SOCIAL PROTECTION IN SOUTH ASIA - UNICEF · Social Protection in South Asia: ... NSPS National Social Protection Strategy, Pakistan ... Average allocation of social sector expenditures

SOCIAL PROTECTIONIN SOUTH ASIA:A REVIEW

unite forchildren

Gabriele KöhlerRegional Advisor, Social Policy, UNICEF Regional Office for South Asia

Marta CaliConsultant, UNICEF Regional Office for South Asia

Mariana StirbuSocial Policy Project Officer, UNICEF Regional Office for South Asia

Social Protection in South Asia: A Review

ii SOCIAL PROTECTION IN SOUTH ASIA: A REVIEW

This is a desk review. It has been prepared to facilitate the exchange of knowledge and tostimulate discussion.

It was prepared under the overall guidance of and encouragement from Daniel Toole, RegionalDirector, UNICEF Regional Office South Asia. The authors are indebted to AniruddhaBonnerjee, Michael Cichon, Gaspar Fajth, Naila Kabeer, Yuba Raj Khatiwada, Isabel Ortiz,Santosh Mehrotra, Anjali Pradhan, Ashwani Saith, and Beth Verhey, as well as many otherexperts in Governments, UNICEF Offices, and academic institutions, for insights, ideas andcomments shared during many interactions. The text was edited by Matthew Zalichin andresearch support was provided by Anoop Singh Gurung.

The views expressed are those of the authors, and not necessarily those of UNICEF. Thedesignations in this publication do not imply an opinion on legal status of any country or territory,or of its authorities, or the delimitation of frontiers.

Acknowledgements

© United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)Regional Office for South Asia (ROSA), July 2009

PHOTO CREDITS:Cover photo: UNICEF/2009/Brian

For further information, please contact:UNICEF Regional Office for South Asia (ROSA)PO Box 5815, Lekhnath MargKathmandu, NepalE-mail: [email protected]

SOCIAL PROTECTION IN SOUTH ASIA: A REVIEW iii

The Millennium Development Goal agenda, adopted in 2002 with a vision to improve keyoutcomes in poverty, hunger, health, education, the environment, and gender equality, aremilestones in that they represent a global consensus on development priorities. It is alsoincreasingly clear that policymakers and the international community must work not just towardsreaching the MDGs, but towards achieving them with equity.

This fact is, in part, a reflection of the increasingly dynamic and multi-dimensional view ofpoverty that goes beyond income to encompass issues of vulnerability, social exclusion anddisparities, and the inter-generational transmission of poverty. The latter issue, in particular,has made child poverty more visible, as researchers and policymakers alike recognise thatchildren are the most vulnerable in any society. In South Asia, children comprise almost halfthe population. If their needs are not met in early childhood, the effects can be irreversible. Inaddition, the situations of the poor, and of poor children, are becoming more precarious – theglobal economic crisis and rising food prices have raised the numbers of poor in South Asiato an estimated 400 million in 2009, just a few years before the 2015 deadline for reachingthe MDGs.

New insights on poverty and vulnerability are triggering significant changes in governmentpolicy in South Asia. As a result, social protection interventions are emerging as a key policyelement across the region. Social Protection in South Asia: A Review describes the mostsignificant programmes in place in each of the eight South Asian countries. It maps out thesocial protection agenda, as well as programme aims, design, scale and coverage. It highlightssome of the innovations, and summarises information from formal evaluations as available.

This Review is intended primarily for policymakers in South Asia, offering an accessibleoverview of regional experiences and practices. Academics, civil society groups and the UNfamily contributing to the evolving debates around re-defining social protection and assessingthe performance of existing programmes will also find the study of interest.

The UNICEF Regional Office South Asia (ROSA) feels this Review will contribute to childrights and development in South Asia, since transformative social protection can help achievethe goals spelt out compellingly in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted 20years ago. We hope that the study will help to inform the important national, regional andglobal debates currently in progress in South Asia. We hope it will contribute to the globalagenda of reaching the MDGs with equity. And most importantly, we hope it will help to putchildren at the heart of social protection.

Daniel TooleRegional DirectorUNICEF Regional Office for South Asia (ROSA)

Preface

iv SOCIAL PROTECTION IN SOUTH ASIA: A REVIEW

ADB Asian Development BankAPL Above the Poverty LineAPWDW Programme for Widows and Destitute Women, BangladeshBEHTRUWC Basic Education for Hard to Reach Urban Working Children, BangladeshBISP Benazir Income Support ProgramBoishka Bhata old-age allowance, BangladeshBPL Below the Poverty LineBRAC Bangladesh Rural Advancement CommitteeCAG Comptroller and Auditor GeneralCCT Conditional Cash TransferCDC Community Development CouncilCERID Research Centre for Educational Innovation and Development, NepalCFPR Challenging the Frontiers of Poverty Reduction, Bangladeshchars flood-prone riverine areas of BangladeshCIDA Canadian International Development AgencyCLP Chars Livelihoods Programme, BangladeshCPRC Chronic Poverty Research CentreCSP Civil Service Pension, MaldivesCSPS Civil Service Pension Scheme, Sri LankaDalit ‘Oppressed’; the term used by the so-called lowest castes to refer to themselvesDDC District Development Committee, NepalDFID Department for International Development (United Kingdom)DOE Department of Education, NepalDSMC District School Management CommitteeEAS Employment Assurance Scheme, IndiaEC European CommunityEFA Education for AllEGF Employment Guarantee Fund, IndiaEGS Employment Guarantee Scheme, IndiaEOAB Employee Old Age Benefits, PakistanEOBI Employees Old Age Benefits InstitutionEPF Employees’ Provident Fund, Sri LankaEPFO Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation, Sri LankaESIS Employees’ State Insurance Scheme, IndiaESSI Employees Social Security Institution, PakistanFAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsFEWS Famine Early Warning SystemFFW Food for Work, AfghanistanFP Family PlanningFSESP Female Secondary Education Stipend Project, BangladeshFSP Food Support ProgrammeFSSAP Female Secondary School Assistance Programme, BangladeshFWP Food for Work Programme, India

Acronyms and Local Terms

SOCIAL PROTECTION IN SOUTH ASIA: A REVIEW v

GDP Gross Domestic ProductGER Gross Enrolment RateGNI Gross National IncomeGPF Government Provident Fund, Maldivesgrama niladharis social workers (Sri Lanka)guzara subsistence allowance (Pakistan)haor-baor wetlands/water bodies (Bangladesh)HDI Human Development IndexHSMI Human Settlement and Management Institute, IndiaIAY Indira Awas Yojana (Indira Shelter Scheme), IndiaICDSS Integrated Child Development Service Scheme, IndiaICESCR International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural RightsIDP Internally Displaced PersonIDPM Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of ManchesterIFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute, RomeILO International Labour OrganizationIMR Infant Mortality RateIOM International Organization for MigrationIRDP Integrated Rural Development Programme, IndiaIUD Intrauterine DeviceJRY Jawahar Rojgar Yojana (Jawahar Employment Scheme), Indiakuchi nomad (Afghanistan)LHW Lady Health Worker, PakistanLHWP Lady Health Worker Programme, PakistanLSGA Local Self-governance Act, Nepalmadrasha Islamic religious schoolMC/PM Minimum Conditions and Performance MeasuresMDG Millennium Development GoalMHEESS Ministry of Higher Education, Employment and Social Security, MaldivesMLD Ministry of Local Development, NepalMOLSAMD Ministry of Labor, Social Affairs, Martyrs and Disabled, Afghanistanmonga a seasonal food deprivation in the north-western part of BangladeshMOSWSE Ministry of Social Welfare and Special Education, PakistanMWS Million Wells Scheme, IndiaNCAER National Council of Applied Economic Research, IndiaNEEPRA National Emergency Employment Programme for Rural Access, AfghanistanNER Net enrolment ratioNGO Non-governmental OrganisationNOAPS National Old-Age Pension Scheme, IndiaNORAD Norwegian Aid AgencyNOVIB Dutch Organisation for International Development CooperationNREGS National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, IndiaNREP National Rural Employment Programme, India

vi SOCIAL PROTECTION IN SOUTH ASIA: A REVIEW

NSP National Solidarity Programme, AfghanistanNSPS National Social Protection Strategy, PakistanOAAS Old-age Allowance Scheme, BangladeshOECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Developmentpanchayat local council (India)PBM Pakistan Bait-ul-MalPDS Public Distribution System, IndiaPESP Primary Education Stipend Programme, BangladeshPKSF Palli Karma Sahayak Foundation, BangladeshPRIME Programmed Initiative for the Eradication of MongaPRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy PaperPSES Pakistan Socio-economic SurveyPTR Poverty-targeting RateREGP Rural Employee Guarantee Programme, IndiaROSA UNICEF Regional Office for South AsiaSamurdhi ‘Prosperity’; a national alleviation programme in Sri LankaSES Socio-economic SecuritySGRY Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana (All Rural Employment Scheme), IndiaSJSRY Swarna Jayanti Shahari Rojgar Yojana (Golden Jubilee Urban Employment

Scheme), IndiaSLC School Leaving Certificate, NepalSMC School Management CommitteeSP Social ProtectionSPCOV Social Protection CoverageSPEXP Social Protection ExpenditureSPIMP Social Protection ImpactTerai the lowland area of southern Nepalthana police station and administrative unit (Bangladesh)TPDS Targeted Public Distribution SystemUDHR Universal Declaration on Human Rightsunion the lowest administrative unit in Bangladeshupazila the primary focus of local administration in BangladeshUSEP Urban Self-Employment Programme, IndiaUSWSS Unorganized Sector Workers’ Social Security, IndiaUWEP Urban Wage Employment Programme, IndiaVDC Village Development Committee, NepalVGD Vulnerable Group DevelopmentWB World BankWFP World Food ProgrammeWPPF Worker Profit Participation Fund, PakistanWWF Worker Welfare Fund, Pakistanzakat charity to the poor

SOCIAL PROTECTION IN SOUTH ASIA: A REVIEW vii

PART 1: Regional overview and findings

Introduction: Scope and objectives ................................................................ 2Some reflections on poverty discourse and the scope of social protection ............................................................................................... 2

MDGs, social exclusion and social protection ........................................................................ 3

Social protection, migration and displacement ........................................................................ 4

Multidimensional and dynamic nature of poverty ..................................................................... 4

Poverty, vulnerability and children ........................................................................................... 4

Concepts of social protection .......................................................................... 5Definitions .............................................................................................................................. 5

Comprehensive social protection – socio-economic security ..................................................6

Key findings and observations on social protection in South Asia ............ 10Country initiatives in social protection ................................................................................... 10

Commonalities across countries .......................................................................................... 13

Innovations in social protection in South Asia ....................................................................... 14

Some shortcomings of social protection schemes ................................................................ 15

Financial and other measures of effort and outcomes ................................ 16Conclusions: A mixed picture on social protection in South Asia .............. 19

PART 2: Country Profiles

Afghanistan...................................................................................................... 24Bangladesh...................................................................................................... 30Bhutan.............................................................................................................. 42India .................................................................................................................. 44Maldives ........................................................................................................... 56Nepal ................................................................................................................ 60Pakistan ........................................................................................................... 68Sri Lanka .......................................................................................................... 75

Table of Contents

viii SOCIAL PROTECTION IN SOUTH ASIA: A REVIEW

FiguresFigure 1: Schematic representation of social protection .................................................. 5

Figure 2: Prevalence of underweight (moderate and severe 2000 – 2006) ........................ 8

Figure 3: Under-five mortality rate (2000 – 2007) ............................................................. 9

Figure 4: Allocation of social expenditure (mean 2000 – 2007) ...................................... 17

Figure 5: Average allocation of social sector expenditures as % of GDP 2000 - 20007 .. 17

Figure 6: Per capita expenditures on social sector (mean 2000 – 2007) ....................... 18

BoxesBox 1: Definitions of social protection ............................................................................. 5

Box 2: Current human development situation in South Asia ............................................ 8

Box 3: Fiscal space for social protection ...................................................................... 18

TablesTable 1: Social protection in South Asia: some commonalities ..................................... 13

Table 2: Social protection expenditures in South Asia: Three calculations..................... 16

Table 3: Definition of summary SP indicators ................................................................ 19

Table 4: Social protection ranking in South Asia ........................................................... 19

Table 5: Social Protection programmes in South Asia ................................................... 21

Table 6: Social Protection in Afghanistan ...................................................................... 28

Table 7: Social Protection in Bangladesh ...................................................................... 38

Table 8: Social Protection in India ................................................................................. 53

Table 9: Social Protection in Maldives ........................................................................... 59

Table 10: Social Protection in Nepal ............................................................................. 66

Table 11: Social Protection in Pakistan ......................................................................... 73

Table 12: Social Protection in Sri Lanka ....................................................................... 78

REGIONAL OVERVIEWAND FINDINGS1PART

2 SOCIAL PROTECTION IN SOUTH ASIA: A REVIEW

Introduction: Scope and objectives

All eight South Asian countries1 provide some form ofsocial protection to their citizens, and most arecurrently reviewing or upgrading their programmes andpolicies. This partly reflects policymakers’ heightenedinterest in new approaches, policy instruments andtools to address poverty. Most recently, interest insocial protection has intensified in light of the foodprice crisis and the global recession, which since 2008have increased vulnerability and poverty in the region.2

This Review presents the findings of a desk study onsocial protection interventions in South Asia. Itsprimary purpose is to provide an overview of existinggovernment policies, schemes and programmes insocial protection and to display country and regionaltrends and issues relevant to expanding socialprotection. It assesses the extent to which SouthAsian countries are engaged in efforts to buildintegrated, comprehensive and inclusive socialprotection systems, and examines whether socialprotection as currently delivered addresses the needsof the entire population – especially of the poor, thosewho are systemically excluded, and the vulnerable.The Review could therefore inform national-level andregional discussions on approaches, policies andprogrammes and help shape future policy choices. Itis also a database for policymakers and researchers,to be updated periodically.

The Review also attempts to assess whether eachcountry’s social protection interventions are part of alarger, overarching national strategy. To the extentinformation is available, it examines the level ofcoordination among government agencies andprogrammes; the adequacy and predictability ofbudgetary allocations; the proposed versus actualcoverage of beneficiaries; and delivery mechanismsin place to ensure beneficiaries are reached. It alsoreports on existing mechanisms to monitor outcomes,especially poverty reduction outcomes.

The social protection programmes reviewed wereselected on the basis of their scale, poverty-reductionfocus, inclusiveness and impact. The Review focuseson non-contributory social assistance interventionsthat are government-funded or initiated, with or withoutdonors’ support. Formal-sector contributory socialinsurance is included, however, to allow gauging thescope of social protection in each country rather thanfor a systematic analysis. The Review does notconsider services related to social protection, and islimited to social protection transfers in cash and kind.

Finally, this Review offers ideas on the furtherdevelopment of social protection in South Asia, usingthe notion of socio-economic security as a normativeorientation. Part I is an overview of the findings andPart II presents a set of Country Profiles.

Some reflections on povertydiscourse and the scope of socialprotection

The discourse on wellbeing and poverty has changedover the past two decades. The MillenniumDevelopment Goal (MDG) agenda gave renewedattention to poverty alleviation, and midway to the MDGdeadline of 2015, divergent patterns in MDGachievement due to social exclusion are increasinglyclear. Thus, a case is being made for reaching theMDGs ‘with equity’. Social protection needs relatedto migration and emergency situations have alsocome to the fore.3 Perhaps the most fundamentalchanges, however, are the move to a multidimensionalunderstanding of poverty; a recognition of its dynamics;and the new awareness of age-specific vulnerabilities,notably child poverty. Moreover, poverty is no longerunderstood simply as an absence of wellbeing, butrather as violation of a fundamental human right, sothat the right to social protection becomes part of anoverarching agenda for human dignity.

1 Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka2 UNICEF Regional Office for South Asia, A Matter of Magnitude. The Impact of theEconomic Crisis on Women and Children in

South Asia. Kathmandu, 2009. Also see Aniruddha Bonnerjee et al, Hunger and the Economic Crisis. Findings from South Asia,2009 forthcoming.

3 N. Kabeer, A. Sharma, C. Upendranadh, Social Security in South Asia: Issues and perspectives. Draft for discussion, November2008; United Nations Department of Economics and Social Affairs (DESA), National Development Strategies. Policy Notes. NewYork: United Nations, 2008

SOCIAL PROTECTION IN SOUTH ASIA: A REVIEW 3

MDGs, social exclusion and socialprotectionSocial protection coverage does not feature in theoriginal MDG agenda, which has been the mainreference point for assessing progress in socialdevelopment, and for policymaking and advocacy,since its unanimous adoption by the UN GeneralAssembly in 2002. In the context of the slow progresson the MDGs and the acknowledged role of socialprotection in reducing poverty and facilitating andmultiplying the returns from social investments, socialprotection is increasingly seen as a mechanism thatcan underpin the objectives of MDG 1 on poverty,employment and hunger, and facilitate achieving theobjectives of MDGs 2-7 by enabling and empoweringfamilies to use their rights to education, health, waterand sanitation, and shelter. Particular forms of socialprotection have become popular: the conditional cashtransfers pioneered in Latin America and Africa areseen to have improved outcomes in the health andeducation MDG indicators, along with contributing toreductions in poverty rates and gaps, and have led toincreased policymaker interest in various forms ofsocial transfers and social protection.

Despite expectations and predictions, economicgrowth – which in South Asia exceeded eight per centannually over the past decade – has not resulted inequitable, sustained reduction of hunger and poverty;instead, income inequalities have widened rather thannarrowed, and the poverty gaps remain large, pointingto increasing disparities even among the poorthemselves. Thus, there is a need to find policies thatachieve the MDGs equitably and ensure socialinclusion.

Across South Asia, even in countries that are on trackto achieving the MDGs, achievements vary amonggroups, depending on gender, ethnicity, caste,language, ability, place of residence or other factors.4

Individuals and groups face social exclusion on thebasis of their ascribed identities or the circumstancesof their birth. Usually a numerical minority is subjectedto exclusion by a dominant community. Socialexclusion deprives individuals and communities ofpolitical voice and representation, of equitable accessto social services, and of access to assets and

predictable livelihoods and decent work. Across SouthAsia – and across the globe – economically andsocially excluded groups live with gaps in health,education, access to essential social services,adequate shelter, and generally see their rightsunfulfilled. Social exclusion is often coupled withvulnerability, which compounds the effects of eitheridiosyncratic or systematic shocks for these groups.For instance, for a poor Dalit family that migrated insearch of income sources following the death of anadult breadwinner, vulnerability and insecurity resultnot merely from the loss of the breadwinner, but fromexperiencing constant discrimination, lack of legalidentity, lack of titled assets, and not being aware of orin a position to exercise their social rights andentitlements.

Although all national constitutions in South Asia arebased on principles of equality and human rights, andmost have outlawed discrimination and put instrumentsfor affirmative action into place, inequality remains.Social protection can be used to address socialexclusion, primarily by addressing income and assetpoverty which disproportionately affect sociallyexcluded groups, and possibly through particularmeasures to enable the excluded to claim their rights.Social protection can address structural inequalitiesby enabling not just formal but also substantiverealisation of rights, through which opportunities couldeffectively translate into outcomes for the rights-holders.Social protection interventions can be used as toolsfor affirmative action, and provisions need to be factoredinto universal social protection to focus transfers andservices on vulnerable groups and areas. Possibleapproaches include universal categorical transfers, suchas a child benefit or an old-age pension, calibrated toadjust the level of benefit by the degree of deprivation inthe region concerned, and to accompany the interventionwith massive campaigns for public information and forbehaviour change. Some countries in South Asia alsospecifically target social protection measures todisadvantaged groups.

To address the shortcomings in MDG progress, socialprotection interventions need to become systemic,organised and predictable, and to address socio-economic disparities and inequalities.

