1: Rules and Order. University of Chicago

Press.

Heinrich, C. (2007) Demand and Supply-Side Determinants of Conditional Cash Transfer Program

Effectiveness. World Development 35(1): 121-143.

Hellmuth, M., Osgood, D., Hess, U., Moorhead, A. & Bhojwani H. (2009) Index Insurance and

Climate Risk: Prospects for Development and Disaster Management. Columbia University, IRI

Climate and Society No.2. New York.

Hoddinott, J. (2008) Social Safety Nets and Productivity-Enhancing Investments in Agriculture.

Washington, DC, IFPRI.

Hoddinott, J., Skoufias, E. & Washburn, R. (2000) The Impact of PROGRESA on Consumption: A

Final Report. IFPRI, Washington DC.

Holmes, R. & Jones, N. (2009) Putting the Social Back into Social Protection: A Framework for

Understanding the Linkages between Economic and Social Risks for Poverty Reduction. Background

note. ODI. London.

Holmqvist, G. (2010) External Financing of Social Protection: Opportunities and Risks. Background

paper to the European Report on Development 2010. Brussels and Florence.

Holzmann, R. (2009) Social Protection and Labor at the World Bank, 2000-2008. (Ed.) World Bank.

Washington DC.

Holzmann, R. & Jorgensen, S. (2001) Social Risk Management: A New Conceptual Framework for

Social Protection and Beyond. International Tax and Public Finance 8(4): 529-56.

IDS (Institute of Development Studies) & JRF (Joseph Rowntree Foundation) (2010) Global

Connections: UK and Global Poverty Solutions. Event Report. Brighton.

ILO (2010) World Social Security Report 2010-2011: Providing Coverage in Times of Crisis and

Beyond. Geneva.

Jolly, R. (1991) Adjustment with a Human Face: A UNICEF Record and Perspective on the 1980s.

World Development 19(12): 1807-1821.

26

Kabeer, N., Cook, S., Chopra, D., & Ainsworth, P. (2010) Social Protection in Asia: Research

Findings and Policy Lessons. Programme synthesis report. London.

Kanbur, R. (2009) Systemic Crises and the Social Protection System: Three Proposals for World

Bank Action. Cornell University, Food and Nutrition Policy Working Paper No.235. Ithaca.

Kazianga, H., de Walque, D. & Alderman, H. (2009) Educational and Health Impacts of Two School

Feeding Schemes: Evidence from a Randomized Rural in Rural Burkina Faso. World Bank, Policy

Research Working Paper No.4976. Washington DC.

Leroy, J., Ruel, M. & Verhofstadt, E. (2009) The Impact of Conditional Cash Transfer Programmes

on Child Nutrition: A Review of Evidence Using a Programme Theory Framework. Journal of

Development Effectiveness 1(2): 103-129.

Lindert, P. (2005) Growing Public: Social Spending and Economic Growth Since the Eighteenth

Century. Cambridge University Press.

Lindert, K., Skoufias, E. & Shapiro, J. (2006) Redistributing Income to the Poor and the Rich: Public

Transfers in Latin America and the Caribbean. World Bank, Social Protection Discussion Paper

No.0605. Washington DC.

Maxwell, D., Webb, P., Coates, J. & Wirth, J. (2010) Fir for Purpose? Rethinking Food Security

Responses in Protracted Crises. Food Policy 35(2): 91-97.

McCord, A. (2009) Cash Transfers: Affordability and Sustainability. ODI, Project Briefing No.30.

London.

Mgemezulu, O. (2008) The Social Impact of Community-Based Targeting Mechanisms for Safety

Nets. University of Kwa-Zulu Natal. Durban.

Miller, C. (2009) The Evaluation of Cash Transfer Schemes in Africa: Meeting Report. Center for

Global Health and Development. Boston.

Moffitt, R. (2002) Welfare Programs and Labor Supply. In Auerbach, A. & Feldstein, M. (eds.)

Handbook of Public Economics. Elsevier.

Molyneux, M. (2009) Conditional Cash Transfers: A „Pathway to Women‟s Empowerment‟? IDS,

Pathways Briefs No.5. Brighton.