4 UNICEF Regional Office for South Asia, Stylized Facts about Child Poverty and Disparities in South Asia and Some PolicyImplications: A Discussion Note. Kathmandu, 2009 (forthcoming)


Social protection, migration anddisplacementHumanitarian crises and natural disasters areincreasing, and conflicts becoming more protracted –notably in developing countries. Internal and cross-border displaced and refugee groups are conservativelyestimated at 67 million worldwide. Moreover, migrationin search of work, much of it distress-driven, isbecoming a way of life, with an estimated 200 millionofficial trans-boundary migrants recorded globally. 5

By conservative estimates, at least 21 million SouthAsian migrants work abroad. Of these, over eightmillion work within the region itself, followed by sixmillion working in high-income non-OECD countries,five million in high-income OECD countries, and twomillion in the Middle East and North America.6 If intra-country and informal sector migrants were recognised,the numbers would be multiples of these. Whetherthere is a single migrant from a household or the entirefamily migrates, social and psychological stressesare part and parcel of the experience.

Migrants from developing countries are generally noteligible to receive social protection or other familyservices in the host country, and usually do not earnhealth insurance or old-age pension entitlements,leaving them especially vulnerable. Migrant families –either migrating with the main breadwinner or leftbehind – often face heightened vulnerability and risks,especially if they are low-skilled migrants who earnlittle. Given the scope and the scale of the problem,social protection for this group is an urgent policyissue, and shows the interface of lack of decent workopportunities and of social protection in homecountries that drive low-income migration in the firstplace, and the gap in international, regional andnational provisions for migrants.

Multidimensional and dynamic natureof povertyConventionally, incomes have been seen as the mainsource of wellbeing, and income poverty has beencast as a proxy for shortfalls in material wellbeing.However, since the advent of the human developmentparadigm and its operationalisation in the MDGs,income has been seen as an imperfect proxy for thevarious dimensions that make up even material

wellbeing. At the very minimum, these include securityin access to and utilisation of food, nutrition, health,education, water, sanitation, shelter, as well asphysical safety.

The conventional measures of income poverty andaccess to social services are static, capturingsituations at a point in time. They do not factor invulnerability to fluctuations in income or wellbeing thatreflect exposure to various sources of risk. Staticmeasures of income poverty as well as the framing ofvulnerability in terms of ‘shock’ episodes fail to capturethe chronic and systemic nature of insecurity.

Individuals and families move in and out of povertyfrequently, and low-income groups are under constantfear and anxiety. Vulnerability and insecurity implyrisks associated with individual circumstances andcharacteristics, or the environment. Those close tothe poverty line are vulnerable to becoming poor, andthose in the greatest poverty are the least likely to beable to acquire assets.

This multidimensional and dynamic character ofpoverty points to a need to broaden the povertyeradication agenda.

Poverty, vulnerability and childrenChildren are the most vulnerable group in society, asthey do not generally have voice when they are veryyoung, and are not necessarily heard when they dohave a voice. In the broad sense, they rely primarilyon family to have their rights realised. Childrencomprise the largest proportion of the population inmost developing countries, with the youngestpopulations often in the poorest countries. Across theglobe, children are over-represented among the poor,and the impact of age-based discrimination iscompounded for children from marginalisedcommunities, who are additionally excluded due togender, ethnicity, disability or other factors. Becauseof income poverty, systemic lack of assets, andvolatile access to health and education, children frompoor households face a high risk of remainingvulnerable and poor into adulthood and in turn creatinglow-income and vulnerable families, perpetuating thecycle of chronic poverty and deprivation.

5 26 million persons are conflict-driven IDPs, and 25 million persons are natural disaster-driven IDPs. IOM, www.iom.int6 B. Khadria, Migration and Social Policy in Asia, UN Research Institute for Social Development: 2008, based on World Bank data


South Asia’s 613 million children comprise 39 per centof the population; 175 million of them are under agefive; and an estimated 300 million children are “poor”– deprived of at least two basic rights.7

Child rights are fundamental, and neglect of children’srights to nutrition, health, education and care can haveirreversible effects. Therefore children should beprioritised in any social protection programme. Child-sensitive social protection8 could follow a set ofprinciples such as:• addressing the age- and gender-specific risks and

vulnerabilities of children,• intervening as early as possible where children

are at risk, to prevent irreversible impairment orharm,

• recognising that families raising children needsupport to ensure equal opportunity for childrenand to ease the childcare – work dichotomy forparents and caregivers,

• making special provision to reach the mostvulnerable and excluded children, including thosewithout parental care, as well as children who aremarginalised within their families or communitiesdue to their g ender, disability, ethnicity or otherfactors.

Ultimately, child-sensitive social protection wouldmitigate the effects of poverty on families, strengthenfamilies in their childcare roles, and enhance accessto basic services for the poorest and marginalised, aswell as be responsive to children who are at risk byvirtue of living outside a family environment, or whosuffer from abuse and discrimination at home.

Figure 1: Schematic representation of social protection

Box 1: Definitions of social protection

The International Labour Organisation (ILO) views social protection in a broad sense as covering all safeguardsor guarantees against reduction or loss of income in cases of illness, old age, unemployment or otherhardship, and including family and ethnic solidarity. This includes protection instruments based on collectiveor individual savings, private insurance, social insurance, mutual benefit societies, formal sector socialsecurity, etc. It generally distinguishes between social security and social assistance. The former arecontributory systems through which participants acquire rights to transfers to cover situations of ill-health,accident or disability, unemployment and old age. Social assistance refers to transfers not based on priorcontributions but instead financed from the general tax system, to assist low income and vulnerablegroups. That is the definition followed in this Review.9

7 UNICEF Regional Office for South Asia, Stylized Facts about Child Poverty and Disparities in South Asia and Some PolicyImplications: A discussion note. Kathmandu, 2009 (forthcoming)

8 UNICEF, Child-Sensitive Social Protection. An interagency draft. New York, July 20089 International Labour Organisation, http://www.ilo.org/global/About_the_ILO/Mainpillars/Socialprotection/lang—en/index.htm

SOCIAL PROTECTION

Social insurance Social assistance

Contributory orsavings based

Tax-financed

Addresses old age,unemployment,accident, illness,disability, loss ofbreadwinner offormally employed,salaried or wage-earning persons

Addresses acute orchronic poverty, oldage, child or othervulnerabilities, effectsof emergencies suchas displacement,loss of home,incomes, assets

Concepts of social protection

DefinitionsFigure 1 presents a schema of social protection, andBox 1 shows a number of definitions. This Review isconcerned with social protection as both the policyframework to address poverty and vulnerability, andas the set of instruments encompassing socialinsurance and social assistance transfers that SouthAsian governments have put in place. Generally, onlyprogrammes involving transfers in cash or kind areincluded.

Source: UNICEF ROSA based on ILO


Comprehensive social protection – socio-economic securityWellbeing is about achieving a dignified life, whichrequires material wellbeing, social inclusion, voice andparticipation, and empowerment – a notion bestcaptured as socio-economic security. This notion canencapsulate the many levels and dimensions ofpoverty laid out above.

In earlier poverty discourse, income poverty was notseen as linked to the control of assets andentitlements that determine a household’s overalleconomic situation. However, it is the lack of productiveassets that causes individuals and households to fallinto and remain in poverty. In rural economies crucialproductive assets include land, access to irrigation,housing, livestock, implements and equipment, seedstocks, financial assets, and working capital; in urbansettings they include a means of livelihood from

For the Asian Development Bank (ADB), social protection consists of policies and programmes designedto reduce poverty and vulnerability by promoting efficient labour markets, diminishing people’s exposureto risks, enhancing their capacity to protect themselves against hazards and interruption/loss of income.It defines five main areas of social protection: labour market policies and programmes, social insurance,social assistance and welfare service programmes, micro-and area-based schemes, and child protection.10

UNICEF defines social protection as a “set of transfers and services that help individuals and householdsconfront risk and adversity (including emergencies), and ensure a minimum standard of dignity andwellbeing throughout the lifecycle”. UNICEF agrees that the concept of social protection needs to bemade child sensitive and focus on systemically protecting and ensuring the rights of all children andwomen, achieving gender equality, and reducing child poverty. 11

The World Bank defines social protection as public interventions oriented to human capital and socialrisk management to (i) help individuals, households, and communities better manage risk; and (ii) providesupport to the incapacitated poor.12 This is the definition applied in the World Bank’s Social ProtectionStrategy Paper, its Comprehensive Development Framework, and the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers(PRSPs).

10 Asian Development Bank, http://www.adb.org/Documents/Books/Social-Protection/default.asp11 See conference papers from “Social Protection Initiatives for Children, Women, and Families: An analysis of recent experiences”,

UNICEF Division of Policy and Practice, and the New School for Graduate Research, New York, October 200612 World Bank. 1999. Social Risk Management: Intellectual underpinnings of the social protection strategy. Washington, DC.

Holzmann, R., and Jorgensen, S. 2000. Social Risk Management: A new conceptual framework for social protection. Washington,DC; World Bank. 2000. Social Protection Sector Strategy. Washington, DC.

13 Sources of risk are generally discussed in terms of idiosyncratic and co-variate ‘shocks’. Idiosyncratic risks are specific toparticular individuals or households: the loss of a job or an asset, dowry or funeral demands, illness in the family, death of abreadwinner. Co-variate risks affect large numbers of individuals and households simultaneously: war and conflict, naturaldisasters, price rises in essential foods, financial crises at national and global levels.

14 On socio-economic security, see Ashwani Saith, Towards Universalizing Socio-economic Security Strategic Elements of aPolicy Framework. Indian Journal of Human Development, Vol. 2 Number 1. January 2009. www.ihdindia.org Also see N. Kabeer,“Mainstreaming gender in social protection for the informal economy”, New Gender Mainstreaming Series on DevelopmentIssues, Commonwealth Secretariat, 2008, p.4 and N. Kabeer, G. Köhler, Extending and Deepening Social Protection in SouthAsia: Towards a strategy of socio-economic security for all. Policy Note. UNICEF ROSA. Mimeo. November 2008

employment or self-employment based on access toland and housing, implements and equipment,licences, and financial assets and capital. Mostimportantly, these include not just the physicalpossession of these assets but the legally guaranteedownership title. Often the poor – whether in rural,peri-urban, or urban areas – do not own the assetsthat they use and are at risk of eviction from land orother resources they may have acquired in an untitledfashion. The use of such assets can be lost due toidiosyncratic or systemic risks, so that householdsand individuals fall into poverty.13

Social protection needs to be a response to thismultidimensional and more dynamic definition ofpoverty laid out above – encompassing risk,vulnerability, and exclusion. This Review thereforeproposes a notion of socio-economic security14 as anormative principle for social protection strategies,


because socio-economic security spans povertyalleviation, social inclusion, socio-political cohesion,and rights. In this vein, social protection would includeinterventions related to food and incomes, as well asaccess to services in health, education, water andsanitation and shelter, along with enabling politicalvoice and participation. It encompasses a special effortfor the very young, as especially vulnerable.

While the role of social protection in poverty alleviationis implicitly understood, its orientation to socialinclusion, socio-political cohesion, or dignity remainssomewhat fuzzy. The framework of socio-economicsecurity refers to an approach that covers all areas ofvulnerability, and implicitly would ensure a basicminimum standard of protection. Beyond this, theconcept also incorporates an underlying principle ofsocial protection as a guarantee for all, irrespective ofincome or social status. If all people have the sameentitlements, a universal guarantee can contribute tosocio-political cohesion (regardless of whethereveryone chooses to benefit) while still paying specialattention to the circumstances of the poor andmarginalised. Within a ‘blanket’ social protectionmechanism of universal guarantees, the deprived,marginalised and excluded require special attention;ensuring that these groups are able to access theirrights might necessitate special, complementaryefforts. Socio-economic security is thus a broader anddeeper concept than conventional approaches to socialprotection that are built on a notion of ‘safety nets’ asex-post coping strategies or risk management.

Deficits in relation to voice and dignity can be addressedby facilitating access to essential income, assets andservices through legislation, as well as executive andadministrative provisions. They are addressed, inother words, through the predictability, quality andinclusiveness of provisions; the degree to whichprovisions meet differentiated needs; and the easewith which rights and benefits can be claimed. Dignityand voice are particularly challenging variables toinvestigate; proxies would be affirmative action, rightto information, or citizens’ monitoring processes.

To the extent that socio-economic insecurityundermines the efforts of poor and marginalised groups

to earn their living with dignity, to realise their fullhuman potential, and to invest in their own and theirchildren’s future, social protection is a necessity forpro-poor economic growth. To the extent that itenables them to exercise their voice and influencethe collective decision-making processes of theircommunities, it is essential for their rights as citizens.

This would suggest an objective that social protectioninterventions guarantee the ability to achieve adequatelevels of wellbeing to everyone over the entire courseof one’s life, and most importantly, in early childhood.‘Ability’ would be defined broadly to also refer to thecircumstances created by the state for people to beable to exercise their right to social protection. Socialprotection could be defined as the broad range ofinterventions through which governments and otherdevelopment actors seek to contribute to the goal ofsocio-economic security.

Social protection then becomes a means to addressincome poverty by providing income, capital andassets to address the intergenerational transmissionof poverty. It also serves as a means to ensurewellbeing more generally by enabling access to socialservices. By addressing vulnerability and risk thataffect the whole population, it serves to promoterights. This reinforces the case for conceptualisingsocial protection around the creation of socio-economic security.

In the context of South Asia, it is important toexamine social protection interventions that addressaccess to income as well as assets, to socialservices and emergency support. Income deficits canbe addressed through direct food or cash transfersor more fundamentally by enhancing income-earningopportunities. Asset deficits can be addressedthrough cash transfers/loans for the purchase ofassets, or through direct asset transfers (e.g., ofhousing, land, livestock, and seeds). In the case ofsocial service deficits, one may assess whetherexisting services in health, education, water andsanitation, protection from violence, and other areasaddress the needs of excluded groups.15 This isultimately how the intergenerational transmission ofpoverty can be brought to a halt.

15 This Review is not exhaustive, however, both because of the sheer number of schemes underway in South Asia, and alsobecause the approach has omitted some forms of social protection, such as access to credit and livelihood-supportingassets.


Box 2: Current human development situation in South Asia

Of the 1.6 billion people in South Asia, 615 million (39 per cent) are under 18 and 175 million (11 per cent)under 5 years of age. At least 20 million are migrants. Almost 600 million persons fall below the $1.25/person/day poverty line and over one billion are under the $2/person/day poverty line.16 Over 300 million (54per cent) of the region’s children are in absolute poverty, as measured by deprivation of at least two basicservices, and 81 per cent are severely deprived of at least one basic need.17

16 UNICEF Regional Office for South Asia, A Matter of Magnitude. The Impact of the Economic Crisis on Women and Children inSouth Asia. Kathmandu, 2009.

17 Source: Townsend Centre for International Policy Research, http://www.bristol.ac.uk/poverty/child%20poverty.html. D.Gordon; S. Nandy; C. Pantazis; S. Pemberton; P. Townsend The Distribution of Child Poverty in the Developing World; Reportto UNICEF by Center for International Poverty Research, University of Bristol, July 2003; available at www.bris.ac.uk/poverty/Child%20poverty_files/Child%20Poverty%20Report%20Unicef.pdf

Figure 2: Prevalence of underweight (moderate and severe, 2000-2006)

Poverty and deprivation manifest in poor development outcomes. For instance, levels of child malnutrition(MDG 1) are the world’s highest: 45 per cent of all children in South Asia are underweight, with almost halfof them living in three countries – India, Bangladesh and Pakistan. Almost half the under-five child populationin Bangladesh, Nepal and India suffers from malnutrition. Despite their rising per capita incomes, malnutritionaffects 19 per cent and 30 per cent of the under-five child population in Bhutan and Maldives, respectively.

Moreover, malnutrition particularly affects the poor income groups, who spend 60-70 per cent of theirhousehold income on food. Often poverty and deprivation result in child death (MDG 4). Child morbidityand mortality are highest among poor groups, who lack adequate and predictable income support and

g ( ),(Percentage of children under five years old whose weight for age is less than minus two standard deviations from the median for

the international reference population ages 0-59 months

Source: UNICEF ROSE, South Asia Info database, 2008

< 30

31 - 40

41 - 50

> 50

Missing Value

Note:Data refers to the most recent year available during the period specified.

The boundaries and the names shown and the designations used on these maps do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.

The dotted line represents approximately the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir agreed upon by India and Pakistan. The final status of Jammu and Kashmir has not yet been agreed upon by the parties.

Percent


18 UNICEF Regional Office for South Asia, A Matter of Magnitude. The Impact of the Economic Crisis on Women and Children inSouth Asia. Kathmandu, 2009.

19 OPSCEN Note, The global food and financial crisis, January 2009, UNICEF, NY20 UNICEF Afghanistan Country Office, 2009. Annual Report 2008. Kabul: UNICEF21 UNICEF Nepal Country Office, 2009. Annual Report 2008. Kathmandu: UNICEF22 World Food Programme Nepal, http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900sid/MCOT-7LLE5J?OpenDocument

Between 2008 and 2009, global price hikes of essential foodstuffs increased South Asia’s poor and food-insecure population by an estimated 100 million persons.18 UNICEF data indicate that the already veryhigh levels of malnutrition in most countries of the region are increasing as a consequence of reducedemployment, decreasing real wages and incomes, and therefore reduced purchasing power.19 In low-income households, this can translate into inadequate food intake, given the high percentage of thehousehold budget typically devoted to buying food. In Afghanistan, for example, where food prices increased30-50 per cent in 2008 over an 80-100 per cent increase in 2007, 45 per cent of the population is estimatedto be food insecure.20 UNICEF estimates that during 2008, levels of severe wasting in children are likely tohave increased. In Nepal, for example, as the cost of rice and rice products rose by 28 per cent duringJuly-September 2008, the number of severely food-insecure people increased 50 per cent from the previousquarter.21 An estimated additional 4 million people became food insecure, resulting in a total of 12.5 millionpeople at high risk of food insecurity.22

Figure 3: Under-five mortality rate (2000-2007)

(The probability of dying between birth and the fifth birthday )Deaths per 1,000 live births for the five-year preceding the survey.

Source: UNICEF ROSE, South Asia Info database, 2008

Deaths per 1000 live births< 7576 - 100101 - 150>150Missing Value

Note:Data refers to the most recent year available during the period specified.

The boundaries and the names shown and the designations used on these maps do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.

The dotted line represents approximately the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir agreed upon by India and Pakistan. The final status of Jammu and Kashmir has not yet been agreed upon by the parties.

protection. The world’s largest absolute number of newborn deaths occurs in South Asia, with Indiacontributing a quarter of the world total, and South Asia accounts for 32 per cent of worldwide deathsamong children under five. But there has been progress: in 1990, 1 in every 8 South Asian children diedbefore age five; by 2006, the ratio had decreased to 1 in 12.


Key findings and observations onsocial protection in South Asia

Country initiatives in social protectionIn Afghanistan, the social protection system in thesense of social insurance and social assistance hasbeen in place since the early 1990s. Afghanistan hasseveral workfare programmes (e.g., cash for work –National Solidarity Program and National EmergencyEmployment Program for Rural Access; and Food forWork Program), combining a number of innovativeelements. For instance, the National SolidarityProgram aims to empower communities in decision-making, inclusive local governance, ruralreconstruction and poverty alleviation by providing themwith grants for development projects selected byCommunity Development Councils.

The National Social Protection Strategy adopted in2008 – designed to consolidate the different socialprotection programmes under one umbrella policy –has a strong focus on the poorest and particular specialcategories. It has established a number of deprivationand poverty categories based on location andremoteness, occupational categories, etc. Given thehigh levels of poverty in the country, this approachcovers a large section of the population in the short tomedium term. Additional ad hoc social assistance isoffered by donors such as FAO and WFP in light ofthe exacerbated food and nutrition insecurity.

Existing cash transfer schemes target orphans, thedisabled, martyrs’ families and retired civil servants,and channel assistance through pensions, publicworks, skills development and microfinance. Theapproach is driven by the need to respond to the effectsof civil strife. Although over 40 per cent of the populationlives in poverty, social protection arrangements arepatchy and have reached only a minority of those inneed. Issues of social exclusion are defined more bycategories resulting from recent conflicts than seenin their historical context. Over time this targetingapproach will need to move towards providing universalguarantees against vulnerabilities and shocks.

Nevertheless, Afghanistan’s achievements are notminor given that the lack of security on the groundmakes it impossible to guarantee delivery of socialprotection services nationwide.

Bangladesh has a long history of social protection,having put its first pensions in place in the 1970s. Ithas a universal pension programme for civil servants,and a means-tested social pension for persons belowthe poverty line, separately for men and women. Thelatter has been shown to be highly pro-poor, with alarge segment of the beneficiaries representing thelowest income quintile. Bangladesh is also well-knownfor its expansive system of microcredit, a form ofprivate- or NGO-based social protection not coveredin this Review. Some of its many sector-based cashtransfers have been regarded as pioneering efforts inthe region, especially in the education area. Theprimary and secondary school stipends given to girlstudents have proven successful in addressing girls’education and protection, by contributing to delayingthe age of marriage and reducing violence against girls.

Historically, the government has financed acombination of cash and in-kind programmes andrelied heavily on workfare. A recent innovation in thissense is the guaranteed public employment schemewhich the government adopted in 2009. Socialassistance to the urban population includesgovernment-initiated learning centres through theBasic Education for Hard to Reach Urban WorkingChildren programme.

Among the region’s eight countries, the Bangladeshgovernment is unique in focussing on addressing thestructural issues of inequality in access to incomesources and assets, which corresponds to theconcept of socio-economic security laid out above. Anumber of programmes seek to build the asset baseof the poor, along with their human capital, such asthe Challenging the Frontiers of Poverty Reductionprogramme and the Chars Livelihoods Programme.These programmes are designed to improve thelivelihoods, food and asset security of the poor,although coverage levels remain low. Innovationsaround subsidies include a price subsidy on cerealgrains for women garment and tea workers that ispart of the government’s larger response to rising foodprices in the 2008-2009 budget.

However, there is no overarching framework for thenumerous overlapping schemes, and some groups,such as the urban poor, have traditionally beenneglected. The present PRSP is a first attempt at a


more systematic approach to social protection. Itincludes a chapter in which social protection isdiscussed, and programmes are grouped accordingto categories of beneficiaries served and risks covered.

Bhutan’s widely available free education and healthservices are seen as part of the social securitymechanism, and the government has showncommitment to universal coverage in the traditionalsocial sectors. Pensions for civil servants, armedforces, and private-sector employees are part of theformal social security mechanism. A reform of thepension system is underway. Bhutan has microcreditfinance programmes that reach significant proportionsof the poor, but there are no specific social assistanceinterventions such as anti-poverty programmes orsafety nets.

In the absence of a formal social protection systemand safety nets, the Bhutanese rely on traditionalstrategies such as inter-household transfers in cashor kind, family support, migration, and borrowing, withthe government stepping in cases of sudden disasterslike floods.

India has some of South Asia’s longest-running socialprotection programmes. Its social security systemsdates from independence, its first poverty alleviationscheme was implemented in the 1960s, and old-agepensions were introduced as a constitutional right in1995 (albeit restricted to those below a minimum levelof subsistence). There is a strong commitment tosocial inclusion. India has recorded a number ofachievements in social protection. It has moved froma top-down approach to social protection characterisedby lack of people’s participation to new approacheson social mobilisation, participation, involvement ofcivil society, and the right to information, andguaranteed employment for the rural poor. India’scomprehensive system of social protection covers thegamut from individual transfers (old-age, maternity,disability) to family social transfers and housingprogrammes.

India has child grants, albeit at the level of individualstates, such as a variety of girl child grants. Indiaalso has long experience with labour-intensive publicworks, beginning with the Employment GuaranteeScheme of Maharashtra, which started in the 1960s

and shaped the 2005 National Rural EmploymentGuarantee Act. The latter also creates assets, althoughdoing so remains a highly debated aspect due toconcerns regarding sustainability, ownership, andmaintenance. In parallel, a system of quotas forscheduled castes, scheduled tribes, freed bondedlabour, and for women’s representation is in place.Several social assistance schemes specifically targetsocially excluded groups. The country has one of thelargest public food distribution systems in South Asia.The Government is currently in the process ofredefining the ‘below poverty line’ categories ofbeneficiaries and is looking at a more systematicapproach to social protection, partially in response tocritiques around low expenditure and coverage, andheightening inequalities. Last but not least, India hasexperimented with various financing options, includinggeneral taxes, dedicated taxes/surcharges calledcesses, and mixed funding.

Despite this long history, coverage remains low.However, efforts are underway in the non-government(NGO) and government sectors to address gaps insocial security coverage and the needs of householdsin the informal sector. For example, the UnorganisedWorkers’ Social Security (USWSS) bill is currentlybefore Parliament, which aims to cover all below-the-poverty-line adults in the informal sector, a vastconstituency.

In the Maldives, formal social security exists forgovernment employees and is widely used; it coverspensions for government employees, along with somehealthcare security. Social assistance was introducedonly in the 2000s, with programmes like the AbsolutePoverty Scheme, which include strict eligibility criteria.There are also a number of sectoral programmes, suchas vouchers allowing poor families to obtain textbooks,school uniforms, etc. When necessary, thegovernment also responds with temporary assistanceprogrammes, as in the wake of the 2004 tsunami.Social assistance is delivered by various ministriesdepending on the area of assistance. Until recently,the majority of the population was not covered by anysocial protection scheme. The Government of Maldiveshas recently adopted a law to introduce a basic ‘socialpension’ for all citizens, and is working on a bill tointroduce universal social insurance.23 Discussionsare also underway regarding a minimum package of

23 World Bank Project Information Document, Maldives Pension and Social Protection Administration Project, 12 May 2009


social protection appropriate to a middle-incomecountry.24

In Nepal, social protection was introduced as aconcept and a right in the 1990s. Prior to that time,charity provisions for the poor were an obligation ofelites or religious organisations during the monarchyand the panchayat period. Employees in the formalsector, government and large businesses are coveredby social insurance. The new, republican system isexpanding social protection interventions andconsidering developing a systemic approach to socialprotection. It has introduced new schemes for thehistorically disadvantaged, and improved some of theearlier ones (old-age pension, widow, disabilityallowance, Dalit stipends, girl stipends programmes,etc.) in the 2008-2009 fiscal budget. Coverage andbenefit levels are also being enhanced. The governmentand donors are devoting greater attention to the socialprotection agenda. Discussions are underwayregarding developing a strategy document to guidesystematic social protection reform.

Since 1995, Nepal’s old-age allowance has stood asa universal social protection intervention. It is non-contributory, with all citizens over age 70 entitledregardless of income, and in that respect can be seenas one of the pioneers in social protection design anddelivery in the region.

Recently Nepal established a system of grants to coverexpectant mothers’ transportation expenses to healthfacilities or of ensuring that home deliveries areattended by health workers. Nepal also boasts anumber of unique elements in its transfer programmes,such as the block grants for districts and villagedevelopment committees that are disbursed basedon a set of poverty and human development criteriaand utilised for social and physical infrastructure andemployment programmes, through which peoplebenefit directly through cash transfers or through themultiplier effects of the schemes. Along with Indiaand Bangladesh, Nepal has introduced employmentschemes such as the One Family, One Employmentprogramme for the Karnali Zone, under which the stateprovides a guarantee of employment.

Pakistan has a broad approach to social protection.It includes social security programmes for thegovernment and formal sector, along with large socialassistance guarantees for individuals and households.A National Social Protection Strategy was approvedin July 2007. Its social assistance system issignificantly decentralised, with many state-levelschemes run independently by the provinces.Traditional Islamic charitable institutions have beeninvoked through the Zakat Disbursement (based onprivate, voluntary contributions but administered bythe government). The Bait-ul-Mal programme is agovernment-led social assistance programme.Interesting provincial-level pilot approaches include theChild Support Programme, implemented as aconditional cash transfer programme for the pooresthouseholds. The issue of increasing socialdevelopment and social protection spending figuredprominently in the parties’ manifestos at the 2008elections. A new programme – the Benazir IncomeSupport Programme (BISP) –was introduced in 2008,with the first disbursements taking place in early 2009.The programme plans to systematise socialassistance over the long term by bringing severalprogrammes together under one umbrella. As currentlydesigned, the BISP is targeted at households belowa certain minimum income and delivered to an adultfemale household member. Public works programmesare not as large scale of those in some other countries,but include the People Works Programme Phase-II(PWP-II).

Pakistan’s social protection expenditures aretraditionally low and programmes tend to befragmented and inadequate in coverage and reach.Many locations are not covered by any scheme, whilelocations tend to feature several programmes.

Sri Lanka, together with India, has one of the longest-running social protection programmes in South Asia,dating since independence, and its philosophy has astrong focus on key elements of social protection. SriLanka has been more successful than most SouthAsian countries in sustainably financing and deliveringsocial protection policies.25

24 See Ministry of Finance and Treasury, Government of the Maldives, and UNICEF - Maldives, Reaching the MDGs with Equity.March 2009

25 A. Barrientos and D. Hulme. Social Protection for the Poor and Poorest in Developing Countries: Reflections on a quietrevolution. Brooks World Poverty Institute Working Paper No. 30


Social security coverage in Sri Lanka is extensive,with a pension for public sector employees (around28 per cent of the working-age population) andschemes providing income support and health careto the elderly, surviving widows, and the disabled, thusachieving high coverage for formal economy workersand some for informal. The country’s aging population,a unique demography for the region at the moment,has engendered concern around income security inold age, and the government is consideringuniversalising the old-age pension. Sri Lanka has anumber of large social assistance programmes, suchas the Samurdhi income transfer to the poor,introduced in 1995 and one of the largest povertyalleviation programmes in the region; it is currentlyunder reform. The existing schemes show some gapsin coverage (both in terms of benefit level and eligiblepopulation actually covered), as well as in the value ofthe benefit vis-à-vis the poverty line, given the country’s

lower-middle-income status. Somewhat incontradiction to the perception of Sri Lanka as a goodperformer in the region, analysts have questioned theefficiency of the current system as well as its povertyreduction impact. 26

Commonalities across countriesAll countries in South Asia have established somecomponents of social protection, even if socialprotection is not yet a broadly-based notion in thesense of an entitlement that people claim as citizens.The region has a long history of formal-sector socialinsurance. Several countries have adopted universalentitlements to some forms of social assistance.Bangladesh, India, Maldives, and Nepal have socialpensions, and the latter two are universal. The ruralemployment guarantee schemes in India, Bangladeshand Nepal establish a right to minimum number ofdays of employment.27

26 Under the Samurdhi programme in Sri Lanka, the entitlement is lost upon change of residence and requires reapplication.See an empirical evaluation of Samurdhi Programme by Elena Glinskaya, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTDECINEQ/Resources/SamrurdhiJune042003.pdf

27 In Bangladesh, the entitlement applies only to specific geographic locations, and universally applied in that location.

Table 1: Social Protection in South Asia: some commonalities

Source: UNICEF ROSA 2009

Social Security

General social assistance

Poverty-related:(universalor meanstested)

Sickness,umemployment,old age,health,insurance (e.g.public service,formal sector)

Childbenefit (e.g.girl childgrants)

Sectoral social assistance - transfers in cash & kind

Formal sector

Health-relatedtransfers(e.g.maternitybenefits)

Education-relatedtransfers(e.g. schoolmeals,stipends)

Employment-relatedtransfers(e.g. publicworksschemes)

Transfersto copewithshocks,conflict andnaturaldisasters

Afghanistan

Bangladesh

Bhutan

India

Maldives

Nepal

Pakistan

Sri Lanka

√√√√√√√√

Social Assistance

√√√√√√√√

√

√√

√

√

√√√

√√√√√√√

√√

√

√√√

√√

√√√√√

Country Emergencytransfers


Formal, contributory social security is available in alleight countries for government civil service, staff inpublic sector enterprises and large-scale privateenterprises when applicable. This is in the form of aguaranteed pension, and other coverage such as healthcoverage for this group. Such formal social security,however, excludes the vast majority of people in SouthAsia, who are not connected to government or formalemployment. In India, for example, 85 per cent of theadult population works in the informal sector.28

No government in the region has as yet established afull-fledged, comprehensive and interlinked socialprotection system per se. Therefore, in most instances,households and individuals in South Asia primarily relyon informal social protection networks of family,community, women’s groups, or savings cooperativessuch as rotating chit funds29 and informal credit markets.

Nevertheless, the situation continues to evolve, withmany government-based social protection instrumentscoming on stream over the past decade or so.30 Infact, the South Asian region has a long history offormal-sector social security, and there is also a setof non-contributory social assistance-type transferstaking many different forms (Table 1). Historically,many of these schemes have their roots in theindependence and post-war Welfarist tradition, and insome cases in the British-influenced publicadministrative service.

Social assistance in the form of in-cash or in-kindtransfers not based on prior direct contributions takesmany forms. It includes social pensions for peopleliving below the poverty line; a few child grants; andsector-specific transfers such as education stipends,health-related benefits, and food transfers. Six of theeight countries have some form of employment-generating public works programmes providing eithercash or food in return for work. These have traditionallybeen offered as a last resort to those stricken byabsolute poverty (often seasonally reinforced), andhave been a widespread policy tool in India,Bangladesh, Nepal and Pakistan. There are also a

number of ad hoc or programme-based emergencytransfers to cope with conflict and natural disasters,and even housing loans.

The genesis of these social protection elementsvaries considerably. Most countries have a ‘buildingblocks’ approach to social protection, with subsetsof social protection as stand-alone interventions. Inthe past, governments have rarely made concertedefforts to categorise the interventions by programmeand type of support provided and to bring all schemesunder a common umbrella – to use the ‘buildingblocks’ to build a system. However, this is nowbeginning to change. This is the case in Afghanistan,Bangladesh, India and Pakistan, where the countrieshave applied a particular logic and criteria in theirefforts to reorganise their social protectionprogrammes.

Many social transfers are long-term, establishedprogrammes; others are ad hoc responses toimmediate needs and demands, of which somereflect political opportunism as opposed to a strategicapproach to providing social protection as a right.Some schemes are localised, while others arenational in outreach. In terms of design, some socialprotection programmes are subject to means testsor proxy means tests; others use geographical orcategorical targeting. Among the categorical targetingprogrammes, some are universal for an age group orgender, such as the old-age pensions in Bangladesh,India, Maldives and Nepal or the girls’ secondaryschool stipends in Bangladesh. Most are conditionalon action by the recipient, usually related to working,to school enrolment, or to utilising a health-carefacility.

Innovations in social protection in SouthAsiaRecent social protection initiatives and innovationsin South Asia include:• Introducing a systemic approach to social

protection in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Maldives,Nepal and Pakistan, with an effort to combine

28 N. Kabeer, A. Sharma, C Upendranadh, Social Security in South Asia: Issues and perspectives. Draft for discussion,November 2008

29 Chit funds are based on money pooled by a group of people, and auctioned at the end of a specified period, rotating amongthe group members.

30 A. Barrientos and D. Hulme. Social Protection for the Poor and Poorest in Developing Countries: Reflections on a quietrevolution. Brooks World Poverty Institute Working Paper No. 30; N. Kabeer, A. Sharma, C. Upendranadh, Social Security inSouth Asia: Issues and perspectives. Draft for discussion, November 2008


31 Under the NREGS, rural inhabitants have a right to demand a public works scheme in their area and to demand work on it; ifwork is not available, they are entitled to a cash transfer as compensation (equivalent to employment benefits).

32 Maharashtra State has a long history of social assistance in the form of employment schemes, and the south-Indian states ofKerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh feature a wide range of schemes, ranging from mid-day meals forschoolchildren and the rural poor to old-age pensions, which are seen to be more effective than those in the northern andnorth-eastern states.

and streamline existing disparate schemes andprogrammes into a unified system;

• Introducing social protection for the informal sectorin India through the Bill for the Social Security ofthe Unorganised Sector Workers UnorganisedSector Workers’ Social Security (USWSS) bill,which seeks to incorporate informal urban workersinto a basic social insurance scheme;

• Bangladesh’s Challenging the Frontiers of PovertyReduction (CFPR) programme, which addressesthe assets base of the poorest and then is relatedto the socio-economic security concept;

• The universal old-age social pensions in Nepaland most recently in the Maldives create aclaimable entitlement to support in old age byvirtue of being a citizen;

• Altering the nature of public works-basedemployment towards making it a right, giving ittransformative power for rural livelihoods, throughthe National Rural Employment GuaranteeScheme (NREGS) introduced in India in 2007.31

The entitlement is for 100 days of paid work or asocial transfer. This innovation has been replicatedin Bangladesh and Nepal, and is underconsideration in Pakistan.

A number of innovative targeting approaches andmethods that have potential to avoid stigma,discrimination and reduce social divides are also inplace. One such approach is geographical targeting,as applied to the employment-guarantee schemes inthe Karnali zone in Nepal, which cover six districts(most being low HDI, high food deficit and loweremployment districts), or the cluster-based targetingin urban areas in India.

Some shortcomings of social protectionschemesAcross the region, social protection interventions sharea set of similar shortcomings:• Many programmes remain piecemeal and ad hoc.

The various causes and manifestations of socio-economic insecurity are not addressed, andprogrammes often overlap. The co-existence ofmany different programmes of varying scale,

scope, eligibility and duration generates highadministrative and transaction costs for both thegovernment and programme beneficiaries, andincreases the risk of underserved groups not beingaware of their entitlements and how to claim them.Some groups are served by overlappingprogrammes, while others fall between the cracksand are not eligible for any form of social protectiontransfer. Existing programmes do not offer aninclusive, holistic, and systemic approach tosocio-economic insecurity. They could, however,be considered building blocks for social protectionsystems and need to be valorised in this sense.

• Many initiatives are inspired by politicalopportunities, or are donor-driven. This createsan ad hoc, disparate set of programmes that donot cohere.

• There is a lack of objective, transparent andcoherent criteria to establish and communicateeligibility and targeting for the individual socialprotection schemes. Many of the programmesreviewed lack equity considerations in targeting.

• Because of their unsystematic nature, the fiscalsustainability of individual programmes is at risk.This is especially the case in smaller, more aid-dependent countries, where donors havesubstantial influence.

• Across South Asia, government agencies appearto have devoted limited resources and builtinsufficient capacity for social protection policyanalysis, delivery monitoring, or impact evaluation.This lack of systematic monitoring and evaluationmakes it difficult for governments or externalevaluators to assess the impact and effectivenessof their programmes regarding actual coverage andreach, impact on excluded groups, or – even moreelusive – their transformative power and contributionto human dignity.

• There is great variation within individual countries.Delivery and implementation are highly uneven.For instance, in India and Pakistan there aresignificant inter-state differences amongprogrammes available, and in many countries, thequality or reliability of delivery varies greatlydepending on administrative capacity.32


n.a.

5.3 (2008)

1.4 (2008)

4.0 (2008)

1.5 (2008)

2.3 (2008)

2 (2002-2003)

5.7 (2008)

2

0.23

2

1

2

1

n.a.

3

0.7 (2008-2009)

1.1 (2006)

n.a.

4.4 (2004)

n.a.

n.a.