Morduch, J. & Sharma, M. (2002) Strengthening Public Safety Nets From the Bottom Up.

Development Policy Review 20(5): 569-588.

Mousseau, F. (2010) The High Food Price Challenge: A Review of Responses to Combat Hunger.

The Oakland Institute. Oakland.

Murgai, R. & Ravallion, M (2005) Is a Guaranteed Living Wage a Good Anti-Poverty Policy? World

Bank, Policy Research Working Paper No.3640. Washington DC.

Naylor, R. & Falcon, W. (2010) Food Security in an Era of Economic Volatility. Population and

Development Review 36(4): 693-723.

Nigussa, F. & Mberengwa, I. (2009) Challenges of productive safety nets program implementation at

local level: The case of Kuyo Woreda, North Shewa Zone, Oromia Region, Ethiopia. Journal of

Sustainable Development in Africa 11(1): 248-267.

Noble, C. (1997) Welfare As We Knew It: A Political History of the American Welfare State. Oxford

University Press.

OECD (2009) Making Economic Growth More Pro-Poor: The Role of Employment and Social

Protection. In OCED (ed.) Promoting Pro-Poor Growth: Social Protection. Paris.

OECD (2008) Growing Unequal? Income Distribution and Poverty in OECD Countries. Paris.

OECD (2007) Modernising Social Policy for the New Life Course. Paris.

27

Omamo, S.W., Gentilini, U. & Sandström, S. (2010) Revolution: From Food Aid to Food Assistance.

Innovations in Overcoming Hunger. (Eds.) WFP. Rome.

Paitoonpong, S., Abe, S. & Puopongsakorn, N. (2008) The Meaning of “Social Safety Nets”. Journal

of Asian Economics 19(5-6): 467-473.

Pal, K., Behrendt, C., Leger, F., Cichon, M. & Hagemejer, K. (2005) Can Low-Income Countries

Afford Basic Social Protection? First Results of a Modelling Exercise. ILO, Issues in Social

Protection Discussion Paper No.13. Geneva.

PNA (Palestinian National Authority) (2010) Social Protection Sector Strategy (first draft).

Ramallah.

Pritchett, L. (2001) Where Has All the Education Gone? World Bank Economic Review 15(3): 367-

391.

Ravallion, M. (2009a) Should the Randomistas Rule? Economists’ Voice, Berkley Electronic Press.

Ravallion, M. (2009b) Do Poorer Countries Have Less Capacity for Redistribution? World Bank,

Policy Research Working Paper No.5046. Washington DC.

Ravallion, M. (2009c) Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction: Do Poor Countries Need to Worry

About Inequality? In von Braun, J., Vargas Hill, R. & Pandya-Lorch, R. (eds.) The Poorest and

Hungry. Assessments, Analyses, and Action. IFPRI. Washington DC.

Ravallion, M. (2009d) A Comparative Perspective on Poverty Reduction in Brazil, China and India.

World Bank, Policy Research Working Paper No.5080. Washington DC.

Ravallion, M. (2009e) Are There Lessons for Africa from China‟s Success against Poverty? World

Development 37(2): 303-313.

Ravallion, M. (2008) Bailing Out the World‟s Poorest. World Bank, Policy Research Working Paper

No.4763. Washington DC.

Ravallion, M. (2003) Targeted Transfers in Poor Countries: Revisiting the Trade-Offs and Policy

Options. World Bank, Social Protection Discussion Paper No.0314. Washington DC.

Ravallion, M. (2002) Are the Poor Protected from Budget Cuts? Evidence from Argentina. Journal

of Applied Economics 5(1): 95-121

Reardon, T., Barrett, C., Berdegue, J. & Swinnen, J. (2009) Agrifood Industry Transformation and

Small Farmers in Developing Countries. World Development 37(11): 1717-1727.

Regalia, F. & Castro, L. (2007) Performance-Based Incentives for Health: Demand and Supply-side

Incentives in the Nicaraguan Red de Protección Social. CGD, Working Paper No.119. Washington

DC.

RHVP (2008) One Out of Ten: Social Cash Transfer Pilots in Malawi and Zambia. Johannesburg.