1.4 (2004-2005)

3 (2004)

Afghanistan

Bangladesh

Bhutan

India

Maldives

Nepal

Pakistan

Sri Lanka

Financial and other measures of effortand outcomes

Social protection interventions also need to be gaugedin terms of the financial effort made. Ideally, this wouldcomprise comprehensive data on all private, informal,or cooperative arrangements, as well as on thecontributory social insurance and the tax-funded socialassistance expenditures.33 Such a data set remainsto be developed.

Several sources of information on expenditures forsocial protection in South Asia exist, with variousfindings. One is the approach to examining fiscalbudgets, undertaken by UNICEF’s Regional Office forSouth Asia, to arrive at an approximation of governmentexpenditures devoted to social protection. It finds that,for South Asia in general, services for health,education, social protection, and community

Table 2: Social protection expenditures in South Asia: Three calculations

Share of GDP% WB

Share of GDP% ADB

Share of GDP% UNICEF ROSA

Source: World Bank 2006, ADB 2008 and UNICEF ROSA fiscal budget database

infrastructure averaged 31 per cent of the governments’total expenditures over the 2000-2007 period. Withinthe social services budget, the share of expenditureson social security and social assistance programmes,such as various transfers and public works schemes,averaged 21 per cent for the period.34

As a share of GDP, however, fiscal budgets are smallin most South Asian countries. Despite itscomparatively high share of fiscal budgets, therefore,social protection expenditure as a share of GDP isonly an estimated 1 per cent across the region (2000-2007), with Sri Lanka having the highest share at 3per cent; Afghanistan, Bhutan and Maldives at 2 percent; and the other countries a fraction of 1 per cent(see Figures 4 and 5). One-year data gleaned fromcountry-level sources are in a similar range (see Table2). This compares with up to 12.5 per cent of GDP inOECD countries.

33 UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), World Economic and Social Survey 2008:Overcoming economic insecurity. United Nations, New York 2008

34 This is for seven countries, excluding Pakistan for which data are not available.


5%

27%

17%

52%

10%

7%

25%

59%

15%

15%

26%

44%

23%

45%

8%

24%

32%

9%

21%

38%46%

30%40%

19%

21%

15%

14%30% 21%

25%

10%19%

100% 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%

AFG INDBGO BTN AVGMDV NPL LKA

Housing & Comm. AffairsEducation Health Social Sec. & Welfare

Source:UNICEF ROSA, South Asia Fiscal Budget database, 2008

Housing & Community AffairsEducation Health Social Security & Welfare

AFG IN

D

BG

O

BTN AV

G

MD

V

NPL

LKA

25%

23%

20%

15%

13%

10%

8%

5%

3%

0%

% G

DP

OECD

Source:

UNICEF ROSA, South Asia Fiscal Budget data base, 2008

2%0%

1%

4%0%

0%1%

2%

2%

2%

3%

5%

0%1%0%

1%

8%

2%

5%

8% 1%1%

1%

3%

1%

3%

2%

2%

2%

1%

2%

3%

Figure 4: Allocation of Social Expenditure (Mean 2000-2007)

Figure 5: Average allocation of Social Sector Expenditures as % GDP (2000-2007)


In per capita terms, government spending on socialprotection in South Asia averaged $19 per person inthe 2000-2007 period: $62 in the Maldives, $34 in SriLanka, $21 in Bhutan, $7 in India, and less than $5 inAfghanistan, Bangladesh and Nepal (see Figure 6).The Maldives’s relatively high payments reflectcommitments made to the civil service as well as the

��

�� !� �"�#�" �$% %&�

'()

''(

'))

*+(

*()

*'(

*))

+(

()

'(

)

,�-

��

� �

��

��

��

��

� �

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

�

��

��

Box 3: Fiscal space for social protection

The argument can be made that there is fiscal space to increase government expenditure on social protection

to allow for a more systemic approach and for universal coverage of at least basic social protection. This couldbe initiated through reviewing existing expenditures to explore whether resources can be freed up from areassuch as defence, or inefficient payments. With only 1 per cent of GDP devoted to social protection, and with tax

rates at less than 10 per cent across most of South Asia, a case needs to be put forward for increasing taxationas a share of GDP. This would increase government capacity to deliver public goods and services; to meet thescale of social protection needed in light of South Asia’s poverty and social exclusion; and to introduce the

notion of a social compact with an element of income redistribution built into its design, to address theincreasing income polarisation. In this regard, some South Asian countries are experimenting with a socialprotection cess, a dedicated tax introduced exclusively to finance social protection.35

country’s middle-income status and larger percentageof formal-sector employment. Bangladesh’s low per-capita level is related to the country’s deep relianceon microcredit and on the NGO sector (including forsocial protection), as many donors transfer funds forsocial development, including social protection,through NGOs rather than through the government.

Figure 6: Per Capita Expenditures on Social Sector (Mean vlaues 2000-2007$)

35 See Kabeer, Sharma, Upendranath, op. cit.


The efficacy of social protection interventions doesnot necessarily hinge on expenditure; the quality ofthe programmes, their coverage, reach and deliverymechanisms are equally crucial. A second approachto measuring effort and outcomes, the ADB socialprotection index, is therefore of interest. Thismethodology assesses social protection by a set offour indicators: expenditure on social protection as ashare of gross domestic product (GDP), coverage interms of reaching priority groups, distributional effectsin terms of a poverty-targeting indicator, and impactin terms of per capita social protection expenditureon the poor in relation to the poverty line. Theseindicators are defined in Table 3. From this, the ADBanalysis builds a social protection index and rankscountries in terms of the quality of their socialprotection interventions.

This methodology comes to a ranking on coverageand impact, and suggests that Sri Lanka performsabove average, the Maldives ranks average, and theremaining South Asian countries rank below average.The Asian Development Bank’s numerical scores onsocial protection are presented in Table 4 below.

A third approach to measuring effort comes fromevaluations undertaken by governments and bydonors. The methodologies are not necessarilycomparable across countries, but as a way of showingassessments available findings of such evaluationshave been referred to in the Overview and in the CountryProfiles.

Table 3: Definition of summary social protection indicators of the Asian Development Bank

Source: Asian Development Bank, Social Protection Index for Committed Poverty Reduction, 2008.http://www.adb.org/Documents/Books/Social-Protection/default.asp

Country ScoreAfghanistan n.a.Bangladesh .34Bhutan .17

India .47Maldives .30Nepal .19

Pakistan .07Sri Lanka .47Comparator: Japan .96

Table 4: Social protection ranking in South Asia

Source: Asian Development Bank (ADBI, Scaling Up of the SocialProtection Index for Committed Poverty Reduction. Manila 2007.http://www.adb.org/Documents/Reports/Consultant/39261-REG/default.asp accessed November 2008.

Conclusions: A mixed picture onsocial protection in South Asia

All governments in the region recognise the importanceof social protection as a tool for reducing poverty, allgovernments have sets of interventions in place, andmany are in the process of scaling up social protectionto a more systemic level; a few are even casting socialprotection in the framework of a rights-based approach.

The number and scale of the programmes can beinterpreted as reflecting South Asia’s welfare stateapproach, inherited in some cases from the early post-colonial era. They are also a testimony to governmentrecognition of the scale of the poverty challenge.Conversely, the diversity of the schemes reflects the

Component

Social Protection Expenditure(SPEXP)

Social Protection Coverage(SPCOV)

Poverty-Targeting Rate (PTR)

Social Protection Impact(SPIMP)

Description

SP expeniture as % of GDP

Combination of coverage rates of 7priority target groups

Poor SP beneficiaries as % of poorpopulation

Per capita SP expenditure on the pooras % of current poverty line

Comment

Actual expenditures, allows for cross-country comparisons

Using the narrow reference populationand a combination of unweighted andweighted means

Indicates coverage but not size of thebenefit

Similar methodology to PTR but noneed to allow for overlaps


without claimable support. Overlapping forms of social,economic and political disadvantage mean that manysections of South Asia’s poorer population must meettheir subsistence needs through patron-clientrelationships or through casual, poorly paid and oftendemeaning forms of work in the informal economy.They are denied basic capabilities, including thecapacity for exercising control over their own lives andthe ability to plan for the future. They cannot easilyaddress their children’s requirements for socialprotection, which means that the poverty cyclepersists from one generation to the next. They arealso denied dignity within their communities as wellas voice and influence in collective forums of decision-making.

Social protection schemes and interventions thereforeneed to be scaled up, and made systemic, visible,transparent and inclusive. As a next step, a more in-depth analysis of the manifestations and underlyingcauses of socio-economic insecurity is needed. If, in

the process of scaling up social protection, socio-economic insecurity is addressed holistically, thiswould suggest social protection systems thatguarantee that social protection not only addressespoverty, vulnerabilities and social exclusion but alsoprotects from loss of assets and enhances the politicalvoice and influence of citizens. It would suggest adirection towards universalised social protection as ahuman right; and to ensuring that all are aware of theirentitlements, have a say in social protection design,and are in a position to claim their rights.

Last but not least, social protection systems in SouthAsia need to respond not only to the dynamics ofpoverty and vulnerability but also to age-specificity.The large and growing young population implies thatgovernments must develop their capacities so thatthey can become productive and empowered adults.Socio-economic security is the right of every child,and since they are the most vulnerable, their rightshave priority.


Tabl

e 5:

SO

CIAL

PRO

TECT

ION

PRO

GRA

MM

ES IN

SO

UTH

ASIA

Sic

knes

s an

d m

ater

nity

bene

fits;

dis

abili

tybe

nefit

s; u

nem

ploy

men

tbe

nefit

s; O

ld-a

geA

llow

ance

Sch

eme;

Pro

gram

me

for

Wid

ows

and

Des

titut

e W

omen

;B

oish

ka B

hata

soc

ial

pens

ion

Nat

iona

l Pen

sion

and

Pro

vide

nt F

und

Pla

n;gr

atui

ty s

chem

e; g

roup

insu

ranc

e sc

hem

es;

fune

ral

bene

fit

Em

ploy

ees'

Pen

sion

Sch

eme;

Em

ploy

ees'

Sta

te I

nsur

ance

Sch

eme;

Nat

iona

l Old

-Age

Pen

sion

Sch

eme

(NO

AP

S)

Lada

li La

kshm

iYo

jana

: M

adhy

aP

rade

sh; G

irl C

hild

Pro

tect

ion

Sch

eme:

Tam

il N

adu

Old

-Age

Allo

wan

ceS

chem

e (O

AA

S)

Nat

iona

l Old

-Age

Pen

sion

Sch

eme

(NO

AP

S)

Nat

iona

lM

ater

nity

Ben

efit

Sch

eme;

Nat

iona

lF

amily

Ben

efit

Sch

eme;

Inte

grat

ed C

hild

Dev

elop

men

tS

ervi

ce S

chem

e

Ban

glad

esh

Fem

ale

Sec

onda

ry S

choo

lA

ssis

tanc

e P

rogr

am;

Prim

ary

Edu

catio

nS

tipen

d P

rogr

amm

e

Gra

nt o

f F

inan

cial

Ass

ista

nce

to t

heP

oor

Par

ents

Hav

ing

One

Girl

Chi

ld W

hoIs

Stu

dyin

g 8t

h to

10th

; G

rant

of

Ret

entio

n S

chol

ar-

ship

to

S.C

. G

irlS

tude

nts:

Pud

uche

rry

Nat

iona

l S

olid

arity

Pro

gram

(NS

P);

Nat

iona

lE

mer

genc

yE

mpl

oym

ent

Pro

gram

me

for

Rur

al A

cces

s;F

ood

for

Wor

kP

rogr

am

100-

Day

Em

ploy

men

tG

ener

atio

nP

rogr

amm

e

Em

ploy

men

tG

uara

ntee

Sch

eme,

Mah

aras

htra

Sta

te;

Nat

iona

lR

ural

Em

ploy

-m

ent G

uara

ntee

Sch

eme;

Sw

arna

Jaya

nti

Sha

hari

Roj

gar

Yoja

na(S

JSR

Y);

Sam

poor

naG

ram

een

Roz

gar

Yoja

na (

SG

RY

)

Cas

h tr

ansf

ers

tom

arty

rs'

fam

ilies

PK

SF

Pro

gram

med

Initi

ativ

e fo

r th

eE

radi

catio

n of

Mon

ga(P

RIM

E);

Vul

nera

ble

Gro

up D

evel

opm

ent

Pro

gram

me

(VG

D);

Foo

d fo

r W

ork

- Cha

lleng

ing

the

Fro

ntie

rs o

f P

over

tyR

educ

tion

Pro

gram

me

(CF

PR

); 2

Cha

rsLi

velih

oods

Pro

gram

me

(CLP

)

Jaw

ahar

Roj

gar Y

ohan

a(J

RY

); t

arge

ted

publ

icdi

strib

utio

n sy

stem

Afg

han

ista

n

Ban

gla

des

h

Bh

uta

n

Ind

ia

SO

CIA

L IN

SU

RA

NC

ES

OC

IAL

AS

SIS

TAN

CE

Gro

up a

nd S

ecto

r-sp

ecifi

c A

ssis

tanc

eIn

com

e an

d E

mp

loym

ent r

elat

edA

ssis

tanc

eE

mer

genc

y Tr

ansf

ers

Soc

ial I

nsur

ance

Ch

ild B

enef

its

Soc

ial p

ensi

onH

ealth

-rel

ated

(e.g

., M

ater

nity

Ben

efits

)E

du

catio

n-r

elat

ed(S

cho

ol M

eals

, Stip

end

s)E

mpl

oym

ent-

rela

ted

( e.g

., P

ub

lic W

ork

s)

Pov

erty

alle

viat

ion,

Inco

me

Su

pp

ort

:C

ash

/Fo

od

Tra

nsf

ers

Sho

ck-r

elat

ed T

rans

fers

(e.g

., C

on

flic

t; N

atu

ral

Dis

atse

r)


Mal

div

es

Nep

al

Pak

ista

n

Sri

Lan

ka

SO

CIA

L IN

SU

RA

NC

ES

OC

IAL

AS

SIS

TAN

CE

Gro

up a

nd S

ecto

r-sp

ecifi

c A

ssis

tanc

eIn

com

e an

d E

mp

loym

ent r

elat

edA

ssis

tanc

eE

mer

genc

y Tr

ansf

ers

Soc

ial I

nsur

ance

Ch

ild B

enef

its

Soc

ial p

ensi

onH

ealth

-rel

ated

(e.g

., M

ater

nity

Ben

efits

)E

du

catio

n-r

elat

ed(S

cho

ol M

eals

, Stip

end

s)E

mpl

oym

ent-

rela

ted

( e.g

., P

ub

lic W

ork

s)P

over

ty a

llevi

atio

n,In

com

e S

up

po

rt:

Cas

h/F

oo

d T

ran

sfer

s

Sho

ck-r

elat

ed T

rans

fers

(e.g

., C

on

flic

t; N

atu

ral

Dis

atse

r)

Chi

ld S

uppo

rtP

rogr

amm

e

Mal

dive

s B

asic

Pen

sion

Old

-Age

Allo

wan

ce

Ass

ista

nce

for

heal

th c

are

inM

aldi

ves

or a

broa

d

Mat

erni

ty S

chem

e

Vou

cher

s to

def

ray

text

book

cos

ts,

one

unifo

rm,

shoe

s, a

ndso

cks

for

low

inco

me

fam

ilies

.

Stip

ends

for

Dal

itan

d gi

rl st

uden

ts

Taw

ana

Pak

ista

na

One

Fam

ily,

One

Em

ploy

men

t

Abs

olut

e P

over

tyS

chem

e

DD

C b

lock

gra

nts;

VD

C b

lock

gra

nts;

top

-up

gra

nts

to V

DC

s

Zak

at D

isbu

rsem

ent;

Pak

ista

n B

ait-

ul-M

al;

Ben

azir

Inco

me

Sup

port

Pro

gram

-C

ash

tran

sfer

s to

the

disa

bled

;as

sist

ance

for

ID

Ps

-S

amur

dhi i

ncom

etr

ansf

er t

o th

e po

or

Sub

sist

ence

allo

wan

ces

tofa

mili

es o

f th

ose

mar

tyre

d or

hand

icap

ped

as a

resu

lt of

con

flict

;S

ubsi

stan

ceal

low

ance

to th

eP

eopl

e's

Libe

ratio

nar

my

(ex-

com

bata

nts

allo

wan

ce)

Em

erge

ncy

assi

stan

ce t

ope

ople

affe

cted

by n

atur

aldi

sast

ers

such

as

drou

ght

and

flood

s

Civ

il S

ervi

ce P

ensi

on;

Gov

ernm

ent

Pro

vide

ntF

und

Pro

vide

nt f

und;

Gra

tuity

; O

ld-a

geal

low

ance

; S

urvi

vor

allo

wan

ce;

Dis

abili

tyca

sh g

rant

Wor

ker

Wel

fare

Fun

d,W

orke

r P

rofit

Par

ticip

a-tio

n F

und,

Em

ploy

eeS

ocia

l S

ecur

ityIn

stiti

tions

, E

duca

tion

Ces

s F

und,

Em

ploy

eeO

ld A

ge B

enef

its.

Old

Age

Inco

me

Sup

port

; E

mpl

oyee

sP

rovi

dent

Fun

d; C

ivil

Ser

vice

Pen

sion

Sch

eme;

Vol

unta

rysc

hem

es f

or i

nfor

mal

sect

or w

orke

rs;

Dis

abili

ty a

nd s

urvi

vor

insu

ranc

e; U

nem

ploy

-m

ent

sche

mes


COUNTRYPROFILES2PART


AFGHANISTAN

General background

Historically, various forms of social protection haveexisted in Afghanistan through community andpatronage systems. Social insurance was introducedin the early 1990s to provide contributory old-age,disability and survivor pensions; sickness andmaternity benefits; and workers’ compensations inthe formal sector. In 2002, the then-transitionalGovernment of Afghanistan expressed a commitmentto make state-led social policy a key element of theoverall reconstruction programme and to promotesocial protection while designing its overall socialpolicy. Until then social protection had been deliveredby donor and humanitarian agencies; therefore thechallenge was to make it an integral and permanentfeature of the national economy.1

Current social protection interventions cover thefollowing groups: martyrs’ families, people with war-related disability, orphans and children enrolled inkindergartens, victims of natural disaster, pensioners,unemployed. The main public arrangements include

support to martyrs’ families and the disabled; astrategy for children at risk; and the Action Plan onDisability—approved but not yet implemented by theMinistry of Labor, Social Affairs, Martyrs and Disabled(MOLSAMD). Cash for work is the most commonlyused approach due to the large number ofunemployed, especially among returnees. Moreover,since 2002, over one million returnees have benefitedfrom a rural housing programme implementedthroughout the country. A land allocation schemewas launched in 2005 to address the needs oflandless returnees and IDPs by providing land forhousing. The WFP’s High Food Price MitigationIntervention programme aims to help 5 million peoplecope with rising food prices and drought between2008 and the harvest of 2009. Finally, the FamineEarly Warning System (FEWS) network monitorsfood prices and crop levels on a regular basisthroughout the country, to anticipate upcoming foodshortages.2 By 2006, 2.5 million people had benefitedfrom public social protection arrangements, through

* Source: projection 2008-09; source: Ministry of Finance of the Afghanistan Government; http://www.budgetmof.gov.af/units/Budget_Policy_Coord_Reporting/Fact_Sheet/Factsheet_1387.pdf); UNICEF ROSA, South Asia Fiscal Budget database, 2008

1 From Humanitarian Assistance to Social Protection. Paper Prepared for the Afghanistan Support Group Oslo Meeting. 17-18December 2002. Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development. The Transitional Government of the Islamic Republic ofAfghanistan.

2 Afghanistan National Development Strategy 2008-2013, posted at www.ands.gov.af/ands

Total Population26,088,000 (source: UNICEF ROSA, 2006)

Estimated Social Protection Expenditures as a % of GDP:0.7% (Government of Afghanistan); 2.0% (UNICEF ROSA)*


pensions, public works, skills development ormicrofinance.3

Recent trends

The recently approved National Social ProtectionStrategy4 will provide a framework to reform andstreamline existing programmes. The strategy isrooted in the country’s constitution and addressesthe issue of consumption inequality based ongeographic location; it highlights the disadvantagesof the rural and nomadic population, those living inremote areas, people living in larger households, andwomen.5 It is an important step towards recognisingthe need to address socio-economic vulnerability andexclusion. It could be made more comprehensive, forinstance by including minorities and those excludedbased on political affiliation, ethnic or linguisticidentities. Moreover, the strategy is drafted from awelfarist approach, rather than from a rights-basedone. The challenge for the social protection strategywill be to effectively reach the poorest in the short runwhile covering the whole population in the mediumterm, all at acceptable cost.6 Given that over 40 percent of the population is below the poverty linemeasured as the cost of basic needs, this strategywould need to cover almost half of Afghanistan’spopulation.7

Recommendations and observations

Despite these achievements, the majority of Afghanpoor do not benefit from sufficient public assistance.The report of the Afghanistan Independent HumanRights Commission highlights that protection ofpersons with disabilities and families of martyrs islargely limited to providing social pensions. Socialservices for children have been limited to establishingshelters: as of January 2008, there were three

children’s shelters in Kabul and four in other cities,with each shelter accommodating 20 children. Despiteconstitutional provisions for support to the elderly, illor women without caretakers, no protectionmechanisms have been developed and implementationof the law remains sporadic. The main constraintsand challenges include fiscal limitations; largeobligations towards war survivors; lack of capacity andpoverty vulnerability analysis; complex coordinationmechanisms between Government, NGOs, anddonors; dominance of informal risk-managementarrangements; an inefficient monitoring framework; andmost importantly, security.8 Social protection relieslargely on donor resources.

Summary of programmes

I. Social InsuranceAfghanistan’s Ministry of Finance overseescontributory schemes covering old-age, disability andsurvivors, and sickness and maternity benefits foremployed persons in the private sector, cooperatives,social organisations, joint enterprises, andgovernment. The old-age pension is for people aged60 and older with 25 years of contribution or 55 with20 years of contribution. The benefit’s value is up to100 per cent of salary.

II. Cash TransfersDirect Cash TransfersDescription: Cash transfers targeted to families ofconflict victims and individuals with war and land-mine-related disabilities

Value of benefit: According to the National SocialProtection Strategy, the benefit ranges from US$ 33to US$ 10 per month, depending on the number of aconflict victim’s family members and the level ofdisability (no means test). However, the 2008 Report

3 Afghanistan Social Protection Strategy, part of the National Development Strategy (ANDS) (2007). Chapter IV, Current State ofthe Social Protection Sector in Afghanistan, p. 11

4 Ibid.5 The right of Afghan citizens to social security and protection from vulnerability is protected by Article 07 of the Constitution of

Afghanistan which observes the UDHR. The latter in turn emphasizes that individuals and families have the right to areasonable standard of health and wellbeing, including food, clothing, housing, medical care and necessary social services,and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood incircumstances beyond their control. Article 9 of the ICESCR recognises the right of everyone to social security and socialinsurance.

6 William Byrd “Afghanistan State Building-Sustaining Growth and Reducing Poverty”, World Bank, (2005)7 Report of the UNICEF Regional Policy Makers’ Symposium on Social Protection in South Asia, Dhaka April 2008.

Kathmandu: ROSA8 Ibid.


programme in 2003 to develop Afghan communities’ability to identify, plan and manage their developmentprojects. NSP aims at empowering communities totake decisions and manage resources during thewhole project cycle.

Implementing agency: Ministry of Public Worksand Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Developmentis responsible but lacks the capacity to implement itand relies on NGOs.

Delivery mechanism: NSP provides block granttransfers to bank accounts established by the CDCs.Portions of the block grant are released forprocurement and phased implementation of approvedsubprojects.

Value of the benefit: Block grants are calculatedat US$ 200 per family with an average grant of US$27,000 and maximum US$ 60,000 per community.The programme’s ultimate goal is to lay the foundationfor inclusive local governance, rural reconstruction,and poverty alleviation.

Cost and coverage: The NSP budget, from thebeginning of the programme until the end of Phase IIin mid-2010, is US$ 929 million (multi-donor funding).It will benefit 7,500 communities throughoutAfghanistan’s 34 provinces in local reconstruction anddevelopment.

Evaluations: In 2006, a World Bank mid-term reviewfound implementation progress “highly satisfactory”.A review by the University of York concluded that theNSP was a “central policy instrument for Afghan statebuilding and development”. The most importantachievement in this regard has been creation of amechanism for governance and decision making atthe local level. However, the security situation hasslowed the implementation of the programme.Dependence on external financial resources and thechallenge of ensuring appropriate service delivery atthe community level have been the majorshortcomings. Another evaluation of the programmewas being conducted at the time of writing.12

9 US$ 1.00 = 50 Afghanis10 Report of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, Economic and Social Rights Report, Afghanistan III.

December 2008, p. 2911 Ibid.12 Information on the study is available at http://web.mit.edu/cfotini/www/NSP-IE. For further reference on the programme:

www.nspafghanistan.org

of the Afghanistan Independent Human RightsCommission states that “a person without a familyreceives 400 AFS (US$ 8)9 per month, while a personwith a family receives 500 AFS (US$ 10) per month.This does not allow persons with disabilities to liveabove the absolute minimum standard of US$ 1 aday and is insufficient in its ability to ensure anadequate standard of living”.10

Implementing Agency: Ministry of Labor, SocialAffairs, Martyrs and Disabled (MOLSAMD)

Targeting: Categorical

Delivery mechanism: The benefit is paid quarterlythrough banks usually situated in the provincialcapitals.

Geographic coverage: Nationwide

Cost and coverage: US$ 20 million annually. In2007, there were 68,043 households whose head ofhousehold had been killed during the years of conflictor who had a disability registered with MOLSAMD toreceive a monthly benefit.11

Evaluations: Misuses due to weak institutionalcapacity in monitoring eligibility for cash transfers,corruption of provincial courts, and falsedocumentation have been reported. Becausebeneficiaries must travel to banks to receive theirbenefits, which are deposited directly, thetransportation costs of those living in remote areascan exceed their benefits, which lowers the socialprotection effect since the poverty in remote areas isthe highest.

III. Cash For WorkNational Solidarity Program (NSP)Description: Block grantThe National Solidarity Program is a community-driven initiative that creates directly electedCommunity Development Councils (CDCs) anddisburses grants for development projects proposedby the CDCs. The Government introduced the


National Emergency Employment Programmefor Rural AccessDescription: Launched in 2002 with pilot roadmaintenance and rehabilitation projects, the NationalEmergency Employment Programme for Rural Access(NEEPRA) aims to provide particularly vulnerable ruralgroups with a social safety net based on cash forwork. The programme helps supply jobs in roadimprovement, which will in turn increase rural accessto services. The main beneficiaries of the project arethe rural poor who receive access to basic servicesand rural employment.

Implementing agency: Ministry of Public Works andMinistry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development. TheGovernment lacks the capacity to implement it andrelies on NGOs.13

Targeting: Self-targeting

Geography: Afghanistan’s 34 provinces

Cost: US$ 137 million, of which US$ 25 million by theGovernment of Afghanistan and the remainder by theWB and ILO.

Evaluations: The World Bank’s rating for theprogramme was “satisfactory”. Implementationchallenges and related lessons learnt are linked to

the volatile security situation and the frequent rotationof staff both at the national and donor levels. Around9,350 km of rural roads have been built through thisprogramme in 293 districts of Afghanistan’s 34provinces, as well as eight airfields. Approximately3,000 ex-combatants and rural poor have completedtheir work-based training in road construction and craftscombined with vocational training. Over 13 millionlabour-days have been generated since inception ofthe programme.14

IV. Food TransfersFood for Work Program (FFW)Description: FFW schemes provide food to Afghanswhile building or repairing community assets,including roads, bridges, schools, reservoirs andirrigation systems. Projects are agreed upon betweenthe Government and local communities.

Coverage: 2 million people worked under the schemein the first six months of 2008.

Evaluations: Participation is very limited among themost vulnerable (kuchis, nomads), but there are moreparticipants from urban areas. Participation rateamong the poor is higher than among the non-poor,but the latter receive higher wages. The scheme isnot active in the poorest provinces, probably becausethe possibility of participating is not well known.15

13 HPG Background Paper: C. A. Hofmann, “Cash transfer programmes in Afghanistan: A desk review of current policy andpractice”. June 2005

14 “World Bank provides further support to Afghanistan’s national rural access program.” Press release 13 December 2007.www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900sid/LSGZ-79VDL2?OpenDocument

15 See the Afghanistan Social Protection Strategy.


Cat

egor

ical

. N

om

eans

-tes

ted.

Pai

d qu

arte

rlyth

roug

h th

e ba

nks

usua

lly s

ituat

ed i

nth

e pr

ovin

cial

capi

tals

.

Tra

nsfe

rs t

o a

bank

acc

ount

esta

blis

hed

by t

heC

om

mu

nity

Dev

elop

men

tC

ente

rs.

Por

tions

of b

lock

gra

nt a

rere

leas

ed f

orpr

ocur

emen

t and

phas

edim

plem

enta

tion

ofth

e ap

prov

ed s

ub-

proj

ects

.

Sel

f-ta

rget

ing

Old

-ag

e, d

isab

ility

and

su

rviv

ors

(as

wel

l as

sick

nes

s an

dm

ater

nit

y b

enef

its)

.C

ontr

ibut

ory

bene

fits

for

empl

oyed

per

sons

in p

rivat

e se

ctor

,co

oper

ativ

es,

soci

alor

gani

satio

ns, j

oint

ente

rpris

es, a

ndgo

vern

men

t.

Cas

h t

ran

sfer

s to

mar

tyrs

' fam

ilies

.Ta

rget

ed.

Nat

ion

al S

olid

arit

yP

rog

ram

(N

SP

).C

omm

unity

blo

ckgr

ants

.

Nat

ion

al E

mer

gen

cyE

mp

loym

ent

Pro

gra

mm

e f

or

Ru

ral A

cces

s. S

elf-

targ

etin

g an

dw

ides

prea

d so

cial

safe

ty n

et b

ased

on

cash

-for

-wor

k. T

hepr

ogra

mm

e he

lps

supp

ly jo

bs in

roa

dim

prov

emen

t w

hich

will

in tu

rn in

crea

seru

ral a

cces

s to

serv

ice

s.

Peo

ple

aged

60

and

olde

r w

ith 2

5 ye

ars

ofco

ntrib

utio

n or

55

with

20 y

ears

of

cont

ribut

ion.

War

mar

tyrs

and

indi

vidu

als

with

onl

yw

ar a

nd la

nd m

ines

rela

ted

disa

bilit

ies.

(To

tbe

nefic

iarie

s 22

4,85

0co

nfli

ct v

ictim

sfa

mili

es;

87,7

17di

sabl

ed)

All

rura

l com

mun

ities

in A

fgha

nist

an.

Ext

rem

ely

vuln

erab

leru

ral g

roup

s

SO

CIA

LIN

SU

RA

NC

E

CA

SH

TR

AN

SF

ER

S

CA

SH

FO

RW

OR

K

US

$ 10

to

33,

depe

ndin

g on

the

num

ber

of a

ma

rtyr

s’ f

am

ilym

embe

rs a

nd th

ele

vel

of d

isab

ility

Cal

cula

ted

atU

S$

200

per

fam

ily w

ith a

nav

erag

e gr

ant

ofU

S$

27,0

00 a

ndm

axim

um U

S$

60,0

00 p

erco

mm

un

ity.

n.a.

n.a.

Afg

hani

stan

’s 3

4pr

ovin

ces

inlo

cal

reco

nstr

uctio

nan

dde

velo

pmen

t.

Afg

hani

stan

’s 3

4pr

ovin

ces

n.a.

7,50

0co

mm

uniti

es

n.a.

MO

LSA

MD

Min

istr

y of

Pub

licW

orks

and

Min

istr

y of

Rur

alR

ehab

ilita

tion.

The

gov

ernm

ent

lack

s th

eca

paci

ty t

oim

plem

ent

it an

dre

lies

on N

GO

s.

Min

istr

y of

Pub

licW

orks

and

Min

istr

y of

Rur

alR

ehab

ilita

tion.

The

gov

ernm

ent

lack

s th

eca

paci

ty t

oim

plem

ent

it an

dre

lies

on N

GO

s.

US

$20

mill

ion

annu

ally

.

As

ofN

ovem

ber

2007

, bl

ock

gran

tdi

sbur

sem

ents

tota

ling

US

$40

0 m

illio

nha

ve b

een

mad

e,fin

anci

ng16

,031

CD

Cs

with

30,

626

subp

roje

cts.

US

$ 13

7 m

illio

nof

whi

ch U

S$

25 m

illio

n by

the

Gov

ernm

ent

ofA

fgha

nist

an

Afg

hani

stan

Con

stitu

tion:

Art

icle

s 53

, C

h2;

Art

icle

54,

Ch.

2;as

wel

l as

Afg

hani

stan

Com

pact

Ben

chm

arks

.

Tabl

e 6:

AFG

HANI

STAN

Soci

al p

rote

ctio

n pr

ogra

mm

es

Typ

e o

fP

rog

ram

me

Pro

gra

mm

e T

itle

an

dD

escr

ipti

on

Elig

ibili

ty a

nd

Oth

erB

enef

icia

ry-r

elat

edIs

sues

Targ

etin

g/

Del

iver

ym

ech

anis

m

Val

ue

of

the

Ben

efit

&D

eliv

ery

Geo

gra

ph

yC

ove

rag

e

Key

Imp

lem

enti

ng

Age

ncy

Co

sts

and

Bu

dg

et I

ssu

esL

egal

Fra

mew

ork

for

SP


Typ

e o

fP

rog

ram

me

Pro

gra

mm

e T

itle

and

Des

crip

tio

n

Elig

ibili

ty a

nd

Oth

erB

enef

icia

ry-r

elat

edIs

sues

Targ

etin

g/D

eliv

ery

mec

han

ism

Val

ue

of

the

Ben

efit

&D

eliv

ery

Geo

gra

ph

yC

ove

rag

e

Key

Imp

lem

enti

ng

Age

ncy

Co

sts

and

Bu

dg

et I

ssu

esL

egal

Fra

mew

ork

for

SP

FO

OD

TR

AN

SF

ER

SF

oo

d f

or

Wo

rkP

rog

ram

. F

FW

sche

mes

pro

vide

food

to

Afg

hans

whi

lebu

ildin

g or

repa

iring

com

mun

ity a

sset

s,in

clud

ing

road

s,br

idge

s, s

choo

ls,

rese

rvoi

rs a

ndirr

igat

ion

syst

ems.

Pro

ject

s ar

e ag

reed

upon

bet

wee

n th

eG

over

nmen

t an

d lo

cal

com

mun

ities

.

Foo

d in

secu

repo

pula

tion.

(T

he 2

005

Nat

iona

l Ris

k an

dV

ulne

rabi

lity

Ass

essm

ent

foun

dth

at s

ome

6.6

mill

ion

Afg

hans

do

not

mee

tth

eir

min

imum

foo

dre

quire

men

ts.

Inad

ditio

n, a

roun

d40

0,00

0 pe

ople

eac

hye

ar a

re s

erio

usly

affe

cted

by

natu

ral

disa

ster

s, s

uch

asdr

ough

ts,

flood

s,ea

rthq

uake

s an

dex

trem

e w

eath

erco

nditi

ons.

)

WF

P A

sses

smen

t(V

AM

) The

200

5 &

2007

-200

8 N

atio

nal

Ris

ks a

ndV

ulne

rabi

lity

Ass

essm

ent

(NR

VA

) of

the

Min

istr

y of

Rur

alR

ehab

ilita

tion

and

Dev

elop

men

tas

sess

men

ts h

ave

also

con

trib

uted

to

the

targ

etin

g of

bene

ficia

ries.

n.a

.F

ood

inse

cure

area

s, b

ased

on

WF

P-

Gov

ernm

ent

asse

ssm

ent

Bet

wee

nJa

nuar

y an

dJu

ne 2

008,

2m

illio

n pe

ople

wor

ked

unde

rth

e sc

hem

e.

Min

istr

y of

Pub

lic W

orks

and

Min

istr

y of

Rur

alR

ehab

ilita

tion.

n.a.


General background

In Bangladesh the social protection system comprisessocial insurance and social assistance, as well asmany microfinance initiatives. Social protection is oneof the pillars of Bangladesh’s poverty reductionstrategy. The primary form of social protection is socialassistance, especially in the area of education wherethe Government has significantly increasedexpenditures over the last decade, as well as foodassistance and public works. The country has anextensive tradition of social safety nets, especiallyfood and in-kind transfers, of which relevant examplesare the Vulnerable Group Development Programme(VGD), ongoing since 1987, and the Food for WorkProgramme. Cash assistance is provided to helpfamilies enrol their children in school, to the elderly ordestitute women, and to other marginalised groups.A major income-generating programme is Challengingthe Frontiers of Poverty Reduction (CFPR).

Pensions have been in place since the 1970s, and anational policy to systematically guide Governmentaction in this area was introduced in 2006. TheGovernment provides two old-age pension schemes:

a contributory one for civil servants and a means-tested, non-contributory pension for older people (theold-age allowance).

Recent trends

The Government has been expanding cash transferprogrammes, including old age pensions, widowallowances and disability allowances. In 2007-2008there has been a 33 per cent

increase in expenditure on safety net programmesover the previous year’s budget, as well as increasesin coverage and in the amounts of transfers. As partof the its efforts to deal with the food crisis, theGovernment of Bangladesh has stressed theimportance of providing citizens with social protectionso that living standards would not deteriorate further.In its 2009 budget, the Government allocated over US$600 million in additional funds for food-based safetynet programmes, including US$ 300 million in the new100-Day Employment Generation Programme. It hasplanned to widen and deepen the social assistance

* UNICEF ROSA, South Asia Fiscal Budget database, 2008. The WB’s 2006 calculation includes all public interventions orientedto human capital and social risk management. The ADB’s 2008 calculation includes programmes to reduce poverty andvulnerability, including microcredit schemes.

BANGLADESH

Total Population155,991,000 (source: UNICEF ROSA, 2006)

Estimated Social Protection Expenditures as a % of GDP:0.23% (UNICEF ROSA), 1.1% (WB), or 5.3% (ADB)*


programmes by increasing the total number ofbeneficiaries and the rates of subventions. TheGovernment has also increased the budget for womenand child welfare and introduced an Allowance forLactating Mothers (Tk 216 million)16 as a new pilotprogramme.17


Budget increases should be accompanied by effortsto improve targeting mechanisms, expand coverageand enhance inclusiveness of the programmes toensure that the most vulnerable benefit from them.The CFPR provides a good example of a programmedesign that effectively reaches the poorest and providesthem with assets to help them move out of povertyand vulnerability.18

Social insurance is regulated by the 2006 labour law,but coverage is minimal; it includes cash sicknessbenefits for some employees in the formal sector,some cash maternity benefits and medical benefits.To date, programmes have been implemented in theabsence of an overarching framework, and with mixedresults in terms of their impact on poverty alleviationand vulnerability reduction. Most studies agree thatthere are too many programmes in Bangladesh runby too many Government departments (including theMinistry of Social Welfare, the Ministry of Food andDisaster Management, the Ministry of Women andChildren’s Affairs), and thus large administrativeoverhead as well as many layers of decision making.Targeting failure and leakages have been observed,but often go undetected because of inadequatemonitoring. There is no universal and unconditionalprogramme, and limited coverage of urban andexcluded groups such as the disabled and streetchildren.