Ribe, H., Robalino D. & Walker, I. (2010) From Rights to Reality: Achieving Effective Social

Protection for All in Latin America and the Caribbean. World Bank. Washington DC.

Riccio, J. (2010) Sharing Lessons from the First Conditional Cash Transfer Program in the United

States. National Poverty Center, Policy Brief No.22. New York.

Rodrik, D. (2008) The New Development Economics: We Shall Experiment, But How Shall we

Learn? Harvard University, Faculty Research Working Paper No.08-055. Cambridge.

Sabates-Wheeler, R. & Devereux, S. (2010) Cash Transfers and High Food Prices: Explaining

Outcomes on Ethiopia‟s Productive Safety Net Programme. Food Policy 35(4): 274-285.

Sabates-Wheeler, R. & Haddad, L. (2005) Reconciling Different Concepts of Risk and Vulnerability:

A Review of Donor Documents. Paper prepared for the OECD-DAC Povnet. Paris.

28

Sachs, J. (2006) How to Help the Poor: Piecemeal Progress or Strategic Plans? The Lancet

376(9519):1309-1310.

SADC Parliamentary Forum & RHVP (2009) Statement: Regional Workshop on Poverty and Social

Transfers. Maputo.

Save the Children (2009) How Cash Transfers Can Improve the Nutrition of the Poorest Children.

Evaluation of a Pilot Safety Net Project in Southern Niger. London.

Save the Children (2008) Cash, Food, Payments and Risk: A Review of the Productive Safety Net

Programme. Addis Ababa.

Save the Children, Oxfam & CARE (2009) Consortium to Support Hunger Safety Nets in Fragile

States and Very Low Income Countries: Issues to Consider. London.

SCCI (Supreme Court Commissioners of India) (2008) Supreme Court on the Right to Food: A Tool

for Action. New Delhi.

Schubert, B. (2005) The Pilot Social Cash Transfer Scheme in the Kalomo District, Zambia. CPRC,

Working Paper No.52. Manchester.

Schubert, B. & Huijbregts, M. (2006) The Malawi Social Cash Transfer Pilot Scheme: Preliminary

lessons learned. Paper presented at the conference Social Protection Initiatives for Children, Women

and Families: An Analysis of Recent Experiences (New York, 30-31 Oct.).

Schubert, B. & Slater, R. (2006) Social Cash Transfers in Low-Income African Countries:

Conditional or Unconditional? Development Policy Review 24(5): 571-578.

Sharma, M. (2006) An Assessment of the Effects of the Cash Transfer Pilot Project (CTPP) on

Household Consumption Patterns in Tsunami Affected Areas of Sri Lanka”. IFPRI. Washington DC.

Shepherd, A. (2004) General Review of Current Social Protection Policies and Programmes. Report

prepared for DFID. London.

Slater, R. & McCord, A. (2009) Social Protection, Rural Development and Food Security: Issues

Paper on the Role of Social Protection in Rural Development. ODI. London.

Slater, R., Ashley, S., Tefera, M., Buta, M. & Esubalew, D. (2006) Ethiopia‟s Productive Safety Net

Programme (PSNP): Study on Policy, Programme and Institutional Linkages. ODI, IDL Group &

Indak International. London and Addis Ababa.

Soares F. & Britto, T. (2007) Confronting Capacity Constraints on Conditional Cash Transfers in

Latin America: The Cases of El Salvador and Paraguay. International Policy Centre for Inclusive

Growth, Working Paper No.38. Brasilia.

Strauss, J. & Thomas, D. (1998) Health, Nutrition, and Economic Development. Journal of

Economic Literature 36(2): 766-817.

Sumarto, S., Suryahadi, A. & Pritchett, L. (2003) Safety Nets or Safety Ropes? Dynamic Benefit

Incidence of Two Crisis Programs in Indonesia. World Development 31(7): 1257-1277.

Tanzi, V. (2000) Globalization and the Future of Social Protection. IMF, Working Paper n.00/12.

Washington DC.

The Economist (2010a) Social Insecurity: Japan’s Social-Security Bill is Getting Out of Hand.

397(8709): 11.