A 2006 World Bank study19 reviewed a range of safetynet programmes aimed at the different risk groups inBangladesh – the poor (the majority of the population),children, working-age adults, the elderly, the disabled,

widows, and other marginalised groups. The studyhighlights that over the last decade social protectionexpenditures have been fairly low and declining.Moreover, the number of people covered represents onlya fraction of those in need: social assistanceprogrammes like cash transfers, food transfers andpensions cover less than 10 per cent of the poor, andwhile it is difficult to compute the number of beneficiariesin any given year, it is estimated that these programmesreach only 4 to 5 million people.20 The ADB concludesthat coverage for the six key target groups ranges from22 per cent for the poor to between 10 and 12 per centfor children, the elderly, and the unemployed orunderemployed; 1.4 per cent for the sick and 0.2 percent for the disabled.21


I. Social insurance22

• Sickness benefit: The benefit is equal to 50 percent of wages for factory workers and 100 per centof wages for workers in shops, establishments,and large factories.

• Maternity benefit: A cash benefit, depending onthe level of the insured’s wages, is paid for sixweeks before and six weeks after childbirth.

• Workers’ medical benefits: A medical allowanceof Tk 100 per month is paid to workers whoseemployers do not provide medical facilities.

• Disability benefits and unemployment benefitsare small at present, but may be expanded.

Expenditures: Tk 64.89 million in 2002-2003 (lastavailable data)Administrative organisation: Ministry of Labor andManpower, Public Health Service

II. Social AssistanceOld-age Allowance Scheme (OAAS)Programme for Widows and Destitute Women(APWDW)Boishka Bhata social pension for low-incomehouseholds

16 US$ 1.00 = 69 Takas17 An Ordinary Citizen, Bdoza.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/Bangladesh-budget2008-09and-social-safety-net/18 A review conducted by David Hulme and Karen Moore (Brooks World Poverty Institute Working Paper No.01/2007) highlights

how the programme has improved the economic and social condition of the beneficiaries.19 Social Safety Nets in Bangladesh: An assessment, Bangladesh Development Series – Paper No. 9. The World Bank Office,

Dhaka, January 2006. Available online at www.worldbank.org.bd/bds20 Ibid. p. 1421 S. Ahmed and A. Rahman, Social Protection Index for Committed Poverty Reduction, chapter on Bangladesh, p. 622 http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/progdesc/ssptw/2006-2007/asia/bangladesh.html


Description: OAAS targets the ten oldest and poorestmembers in each ward in each union (lowestadministrative unit). APWDW targets the five poorestwomen in each ward. Boishka Bhata is a noncontributory social pension for low-income householdsintroduced in 1998.23

Implementing agency: Social Welfare Directorateunder the Ministry of Social Welfare

Targeting: Categorical: low-income citizens aged 62and older, and destitute women. Funds distributed bylocal branches of the Government Sonali Bank (Tk180, paid quarterly). The Boishka Bhata monthlybenefit is 250 Taka and is directed to the 20 oldestand poorest people in each rural district.24

Coverage: 403,000 OAAS beneficiaries; 201,555APWDW beneficiaries

Cost: 0.03 per cent of GDP (combined cost). TheGovernment has recently increased the number ofwidowed, deserted and destitute women who willreceive an allowance and the value of the benefit (fromTk 220 to 250, approximately US$ 3.65). Theprogramme will cost US$ 39 million.

Evaluations: Research shows that the old-ageallowance is spent on basic needs such as food,healthcare and income-generating activities. In acountry where food insecurity is a worry to olderpeople, the allowance is a welcome source of incomeduring times of hardship.25 Analysis of household datafrom the 2000 Bangladesh Demographic and HealthSurvey indicates that 6.4 percent of households inthe lowest wealth quintile claimed benefits, 6.0 percent from the next, 2.5 per cent from the third, 0.8 percent from the fourth, and 0.2 per cent from the richest

quintile. There is a clear concentration of beneficiaryhouseholds in the lowest wealth quintiles.26

III. Cash for WorkProgrammed Initiative for the Eradication ofMonga (PRIME)Description: The programme was launched in 2006as an effort to eradicate monga, a seasonal fooddeprivation in the north-western part of Bangladesh.The programme benefits the poorest householdsthrough giving them seed money and linking them to‘protection nets’ whenever possible. Someinterventions under this programme are year-round andothers are time specific:i. cash for work for one monga season;ii. emergency credit;iii. consumption loans;iv. remittances services and specially designed

flexible credit support throughout the year;v. beneficiaries copying skills and resources for the

future.

Implementing agency: Palli Karma SahayakFoundation (PKSF), a microfinance (microcredit andcapacity building) umbrella organisation for 192 NGOsinvolved in micro-crediting

Geographic coverage: Northern Bangladesh

Evaluations: An evaluation conducted in 2007 inLalmonirhat upazila showed a considerable increasein the number who had three meals a day duringmonga after participating in the scheme. The cashflow substantially improved household welfare both inthe short- and in the long-term, by helping householdsavoid resorting to coping mechanisms that increasetheir future vulnerability, such as selling their assetsduring seasonal shocks.27

23 US Social Security Administration (SSA), Office of Retirement and Disability Policy. Social Security Programs Throughout theWorld: Asia and the Pacific, 2008. pp 51-52http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/progdesc/ssptw/2008-2009/asia/bangladesh.html

24 HelpAge International, 2009. Social Pensions in Bangladesh. Available at http://www.helpage.org/Researchandpolicy/PensionWatch/Bangladesh

25 See “Social Safety Nets in Bangladesh: An assessment”. Bangladesh Development Series – Paper No. 9. The World BankOffice, Dhaka, January 2006. Available online at www.worldbank.org.bd/bds. “The old-age assistance programme for thepoor elderly in Bangladesh”, Bangladesh Institute for Development Studies, May 2008. “Social Assistance Programme forDestitute Women in Bangladesh”, Bangladesh Institute for Development Studies, February 2008. A. Barrientos, Cash transfersfor older people to reduce poverty and inequality (2006), posted at: siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2006/Resources/.../Cash_transfers_for_Older_People_Reduce_Poverty_and_Inequality.pdf –

26 Barrientos & Smith, Social Assistance in Low Income Countries, Version 1, March 2005. IDPM and CPRC, The University ofManchester, p.12

27 For further reference see R. Faridi and M.A. Baqui Khalily, “Impact of Prime Interventions at the Household Level” posted onwww.org.bd/sem_monga/document/summary/surhad.pdf


IV. Education-related TransfersBangladesh Female Secondary SchoolAssistance Program (FSSAP)Description: Cash grant, book allowances andexamination fee; tuition fees for all 5.2 million girls insecondary schools

The programme’s objectives are:i. to increase secondary school enrolment of girls

through continuing financial assistance;ii. to organise teacher education and training to

improve secondary education;iii. to create mass awareness about girls’ education

and engender social acceptance for it;iv. to provide special facilities for girls’ education in

inaccessible and disadvantaged areas;v. to make the environment of institutions safe,

healthy and attractive for girls by providing waterand sanitation facilities through increasedcommunity participation;

vi. to enhance the efficiency of project humanresources through training to ensure smooth andtimely implementation of programmes;

vii. to develop effective management system forsecondary education at the upazila level.

Implementing agency: Ministry of Education,Directorate of Secondary and Higher Education

Targeting: Categorical. All unmarried girls ofsecondary school age studying in recognisedsecondary level institutions (approximately 5.2 milliongirls). Beneficiaries must attend school for at leastthree fourths of the days in the school year, maintainacademic performance above a set minimum, andremain unmarried.

Geographic coverage: Nationwide. All secondaryschools & madrashas of 283 upazilas and allmadrashas of 19 upazilas of NORAD assisted FemaleSecondary Education Stipend Project (FSESP); 119selected upazilas of 61 districts of Bangladesh.

Value of benefit: Stipend between Tk 300 and 720,plus free tuition, book allowance, examination fees

Costs and coverage: US$ 40 million; over 4 millionbeneficiaries annually

Delivery mechanism: The stipend is transferred viathe commercial banking system to individual bankaccounts held in each girl’s name. Rural girls’ tuitionand examination fees are transferred directly toschools.

Evaluations: The programme has broken ground inaddressing girls’ access to education, and isrecognised worldwide as a pioneering undertaking. Asa result, the Government expanded the programmenationwide, and is now focusing on how to reacheconomically and geographically disadvantaged girls,as well as poor boys.• Female enrolment, as a percentage of total

enrolments, increased from 33 per cent in 1991to 48 per cent in 1997 and about 56 per cent in2005.

• Secondary School Certificate pass rates for girlsin the project area increased from 39 per cent in2001 to 58 per cent in 2006.

• 66,000 members of school managementcommittees have been trained in schoolmanagement accountability, with a focus oneducation quality and a conducive schoolenvironment.

• 6,666 schools – many more than originallytargeted – are participating in the programmethrough a cooperation agreement with the Ministryof Education.

• Indirect benefits of the project included delays inthe age of marriage and reduced fertility rates,better nutrition, and more females employed withhigher incomes.28

Primary Education Stipend Programme (PESP)Description: The programme provides conditionalcash transfers of Tk 100 per month to families withone child in primary school and Tk 125 per month tofamilies with two or more children. The main objectivesare to:i. increase the number of children from poor families

in primary school;

28 Source: Bangladesh Ministry of Education, data reported on the World Bank website:http://www.worldbank.org.bd/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/SOUTHASIAEXT/BANGLADESHEXTN/0,,contentMDK:21227882~menuPK:295791~pagePK:1497618~piPK:217854~theSitePK:295760,00.html


ii. increase attendance and reduce dropout;iii. increase the rate of completion;iv. control child labour;v. increase the quality of primary education.

Implementing agency: Department of PrimaryEducation, Ministry of Education

Targeting and delivery mechanism: An estimated5.5 million pupils from the poorest households whoare enrolled in eligible primary schools in rural areasof Bangladesh. The school managing committees, withthe assistance of teachers and approved by upazilaeducation officer, identify 40 per cent of pupils enrolledin grades 1-5 from the poorest households.Households of qualifying pupils will receive Tk 100per month for one pupil (not to exceed Tk 1200 annually)and Tk 125 per month for more than one pupil (not toexceed Tk 1500 annually) as long as the child attends85 per cent of school days and obtains at least 40 percent marks in the annual examination.

Geographic coverage: 469 rural upazilas

Cost and coverage: Tk 33,123 million annually, solelyGovernment of Bangladesh funded; over 5.3 millionbeneficiaries per annum.

Evaluations: The programme is the largest cashtransfer in the country, but the truly needy or thepoorest pupils may not always benefit. Reasons forbias are mainly methodological: identification occursat the school level, each school proposing 40 per centof its enrolment, which assumes that prevalence ofpoverty is evenly distributed across the country.Moreover, not all schools are eligible for the

programme; in order to be eligible a child must firstenrol in primary school but there is no guarantee thatthe poorest families will enrol their children.29

Cash for Education (since 2002; previously Food forEducation 1993-2002)30

Description: Provides cash transfers to householdswith children in poor areas on condition that childrenare enrolled at school and maintain a minimumattendance level. The objectives are to raise schoolenrolment and attendance rates, reduce child labourand reduce dropout rates in primary school.

Implementing agency: Ministry of Education

Targeting: Geographic targeting of poor unions(economically backward with low literacy rates) in poorthanas. Then categorical targeting of households withless than 0.5 acres or landless, heads of householdswho are day labourers, female heads of households,and low-income professions; community selection.

Value of benefit: Tk 90 per month, equivalent tonearly 4 per cent of total household expenditures forpoor households.

Cost and coverage: US$ 77 million in 2000

Evaluations: Evaluation results include a 9-17 percent rise in school enrolment and nearly full attendanceamong beneficiaries, with improvements in long-termopportunities for the children. One study found thatimprovement in school attendance did not result inproportionate reduction in child labour, suggesting areduction in free/play time.31

29 For further reference see: The Bangladesh Primary Education Stipend Project: A descriptive analysis. A study preparedunder the management and guidance of Carolyn Winter (World Bank). Posted at http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2004/03/29/000160016_20040329173239/Rendered/PDF/282570PAPER0BangladeshStipend.pdf

30 Barrientos and Holmes (2007), Social Assistance in Developing Countries Database31 Meng, X. and Ryan, J. 2003. “Evaluating the Food for Education Program in Bangladesh”, available at www.worldbank.org


V. Food TransfersVulnerable Group Development Programme(VGD) (since 1987; previously named VulnerableGroup Feeding)

Description: The programme is a food-based transferwith a complementary package of developmentservices. It aims to increase the market efficiency ofwomen by providing training, motivating savings forinitial capital accumulation, and providing scope forobtaining credit. It also aims to build social awarenesson disaster management and nutrition. Thecomplementary package of development services wasintroduced in 1988, including health and nutrition,education, literacy training, savings, and support inlaunching income-generating activities. It providesmonthly food rations for two years.

Implementing agencies: Ministry of Women andChildren Affairs, in partnership with World FoodProgramme and other bilateral donors

Targeting: The VGD cardholders are physically ablewomen aged 18-49, selected from the most vulnerableand poor households in the union. Their householdsmust meet at least four of the following five criteria,with those meeting all getting priority:i. chronic food insecurity (i.e., members of the

households often skip meals due to insufficient food);ii. household is landless or owns less than 0.15

acres of land;iii. housing conditions (material and sanitation

facilities) are very poor;iv. household survives on casual labour with low

income and does not have any other regularsource of income;

v. household headed by a woman or includes noadult male income earner.

Geographic coverage: National programme spreadacross 296 upazilas designated as food insecureregions according to WFP’s vulnerability and mappingsystem. The geographic targeting is managed by aUnion Parishad VGD Committee (comprised of male

and female agricultural extension workers, NGO staff,Union Parishad members and three VGD women),based on a wide range of categorical indicators.

Benefit: Each participant receives either 30 kg ofwheat or 25 kg of micronutrient-fortified whole wheatflour each month for a 24-month period. The averagemonthly transfer to beneficiaries is valued atapproximately Tk 41, around one fifth of averagemonthly expenditures.

Costs and coverage: On average US$ 40 million.The 2008-2009 budget will continue to distribute 30kg rice or wheat per head to 750,000 women, underthe VGD. It will also continue a monthly allowance ofTk 400 per head to an additional 40,000 underprivilegedwomen of eight northern districts. Including familymembers, a total of 3.75 million people across thecountry benefit from VGD.

Evaluations: WFP reports good results at improvingthe nutritional status of malnourished women andchildren. In-kind transfers have greatly increased wheatconsumption.32 A Chronic Poverty Research Centre(CPRC) working paper33 observes that in this type ofprogramme the process of targeting can be costlyand provide scope for bias and corruption. Theselection of participants draws on local knowledgeand administrative arrangements of local government.“The effectiveness and long-term success of theprogramme depends on whether the balance is infavour of accountability to communities or corruptionand bias to achieve the political goals of local UnionParishad elites”.34

Food for WorkDescription: Employment generation for the poor,mainly in the dry season, through infrastructurecreation and maintenance. It also aims at reducingfood insecurity.

Implementing agency: Run by a number ofMinistries; formally the coordination of the programmeis with the Ministry of Women’s and Children’s Affairs.

32 World Food Programme, home.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/liaison_offices/wfp190321.pdf33 “The politics of what works: the case of the Vulnerable Development Programme in Bangladesh”, December 2007. CPRC

Working Paper 92 Posted at www.cprc.abrc.co.uk/pubfiles/92Hossain.pdf34 ibid., p.3.


Targeting: The functionally landless; those who lackproductive assets; generally female-headedhouseholds; day labour or temporary workers; thosewith income less than Tk 300 per month.

Geographic coverage: Rural areasCost and coverage: US$ 40 million; about 1,000,000participants annually

VI. Employment SchemesThese programmes combine social protection andcomplementary interventions.

Challenging the Frontiers of Poverty ReductionProgramme (CFPR)35

Description: The programme aims to build up theasset base of the poorest, beginning with transfer ofincome-generating assets, health and educationsupport, training, social development and laterintegrating with microcredit programmes. It includes:i. transfer of productive assets worth 8,000 to 13,000

Taka to the poorest households in northernBangladesh;

ii. intensive training and support in managing theseassets and stipends until income is generatedfrom the assets (Tk 300 per month);

iii. subsidised health and legal services;iv. the provision of water and sanitation; andv. the development of supportive community

networks via Village Poverty ReductionCommittees.

Implementing agency: Bangladesh RuralAdvancement Committee (BRAC)

Targeting: Geographical targeting based on povertymaps to select poorest areas, combined with proxymeans testing, followed by selection of villages usingBRAC’s local knowledge, participatory wealth-rankingexercises to identify locations in villages where thepoorest live, and finally ranking households on targetedindicators, later visually confirmed by BRAC staff.Targeting ensures identification of the poorest but isalso instrumental in developing partnerships with localcommunities.

Geographic coverage: Northern Bangladesh

Cost and coverage: Per household cost is US$ 300;70,000 households had been covered by 2006. Fundedby BRAC Donor Consortium (EC, DFID, CIDA, NOVIB,and WFP).

Evaluations: Targeting has been effective, with 98per cent of participants having food consumption belowthe poverty line at the baseline. “At a 2004-mid-termassessment study on the 2002 entrants and acomparison group, it was found that: (i) Programmeparticipants fared significantly better in nutrients andin overall calorie intake; (ii) 97% of participants reportedto be in ‘food deficit’ at the baseline, but this wasreduced to only 27% two years later. Thecorresponding figures for the comparison group of ultrapoor households were 82% at the baseline and 75%two years later; (iii) Severe malnourishment(MUAC<125mm) among under-5 children was reducedby 27 percentage points for participants but only 3percentage points for the comparison group; (iv) Aninitial asset transfer of US$ 100 per household in 2002led to asset value of US$ 300 in 2005”.36

Chars Livelihoods Programme (CLP)Description: The programme aims at halving extremepoverty and improving livelihood security in the riverineareas of Bangladesh by 2015. CLP provides thepoorest households with:i. income generating assets (13,000 Taka);ii. livelihoods interventions support, including a

monthly stipend for 18 months (approximately Tk300 per month);

iii. infrastructure development;iv. social development training;v. seasonal cash for work and safety nets; andvi. promotes enterprise to facilitate growth in

agricultural and non-farm sectors.

Targeting: Proxy means testing

Implementing Agency: Rural Development andCooperative Division under the Ministry of LocalGovernment, Rural Development and Cooperatives.

35 Main source: A. Barrientos and R. Holmes, Social Assistance in Developing Countries Database (2007). Available online athttp://www.chronicpoverty.org/2/partners-pages.php

36 Barrientos and Holmes , Social Assistance Database (2007) p.18. For further review of the programme see R. Holmes, J.Farrington, T. Rahman and R. Slater. “Extreme poverty in Bangladesh: Protecting and promoting rural livelihoods”. ODI ProjectBriefing No. 15, September 2008.


Geographic coverage: 150 riverine unions in 28 upazilain five districts

Cost: 50 million GBP for seven years 2004-2011

Evaluations: A descriptive paper was written 15months into the programme, but no formal evaluationhas been done to date.

100-Day Employment Generation ProgrammeDescription: Initiated in September 2008, this is anemployment generation programme for the chronicallypoor, seasonally unemployed people and marginalisedfarmers that will create 200 million worker-days ofemployment, with daily remuneration of Tk 100 perperson. To overcome the impact of global foodshortages and high prices of essential foodstuffs onthe poor and the lower middle class, it allocates the100 days for the rural unemployed poor across thecountry throughout the whole year and in particularduring mid-September to November and March - April.

Implementing agencies: Planning andimplementation is by the Ministry of Food and DisasterManagement, monitoring and evaluation by the M&EDivision at the Ministry of Planning.

Targeting: Proxy means testing, with beneficiariesselected according to the following criteria:i. Rural hardcore poor including marginal farmers

(owning < 0.5 acre of agricultural land) living inerosion, flood-prone, monga, haor-baor (wetlands/water-bodies) and char areas;

ii. unskilled, unemployed poor people who intend towork;

iii. those between 18 and 50 who have the nationallyissued Identity Cards;

iv. only one male or member from a family isconsidered for the programme;

v. people engaged in other safety net programmescannot be included in this programme.

Geographic coverage: Countrywide coverage (i.e.,in 64 districts), but preference will be given to theabovementioned challenged areas.

Cost and coverage: Tk 20 billion has been allocatedfor the programme in the current budget. Two millionpeople benefit directly and about ten million indirectly.

Evaluations: n.a.


Typ

e o

fP

rog

ram

me

Pro

gra

mm

e T

itle

and

Des

crip

tio

n

Elig

ibili

ty a

nd

Oth

erB

enef

icia

ry-r

elat

edIs

sues

Targ

etin

g/D

eliv

ery

mec

han

ism

Val

ue

of

the

Ben

efit

&D

eliv

ery

Geo

gra

ph

yC

ove

rag

e

Key

Imp

lem

enti

ng

Age

ncy

Co

sts

and

Bu

dg

et I

ssu

esL

egal

Fra

mew

ork

for

SP

SO

CIA

LIN

SU

RA

NC

E

SO

CIA

LA

SS

ISTA

NC

E

CA

SH

FO

RW

OR

K

•S

ickn

ess

and

mat

erni

tybe

nefit

s•

Dis

abili

ty b

enef

its•

Une

mpl

oym

ent

bene

fits

Old

-ag

e A

llow

ance

Sch

eme

(OA

AS

).Ta

rget

ed s

ocia

las

sist

ance

.

Pro

gra

mm

e fo

rW

ido

ws

and

Des

titu

te W

om

en.

Targ

eted

soc

ial

assi

stan

ce.

Bo

ish

ka B

hat

aso

cial

pen

sio

n f

or

low

-in

com

eh

ou

seh

old

s.Ta

rget

ed s

ocia

lss

sist

ance

.

PK

SF

Pro

gra

mm

edIn

itia

tive

fo

r th

eE

rad

icat

ion

of

Mo

ng

a (P

RIM

E).

Pov

erty

alle

viat

ion

and

cred

it th

roug

h:1

.ca

sh f

or w

ork

empl

oym

ent

oppo

rtun

ities

for

one

mon

gase

ason

;

Con

trib

utor

y be

nefit

s

Low

-inco

me

citiz

ens

aged

65

or o

lder

. H

alf

the

reci

pien

ts m

ust

bew

omen

. Add

ition

alcr

iteria

incl

ude

lack

of

land

or a

nnua

l inc

ome

belo

w 3

000

Taka

(US

$42

), c

hron

ic p

oor

heal

th a

nd in

abili

ty t

ow

ork.

Wid

ows

and

dest

itute

wom

en

The

eld

erly

, rur

al p

oor

The

poo

rest

hous

ehol

ds

Mea

ns-t

este

d.C

om

mu

nity

sele

ctio

n of

bene

ficia

ries.

Targ

ets

ten

olde

stan

d po

ores

tm

embe

rs in

eac

hw

ard

in e

ach

unio

n.

AP

WD

W t

arge

tsth

e 5

poor

est

wom

en in

eac

hw

ard.

The

20

olde

st a

ndpo

ores

t peo

ple

inea

ch d

istr

ict

Sel

f-ta

rget

ing

The

Tk

180/

mon

thpe

nsio

n is

pai

dqu

arte

rly.

Rec

ipie

nts

colle

ctth

eir p

ensi

onfr

om l

ocal

bran

ches

of

the

gove

rnm

ent-

run

Son

ali b

ank.

Eac

hre

cipi

ent h

as a

pass

book

and

the

Soc

ial

Wel

fare

Offi

ce k

eeps

are

gist

er w

ithsa

mpl

esi

gnat

ures

of

all

reci

pien

ts.

Tk

220

to 2

50m

onth

ly t

o ea

chgr

oup,

appr

oxim

atel

y3.

65 U

S$

Tk

250/

mon

th

n.a.

Nat

ionw

ide

4.48

8 U

nion

s ar

eco

vere

d.

Rur

alB

angl

ades

h

Nor

ther

nB

angl

ades

h

In 2

006,

1.3

2m

illio

n pe

ople

rece

ived

the

old-

age

allo

wan

ce. O

nav

erag

e ea

chye

ar a

mill

ion

elde

rly

rece

ive

the

pens

ion

out

of a

n ab

ove

60po

pula

tion

estim

ated

at

7.6

mill

ion.

n.a.

n.a

Min

istr

y of

Lab

oran

d M

anpo

wer

.P

ublic

Hea

lthS

ervi

ce.

Min

istr

y of

Soc

ial

Wel

fare

Min

istr

y of

Soc

ial

Wel

fare

Min

istr

y of

Soc

ial

Wel

fare

PK

SF

(Pal

liK

arm

a S

ahay

akF

ound

atio

n), a

mic

rofin

ance

(mic

rocr

edit

and

capa

city

bui

ldin

g)um

brel

laor

gani

satio

n fo

r19

2 N

GO

sin

volv

ed i

n m

icro

-cr

editi

ng.

64.8

9 m

illio

nTa

ka in

200

2-20

03

Fin

ance

d fr

omge

nera

lgo

vern

men

tre

venu

es.

The

2005

-200

6bu

dget

was

Tk

3.2

billi

on, w

ith1.

5 m

illio

nin

tend

edbe

nefic

iarie

s.A

ddin

g th

eA

PW

DW

prog

ram

me,

the

tota

l co

st r

ises

to 0

.03%

of

GD

P.

US

$ 39

mill

ion

Cur

rent

Lab

our

Law

(200

6)

Co

nst

itu

tio

n o

fB

ang

lad

esh

art

.15

(D

) (T

he r

ight

toso

cial

sec

urity

,th

at is

to

say,

to

publ

ic a

ssis

tanc

ein

cas

es o

fun

dese

rved

wan

tar

isin

g fro

mun

empl

oym

ent,

illne

ss o

rdi

sabl

emen

t, or

suffe

red

byw

idow

s or

orp

hans

or in

old

age

, or

inot

her

such

cas

es.)

Tabl

e 7:

BANG

LADE

SHSo

cial

pro

tect

ion

prog

ram

mes


Typ

e o

fP

rog

ram

me

Pro

gra

mm

e T

itle

and

Des

crip

tio

n

Elig

ibili

ty a

nd

Oth

erB

enef

icia

ry-r

elat

edIs

sues

Targ

etin

g/D

eliv

ery

mec

han

ism

Val

ue

of

the

Ben

efit

&D

eliv

ery

Geo

gra

ph

yC

ove

rag

e

Key

Imp

lem

enti

ng

Age

ncy

Co

sts

and

Bu

dg

et I

ssu

esL

egal

Fra

mew

ork

for

SP

2.

emer

genc

ycr

edit;

3.

cons

umpt

ion

loan

s;4

.re

mitt

ance

sse

rvic

es a

ndsp

ecia

llyde

sign

ed f

lexi

ble

cred

it su

ppor

tth

roug

hout

the

yea

r;5

.be

nefic

iarie

s'co

pyin

g sk

ills

and

reso

urce

s fo

r th

efu

ture

.

Ban

gla

des

hF

emal

e S

eco

nd

ary

Sch

oo

l Ass

ista

nce

Pro

gra

m.

Cas

hgr

ant,

book

allo

wan

ces

and

exam

inat

ion

fee;

tuiti

on f

ees

for

all

girls

in s

econ

dary

scho

ols.

Pri

mar

y E

du

cati

on

Sti

pen

dP

rog

ram

me.

Con

ditio

nal c

ash

tran

sfer

s to

fam

ilies

with

chi

ldre

n in

prim

ary

scho

ols.

Fam

ilies

re

ceiv

ebe

nefit

s as

long

as

the

child

atte

nds

85%

of

scho

ol d

ays

and

obta

ins

at le

ast

40%

m

arks

in t

hean

nual

exa

min

atio

n.

ED

UC

ATIO

N-

RE

LAT

ED

TR

AN

SF

ER

S

All

unm

arrie

d gi

rls o

fse

cond

ary

scho

ol a

gere

sidi

ng in

rur

al a

reas

,co

nditi

onal

on

(a)

atte

ndin

g sc

hool

for

at

leas

t 75

per

cent

of

the

days

in t

he s

choo

lye

ar;

(b)

mai

ntai

ning

acad

emic

perf

orm

ance

abo

ve a

set

min

imum

; an

d (c

)re

mai

ning

unm

arrie

d.

An

estim

ated

5.5

mill

ion

pupi

ls f

rom

the

poor

est h

ouse

hold

sen

rolle

d in

elig

ible

prim

ary

scho

ols

in a

llru

ral a

reas

of

Ban

glad

esh

(469

upaz

illas

).

Cat

egor

ical

The

sch

ool

man

agin

gco

mm

ittee

s w

ithth

e as

sist

ance

of

teac

hers

and

appr

oved

by

upaz

ila e

duca

tion

off

ice

r id

en

tify

40%

of

pupi

lsen

rolle

d in

gra

des

1-5

from

the

poor

est

hous

ehol

ds.

Tk

300

- 72

0st

ipen

d; f

ree

tuiti

on;

book

allo

wan

ce;

exam

inat

ion

fees

. T

he s

tipen

dis

tra

nsfe

rred

dire

ctly

to

indi

vidu

al b

ank

acco

unts

in

each

girl

’s n

ame.

The

pro

gram

me

also

tra

nsfe

rsru

ral g

irls’

tuiti

onan

d ex

amin

atio

nfe

es d

irect

ly t

osc

hool

s.

Tk

100/

mon

th t

ofa

mili

es w

ith o

nech

ild in

prim

ary

scho

ols

and

Tk

125/

mon

th t

ofa

mili

es w

ith t

wo

or m

ore

child

ren.

Nat

ionw

ide.

All

seco

ndar

ysc

hool

s &

mad

rash

as o

f28

3 up

azila

s an

dal

l mad

rash

as o

f19

upa

zila

s of

NO

RA

D-

assi

sted

Fem

ale

Sec

onda

ryE

duca

tion

Stip

end

Pro

ject

(FE

SP

).

Rur

alB

angl

ades

h

Ove

r 4

mill

ion

bene

ficia

ries

annu

ally

. 66

,000

mem

bers

of

scho

olm

anag

emen

tco

mm

ittee

sha

ve b

een

trai

ned

in s

choo

lm

anag

emen

tac

coun

tabi

lity,

with

a f

ocus

on

educ

atio

nqu

ality

and

aco

nduc

ive

lear

ning

sch

ool

envi

ronm

ent.

• 6

,666

sch

ools

– m

any

mor

eth

an o

rigin

ally

targ

eted

.

Ove

r 5.

3 m

illio

nbe

nefic

iarie

spe

r ann

um

Min

istr

y of

Edu

catio

n.D

irect

orat

e of

Sec

onda

ry a

ndH

ighe

r E

duca

tion.

Dep

artm

ent

ofP

rim

ary

Edu

catio

n,M

inis

try

ofE

duca

tion

I) T

otal

: 5

,029

.86

mill

ion

Taka

.II)

GO

B :

5,02

9.86

mill

ion

Taka

.G

OB

Gra

nt :

5,02

9.86

mill

ion

Taka

II) I

n 20

00 t

heco

st w

as 1

5%of

sec

onda

rysc

hool

gove

rnm

ent

expe

nditu

rean

d 6%

of

educ

atio

nbu

dget

.

Tk

6.6

billi

on in

2002

-200

3


Typ

e o

fP

rog

ram

me

Pro

gra

mm

e T

itle

and

Des

crip

tio

n

Elig

ibili

ty a

nd

Oth

erB

enef

icia

ry-r

elat

edIs

sues

Targ

etin

g/D

eliv

ery

mec

han

ism

Val

ue

of

the

Ben

efit

&D

eliv

ery

Geo

gra

ph

yC

ove

rag

e

Key

Imp

lem

enti

ng

Age

ncy

Co

sts

and

Bu

dg

et I

ssu

esL

egal

Fra

mew

ork

for

SP

Cas

h f

or

Ed

uca

tio

n.

Cas

htr

ansf

ers

toho

useh

olds

with

child

ren

in p

oor

area

s on

con

ditio

nth

at c

hild

ren

are

enro

lled

at s

choo

lan

d ha

ve a

min

imum

atte

ndan

ce l

evel

.

Vu

lner

able

Gro

up

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Pro

gra

mm

e (V

GD

).In

-kin

d w

heat

tra

nsf

er.

Com

plem

enta

rypa

ckag

e of

deve

lopm

ent

serv

ices

inc

ludi

nghe

alth

and

nut

ritio

n,ed

ucat

ion,

lite

racy

trai

ning

, sa

ving

s an

dsu

ppor

t in

laun

chin

gin

com

e-ge

nera

ting

activ

ities

. M

onth

lyfo

od r

atio

ns f

or t

wo

yea

rs.

Fo

od

-fo

r-W

ork

.E

mpl

oym

ent

gene

ratio

n fo

r th

epo

or m

ainl

y in

the

dry

seas

on t

hrou

ghin

fras

truc

ture

crea

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

. It

also

aim

s at

red

ucin

gfo

od i

nsec

urity

.

FO

OD

TR

AN

SF

ER

S

The

poo

rest

hous

ehol

ds

Phy

sica

lly s

ound

,ex

trem

ely

poor

wom

en 1

8-49

.S

elec

ted

from

the

mos

t vu

lner

able

and

poor

hou

seho

lds

inth

e un

ion

base

d on

4of

the

fol

low

ing:

chro

nic

food

inse

curit

y; h

ouse

hold

owni

ng n

o la

nd o

r le

ssth

an 0

.15

acre

s;ho

usin

g co

nditi

ons;

no

regu

lar

sour

ce o

fea

rnin

g; f

emal

e-he

aded

hou

seho

ld.

Fun

ctio

nally

lan

dles

s;la

ck o

f pr

oduc

tive

asse

ts;

gene

rally

fem

ale-

head

edho

useh

olds

; da

yla

bour

or

tem

pora

ryw

orke

rs;

inco

me

less

than

Tk

300/

mon

th.

Geo

grap

hic

targ

etin

g of

poo

rU

nion

s(e

cono

mic

ally

back

war

d w

ith lo

wlit

erac

y ra

tes)

in

poor

Tha

nas.

The

nca

tego

rical

targ

etin

g of

hous

ehol

ds w

ithle

ss t

han

0.5

acre

sor

land

less

, hea

dsof

hou

seho

lds

who

are

day

labo

urer

s,fe

mal

e he

ads

ofho

useh

olds

, and

low

inco

me

prof

essi

ons.

Co

mm

un

ityse

lect

ion.

Geo

grap

hic

targ

etin

g m

anag

edby

Uni

on P

aris

had

VG

D C

omm

ittee

s(c

ompr

ised

of

mal

ean

d fe

mal

eag

ricul

tura

lex

tens

ion

wor

kers

,N

GO

sta

ff, U

nion

Par

isha

d m

embe

rsan

d th

ree

VG

Dw

omen

) bas

ed o

n a

wid

e ra

nge

ofca

tego

rical

indi

cato

rs.

Taka

90/

mon

th,

equi

vale

nt t

one

arly

4%

of

tota

l hou

seho

ldex

pend

iture

s fo

rpo

or h

ouse

hold

s.

Par

ticip

ants

rece

ive

eith

er30

kg o

f w

heat

or

25kg

of

mic

ronu

trie

nt-

fort

ified

who

lew

heat

flo

ur e

ach

mon

th f

or 2

4m

onth

s. A

vera

gem

onth

ly t

rans

fer

to b

enef

icia

ries

was

appr

oxim

atel

y T

k41

, aro

und

20%

of a

vera

gem

on

thly

expe

nditu

res.

Poo

r uni

ons

acro

ss t

heco

un

try

VG

D c

over

sab

out 7

50,0

00ul

tra-

poor

rura

lw

omen

(fe

mal

e-he

aded

hous

ehol

ds)

that

are

vuln

erab

le to

chro

nic

cris

is in

480

upaz

ilas

inal

l 64

dis

tric

ts o

fB

angl

ades

h.To

tal c

over

age

570,

000

hous

ehol

ds.

Rur

alB

angl

ades

h

Nat

iona

lav

erag

e of

2.8%

; li

mite

dre

ach

to t

heex

trem

e po

or.

3.75

mill

ion

peop

le a

cros

sth

e co

untr

y

Abo

ut1,

000,

000

part

icip

ants

annu

ally

.P

rovi

ded

abou

t75

,000

,000

hour

s of

wor

k in

2003

-200

4.

Min

istr

y of

Edu

catio

n

Min

istr

y of

Wom

en a

ndC

hild

ren

Affa

irs,

Wor

ld F

ood

Pro

gram

me

and

othe

r bila

tera

ldo

nors

Run

by

a nu

mbe

rof

Min

istr

ies.

For

mal

ly t

heco

ordi

natio

n of

the

prog

ram

me

isw

ith t

he M

inis

try

of W

omen

’s a

ndC

hild

ren’

sA

ffa

irs.

US

$ 77

m in

2000

At

its p

eak,

the

annu

al s

ubsi

dyw

as U

S$

54m

illio

n.D

istr

ibut

ion

of30

kg

rice

orw

heat

per

hea

dto

750

,000

wom

en w

illco

ntin

ue w

ithth

e 20

08-2

009

budg

et, a

s w

ill a

a m

onth

lyal

low

ance

of T

k40

0 pe

r he

ad to

an a

dditi

onal

40,0

00un

derp

rivile

ged

wom

en o

f 8

nort

hern

dist

rict

s.

US

$ 40

mill

ion


Typ

e o

fP

rog

ram

me

Pro

gra

mm

e T

itle

and

Des

crip

tio

n

Elig

ibili

ty a

nd

Oth

erB

enef

icia

ry-r

elat

edIs

sues

Targ

etin

g/D

eliv

ery

mec

han

ism

Val

ue

of

the

Ben

efit

&D

eliv

ery

Geo

gra

ph

yC

ove

rag

e

Key

Imp

lem

enti

ng

Age

ncy

Co

sts

and

Bu

dg

et I

ssu

esL

egal

Fra

mew

ork

for

SP

EMPL

OYM

ENT

SC

HE

ME

SC

hal

len

gin

g t

he

Fro

nti

ers

of

Po

vert

y R

edu

ctio

nP

rog

ram

me

(CF

PR

). B

uild

s t

heas

set

base

of

the

poor

est,

begi

nnin

gw

ith t

rans

fer

ofin

com

e-ge

nera

ting

asse

ts,

heal

th a

nded

ucat

ion

supp

ort,

trai

ning

, so

cial

deve

lopm

ent

and

late

r int

egra

ting

mic

rocr

edit

prog

ram

mes

.

Ch

ars

Liv

elih

oo

ds

Pro

gra

mm

e (C

LP

).A

ims

at h

alvi

ngex

trem

e po

vert

yan

d im

prov

ing

livel

ihoo

d se

curit

y in

river

ine

area

s by

2015

.

100-

Day

Em

plo

ymen

tG

ener

atio

nP

rog

ram

me

Poo

rest

peo

ple

The

poo

rest

hous

ehol

ds

Rur

al c

hron

ical

ly p

oor

livin

g in

the

riv

erer

osio

n, f

lood

pro

ne,

mon

ga (s

easo

nal

fam

ine)

, hao

r-ba

or(w

etla

nds/

wat

er-

bodi

es) a

nd c

har

area

s w

ho re

mai

nun

empl

oyed

gen

eral

lyfo

r 5

mon

ths

from

mid

-Sep

tem

ber t

oN

ovem

ber

and

Mar

chto

Apr

il.