The Economist (2010b) Reshaping the Welfare System. (Economist.com): November 11.

Townsend, P. (2009) Social Security and Human Rights. In Townsend, P. (ed.) Building Decent

Societies: Rethinking the Role of Social Security in State Building. Palgrave. London.

UN (United Nations) (2010) Rights and Extreme Poverty. A/65/259. New York.

UN (2009) Global Financial and Economic Crisis: Joint Crisis Initiatives. New York.

29

UNICEF (2009) Strengthening Social Protection for Children: West and Central Africa. Dakar.

UNICEF (2008) Social Protection in Eastern and Southern Africa: A Framework and Strategy for

UNICEF. Nairobi.

USDA (2007) Informing Food and Nutrition Assistance Policy: 10 Years of Research at ERS.

Economic Research Service, Miscellaneous Publication No.1598. Washington DC.

Vargas Hill, R. & Torero, M. (2009) Innovations in Insuring the Poor. (Eds.) IFPRI. Washington

DC.

Vincent, K. & Cull, T. (2011) Cell Phones, Electronic Delivery Systems and Social Cash Transfers:

Recent Evidence and Experiences from Africa. International Social Security Review 64(1): 37-51.

Von Braun, J. (2008) Food and Financial Crises: Implications for Agriculture and the Poor. IFPRI,

Food Policy Report No.20. Washington DC.

Von Braun, J. & Torero, M. (2009) Implementing Physical and Virtual Food Reserves to Protect the

Poor and Prevent Market Failure. IFPRI, Policy Brief No.10. Washington DC.

WFP (World Food Programme) (2010) Nutritional Dimension of the Social Safety Nets in Central

America and the Dominican Republic. Panama.

WFP (2009) OMC Region-Wide Study on Food Subsidy and Safety Net Programs: Opportunities for

WFP Capacity Support. Cairo.

WFP (2005) Linking HIV and AIDS Responses with Food-Based Social Protection Systems: An

Appraisal of Social Welfare Systems in Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland and Tanzania. Report

prepared by Tango Int. Rome.

WFP (2004) WFP and Food-based Safety Nets: Concepts, Experiences and Future Programming

Opportunities. EB.3/2004/4-A. Rome.

Whiteford, P. (2006) The Welfare Expenditure Debate: Economic Myths of the Left and the Right

Revisited. Economic and Labor Relations Review 17(1): 33-78.

Whiteford, P. & Forster, M. (2002) The Definition and Development of Social Safety Nets: What

Forms of Social Protection. In OECD (ed.) Towards Asia’s Sustainable Development: The Role of

Social Protection. Paris.

Wodon, Q. & Zaman, H. (2009) Higher Food Prices in Sub-Saharan Africa: Poverty Impact and

Policy Responses. Word bank Research Observer 25(1): 157-176.

World Bank (2011) Building Resilience and Opportunity. The World Bank‟s Social Protection and

Labor Strategy 2012-2022 – Concept Note. Washington DC.

World Bank (2010) World Development Indicators 2010. Washington DC.

World Bank (2008) Rising Food Prices: Policy Options and World Bank Response. Washington DC.

World Bank (2007a) Malawi Social Protection Status Report. Africa Region Report No.40027-MW.

Washington DC.

World Bank (2007b) Social Protection in Pakistan: Managing Household Risks and Vulnerability.

South Asia Region Report No.35472-PK. Washington DC.

World Bank (2006) Social Safety Nets in Bangladesh: An Assessment. Bangladesh Development

Series Paper No.9. Dhaka.

World Bank (2001) Social Protection Sector Strategy Paper: From Safety Net to Springboard.

Washington DC.

World Bank (2000) World Development Report 2000/2001: Attacking Poverty. Washington, DC.

Yamano, T., Alderman, H. & Christiaensen, L. (2005) Child Growth, Shocks and Food Aid in Rural

Ethiopia. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87(2): 273-288.

30

Zhang, Y., Thelen, N. & Rao, A. (2010) Social Protection in Fiscal Stimulus Packages: Some

Evidence. UNDP. New York.

Zoellick, R. (2011) Free Markets Can Still Feed the World. Financial Times (FT.com): January 5.