70,0

00 h

ouse

hold

s(2

006)

. Sta

rts

with

map

s to

sel

ect

poor

est

area

s, t

hen

sele

ctio

n of

villa

ges

usin

gB

RA

C’s

loca

lkn

owle

dge,

part

icip

ator

y w

ealth

rank

ing

exer

cise

sto

ide

ntify

whe

reth

e po

ores

t liv

e;ra

nkin

g ho

useh

olds

on ta

rget

ing

indi

cato

rs,

late

rvi

sual

ly c

onfir

med

by

BR

AC

sta

ff.

The

rura

lch

roni

cally

poo

r;un

skill

edun

empl

oyed

peo

ple

betw

een

18 a

nd 5

0w

ith n

atio

nal

Iden

tity

Car

ds.

Onl

y on

e fa

mily

mem

ber

can

beco

nsid

ered

for

the

prog

ram

me.

Peo

ple

enga

ged

inot

her

safe

ty n

etpr

ogra

mm

esca

nnot

be

incl

uded

.

Tra

nsfe

r of

prod

uctiv

eas

sets

wor

th8,

000

to 1

3,00

0Ta

ka to

the

poor

est

hous

ehol

ds in

nort

hern

Ban

glad

esh;

trai

ning

inm

anag

ing

thes

eas

sets

and

ada

ily s

tipen

d un

tilth

e as

sets

gene

rate

Tk

300/

mon

th o

fin

com

e.

i. in

com

ege

nera

ting

asse

ts (

13,0

00Ta

ka);

ii. l

ivel

ihoo

dsin

terv

entio

nssu

ppor

t inc

lude

sa

Tk

300/

mon

thst

ipen

d fo

r 18

mon

ths;

iii.

infr

astr

uctu

rede

velo

pmen

t;iv

. so

cial

deve

lopm

ent

trai

ning

;v.

sea

sona

l ca

shfo

r w

ork

and

safe

ty n

ets

.

Nor

ther

nB

angl

ades

h

150

river

ine

unio

ns in

28

upaz

ila in

5di

stri

cts

Cou

ntry

wid

e, b

utpr

efer

ence

to

peop

le li

ving

inth

e riv

er e

rosi

on,

flood

pro

ne,

mon

ga (s

easo

nal

fam

ine)

, ha

or-

baor

(wet

land

s/w

ater

-bod

ies)

and

char

are

as.

70,0

00ho

useh

olds

cove

red

by20

06.

Tw

o m

illio

npe

ople

dire

ctly

and

abou

t ten

mill

ion

indi

rect

ly.

Ban

glad

esh

Rur

alA

dvan

cem

ent

Com

mitt

ee(B

RA

C).

Fun

ded

by B

RA

C D

onor

Con

sort

ium

(E

C,

DF

ID,

CID

A,

NO

VIB

, and

WF

P)

Rur

alD

evel

opm

ent

and

Coo

pera

tive

Div

isio

n un

der

the

Min

istr

y of

Loca

lG

over

nmen

t,R

ural

Dev

elop

men

tan

dC

oope

rativ

es

Pla

nnin

g an

dim

plem

enta

tion

isby

the

Min

istr

yof

Foo

d an

dD

isas

ter

Man

agem

ent.

Mon

itorin

g an

dE

valu

atio

n by

the

M&

E D

ivis

ion

(IM

ED

) at

the

Min

istr

y of

Pla

nnin

g.

$ 30

0 pe

rho

useh

old

50 m

illio

n G

BP

for

seve

nye

ars

2004

-20

11

Taka

20,

000

mill

ion

has

been

allo

cate

d in

the

budg

et.


General background

Bhutan has a social insurance system but no socialassistance programmes. The Government’s efforts tomake free education and free health servicesuniversally available are impressive in the South Asiancontext, but do not constitute social protection assuch.

Civil servants and military personnel are covered bypension and disability benefits, but in the absenceof a formal social protection system and safety nets,most Bhutanese rely on traditional systems of inter-household transfers in cash or kind, family support,migration, and borrowing.


Demographic and economic changes are makingtraditional family systems less reliable as sourcesof support, and some groups such as the elderly oryouth may become increasingly vulnerable to poverty.

Summary of programmesI. General:• Death benefit covering funeral expenses for every

citizen.

II. Social Insurance:Beneficiaries: civil servants and employees ofGovernment and joint-sector corporations

National Pension and Provident Fund Plan(member’s pension benefit, permanent disabilitybenefit, and surviving family benefit)• I Tier- National Pension:

> Partially funded pay-as-you-go-defined benefitpension plan.

> Financing comes from employeecontributions (5 per cent of the monthly payof a member) matched by employer.

> The Government is committed to supportingany future finance deficit.


BHUTAN

Total Population635,000 (source: UNICEF ROSA, 2006)

Social Protection Expenditures as a % of GDP:1.4% (ADB) - 2.0% (UNICEF ROSA)*


• II Tier- National Provident Fund Plan:> Defined contribution scheme payable as lump

sum upon retirement.> Contributes 3 – 5 per cent of monthly salary

with matching contribution from the employer.

Gratuity scheme• Based on number of years of service and last

monthly salary• Financed out of general revenue for civil servants• The benefit is given in a lump sum upon retirement

from service• The benefit is limited to a maximum of Nu

300,000.37

37 US$ 1.00 = 46.10 Ngultrum

Group insurance schemes also exist, but are limitedin scope at present.

Beneficiaries: Armed Forces• Pension and provident fund scheme; gratuity and

group savings cum insurance scheme

Beneficiaries: Formal Private Sector Employees• The formal private sector in Bhutan covers roughly

one per cent of the total labour force.> Formal private sector employees are covered

under a provident fund scheme, a gratuityscheme, and a group savings cum insurancescheme.


General background

India has a comprehensive and extensive system ofsocial security that was introduced at independenceand has since seen a long evolution. Manyprogrammes are implemented nationally or at statelevel and may be funded jointly or wholly state funded.38

The first poverty alleviation schemes were introducedin the 1960s. The ‘food programme’ of the timecombined land reforms, new agricultural technologiesand crops with an extensive rural employmentscheme. It provided food for work in selected areasalong with employment generation schemes and theIntegrated Rural Development Program (IRDP) to createassets for the landless.39 A limited form of socialinsurance had existed since 1971 with the FamilyPension Scheme, which ceased to exist when theEmployee Pension Scheme was introduced in 1995.In 1995, the Government took a significant step

towards fulfilling the constitutionally guaranteed rightto social security (enshrined in Article 41 of the IndianConstitution, which guarantees public assistance inold age)40 by launching the National Social AssistanceProgramme, the first comprehensive, pro-poorGovernment-managed scheme.

There are a number of large national social assistanceprogrammes. They include the food distribution systemproviding subsidised rice to the poor, labour market/microcredit programmes designed to provide food forwork and generate employment especially in rural areas(Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana, Swarna JayantiShahari Rojgar Yojana) and Food for Work Programme,mother and child protection (Integrated ChildDevelopment Service Scheme), housing for the poor(Indira Awas Yojana as part of the Jawahar RojgarYojana, reviewed below) and social assistance transfers.

* UNICEF ROSA, South Asia Fiscal Budget database, 2008. The WB’s 2006 calculation includes all publicinterventions oriented to human capital and social risk management. The ADB’s 2008 calculation includesprogrammes to reduce poverty and vulnerability, including microcredit schemes.

38 Asian Development Bank Social Protection Index for Committed Poverty Reduction Volume 9. India Country Report – FinalNovember 2007. Halcrow China, p.4

39 Ibid., p. 1540 S. Irudaya Rajan, “Chronic Poverty Among the Indian Elderly” in A.K. Mehta and A. Shepherd, Chronic Poverty and

Development Policy in India, p.189

INDIA

Total Population (thousands, 2006):1,151,751 (Source: ROSA)

Estimated Social Protection Expenditures as a % of GDP:1.0% (UNICEF ROSA), 4.0% (ADB), 4.4% (WB)*


India has a long experience with labour-intensive publicworks, starting with the Employment GuaranteeScheme of Maharashtra (EGS) since 1972/73. At thenational level, since 1989 there have been JawaharRojgar Yojana (JRY), Employment Assurance Scheme(EAS), Complete Village Rural EmploymentProgramme (SGRY) and the most recent innovation,the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme(NREGS) introduced in 2005. These programmesgenerally seem to be well targeted to the poor andhave impacted income and unemployment rates. Theirindirect or secondary benefits include impact onagricultural growth, upward pressure on agriculturalwages, mobilisation of rural poor as a political force,and empowerment of women.

Finally there are a number of community-based andNGO initiatives. For example, 54 NGO andcommunity-based programmes cover around 5 millionworkers (4 per cent of total workers). These areconcentrated in three southern states (16 in A.P., 8 inKarnataka, 12 in Tamil Nadu), and most started in the1990s or later.

Recent trends

In general, India seems to be moving from a top-downapproach to social protection characterised by lackof people’s participation to new approaches on socialmobilisation, participation, involvement of civil societyorganisation and decentralisation, and the right toinformation. The decentralisation process is alsogeared to increasing accountability.41

Reflecting the strong commitment to expanding socialsecurity coverage expressed in the Common MinimumProgramme of the United Progressive Alliance of thecoalition government, the Government has recentlybeen developing policies and programmes in responseto the gaps in coverage and the needs of householdsin the unorganised sector. The current Governmentdevelopment plan states a commitment toinstitutionalise programmes as legal rights, expandexisting interventions, and expand social protectioncoverage to the large unorganised sector.42


Currently, India faces the challenge of improvingpension coverage, as only about a fifth of the formal-sector labour force is covered. Of the total earningworkforce of 450 million, 85 per cent (about 380 million)work in sectors other than the formal private sectorand the Government and are usually classified asbelonging to the unorganised sector.43 The Governmenthas responded to this problem with the recentlyapproved Bill for the Social Security of the UnorganisedSector Workers. Various ideas are being consideredfor financing the expansion of coverage to theunorganised sector, including a surcharge on incometaxes, finding resources from existing tax revenues,and/or using earmarked product-group/trade-basedtaxes.44


I. Social InsuranceFormal social insurance schemes covering health,pensions and other benefits are available to themajority of those working in the formal sector, publicor private. These schemes, however, cover only aboutten per cent of the population. India’s social securitysystem has seven components – the Employees’Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) schemes, thecivil service schemes, the schemes of publicenterprises, superannuation plans of the corporatesector, voluntary tax advantaged schemes, socialassistance schemes, and micro-pension schemes.Social insurance takes up about 60 per cent of overallsocial protection expenditures.45

• Employees’ Pension Scheme: The Employees’Pension Scheme was introduced in 1995 by theEPFO, Ministry of Labour. The scheme includesthe following benefits: superannuation on attainingage 58; retirement; permanent total disablement;death during service; death after retirement/superannuation/permanent, total disablement;children pension; orphan pension. Membersbecome eligible on attaining age 58 with aminimum ten years’ contributory service. The

41 M. Dev “Individual Shocks and Social Protection in South Asia” (Special Reference to India); posted at info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/233761/Mahendra%20Individual%20Shocks.pdf.

42 World Bank, Project Information Document, concept note. Project title: Public works programs in India (October 2008)43 M. G. Asher, “Pension Reform in India”. National University of Singapore; p.2244 S. Mehrotra, Government of India, Costs and financing of a social insurance in India, presentation at the UNICEF ROSA

Regional Symposium on Social Protection, Dhaka, April 200845 ADB, SP Index for Committed Poverty Reduction, p. 57


scheme is financed by transferring 8.33 per centof the Provident Fund contribution from theemployees’ share and by 1.16 per cent of basicwages contributed by the Central Government.All accumulations in the defunct Family PensionFund constitute the corpus of the Pension Fund.46

• Employees’ State Insurance Scheme (ESIS):The ESI Act (1948) applies to non-seasonalfactories using power and employing 10 or morepersons, and non-seasonal and non-power-usingfactories and establishments employing 20 or morepersons. Employees of covered units andestablishments drawing wages up to Rs 7,50047

per month come under the purview of the Act formulti-dimensional social security benefits.

Only 11.5 per cent (37 million) of India’s paid workforceis covered under pensions. The remaining 284 milliondo not have any formal social security coverage.48 Ofthese, 22 million are Government employees whobenefit from a civil service defined pension scheme;15 million workers are estimated to be covered underdefined-contribution employee provident funds. Formalsector employers with at least 20 employees arerequired to join the EPFO, which offers both definedbenefit and defined contribution schemes. Thesevarious components are supervised and regulated bydifferent agencies, with little coordination. Otherschemes include benefits for sickness and maternity,work injury, and unemployment; Government/civilservice social insurance schemes; and the LifeInsurance Corporation (LIC) of India Pension Scheme.

II. National Social Assistance ProgrammeCost: The cumulative cost for the three programmesdescribed below is Rs 14.3 billion; since 1995, entirelycentrally sponsored.

Delivery mechanism: Pensions are credited directlyto the account of the beneficiary in a post office orbank.

National Old-Age Pension Scheme (NOAPS)Description: NOAPS provides an unconditional cashpayment to destitute elderly (65 or older) who do nothave any regular means of subsistence. The benefitis Rs 450 in two instalments.

Implementing agency: Ministry of Labour andEmployment; jointly administered by the CentralGovernment and the various state governments

Targeting: Categorical (65 or older) and means-tested

Delivery mechanism: The district official in chargeof coordinating the programme is responsible forprocessing applications for benefits and for arrangingdisbursal of the benefits, which may adopt variousmodes including cash disbursement.


Coverage: One fourth of India’s elderly receive somesocial assistance from the state-level pensionschemes or from the National Old-Age PensionScheme.

Evaluations: A 2006 baseline survey carried out byHelpAge and partner organisations in some of India’spoorest districts revealed that 84 per cent of the elderlywere not aware of their rights. A few years before,another HelpAge study in Uttar Pradesh found thatlimits on the funding available for the programmeprovided a disincentive for Government officials topublicise it. It appears that criteria for eligibility arepoorly understood, and the registration and selectionprocesses are complex and time consuming. Inaddition, the delivery of benefits is erratic.49

National Maternity Benefit SchemeDescription: Provides lump sum cash assistance topregnant women in households living below the povertyline subject to the following conditions:

46 Ibid., p 2247 US$ 1.00 = 46.10 Rupees48 World Bank, Pension at a Glance, Asia and the Pacific, 2008, p. 8449 HelpAge news, Vol. 5 No.2, July-September 2006. See also: Rajan, S.I. [2001] “Social Assistance for Poor Elderly: How

Effective?” Economic and Political Weekly XXXVI (8): 613-617 HelpAge International [2003] Non-contributory pensions inIndia: A case study of Uttar Pradesh, London: HAI.


i. restricted to pregnant women for up to the firsttwo live births provided that they are 19 years ofage or above;

ii. beneficiaries should belong to a household livingbelow the poverty line;

iii. the ceiling on the benefit for the purpose of claimingcentral assistance should be Rs 500 (approx.US$ 12)

The benefit is disbursed in two instalments 12-8 weeksprior to delivery.

Implementing agency: Ministry of Labour andEmployment; jointly administered by the CentralGovernment and the various state governments


Targeting : Categorical and means-tested

Delivery mechanism: The district official in chargeof the programme processes applications for benefitsand arranges disbursal of the benefits, which mayadopt various modes including cash disbursement.

Coverage: In 2000, 1.2 million beneficiaries

Evaluations: Benefits are reaching the target group,but more care is needed in areas like selection ofbeneficiaries and timely disbursal of benefits so theycan better benefit mothers and babies. There are someleakages to non-poor families. Overall, the scheme isreported to be benefiting socially and educationallybackward poor women.50

National Family Benefit Scheme (part of theNational Social Assistance Programme)

Description: To provide benefits to the household incase of death of primary earner (defined as the memberof the family whose earnings contribute substantiallyto the total household income).

Implementing Agency: Ministry of Labour andEmployment; jointly administered by the CentralGovernment and the various state governments

Geography: Nationwide

Targeting: The death of the primary breadwinner dueto natural or accidental causes should have occurredwhile he or she was aged 18 to 62. The family benefitis paid to surviving members of the household of thedeceased head of household.

Coverage: In 2006-2007 a total of 9.3 million peoplein 30 districts

Value of benefit: Lump sum of Rs 10,000

Evaluations: Monitoring and evaluation is by theMinistry of Rural Development. One evaluation reportedthat “only a small proportion of the total beneficiarysamples felt that the scheme had in a way brought asense of security to life although the majority ofbeneficiaries studied were satisfied with the benefitthey received. The evaluation suggests that care hasto be taken for better and efficient implementation ofthe scheme especially in selection of beneficiaries,sanctioning of applications, and timely disbursementof benefits to the beneficiaries”.51 Difficulties inobtaining benefits, corruption, and delays in transfersare key challenges to implementing the scheme.52

III. Cash for WorkJawahar Rojgar Yojana (JRY) (JawaharEmployment Scheme)53

Description: JRY is a poverty alleviation schemeamalgamating two wage employment programmes,National Rural Employment Program (NREP) and RuralEmployee Guarantee Program (REGP). JRY includestwo sub-schemes, the Indira Awas Yojana (IAY), ahousing programme, and the Million Wells Scheme(MWS). The programme aims at providing food and

50 For further reference: Ministry of Rural Development, Executive Summary of National Social Assistance Programme,Government of India. Posted at: http://www.drd.nic.in/jry2/esnsap.htm National Social Assistance Programme. Posted at: http://rural.nic.in/book00-01/ch-7.pdf

51 A. Barrientos, R. Holmes; Social Assistance in Developing Countries. Database. Version 3.0 July 200752 For further reference: Ministry of Rural Development, Executive Summary of National Social Assistance Programme,

Government of India. http://www.drd.nic.in/jry2/esnsap.htm; National Social Assistance Programme, Posted at: http://rural.nic.in/book00-01/ch-7.pdf; Ministry of Rural Development, National Social Assistance Programme: Introduction,Government of India. Posted at: http://rural.nic.in/nsap.htm

53 A. Barrientos and R. Holmes, “Social Assistance in Developing Countries Database”, Chronic Poverty (July 2007)


cash to stave off poverty, mainly in rural areas. JRYoffers a legitimate minimum wage for unskilled labour,which is generally higher than the prevailing marketwage rates.

Implementing agency: Central and stateGovernment; District Rural Development Agency

Targeting: Geographic, demographic and self-targeting. Allocations are made to states based oftheir share in rural poverty, using headcount index.State allocations to districts are based on index ofbackwardness, which takes into account the proportionof rural castes/tribes in the overall population, andagricultural productivity. Preference is given tounderprivileged groups (scheduled castes/tribes, freedbonded labourers), and 30 per cent of the employmentopportunities are earmarked for women.

Evaluations: Although unemployment has beenreduced, the impact of the programme at thehousehold level has been modest. Food grainsdistributed as part of wages were negligible (Rs 0.21worth of food grains per day per JRY worker). Sincethe programme wage was higher than the market wage,it tended to attract many of the non-poor.54 An analysisof the percentage distribution of workers by incomeclass indicates that on average for the whole of India,57 per cent of those working under the schemes arenon-poor with monthly incomes exceeding Rs 6,400.55

The programme creates social assets and has apositive impact on wages.

Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS),Maharashtra State56

Description: This cash for work programme startedin the 1960s, with a view to alleviating poverty byproviding employment to the poorer sections of thecommunity in the rural as well as the depressedcouncils in the State of Maharashtra. The StateGovernment gave statutory support to the guaranteeof employment though the Maharashtra EmploymentGuarantee Act, which was brought into force in January1979. Labourers are paid according to the quantity ofwork done at the minimum prevailing wage foragricultural labour in the concerned zone.

Implementing agencies: Central and StateGovernment; Food Corporation of India (FCI)

Targeting: Self-targeting; placement of schemes bythe State followed by self-selection

Geographic coverage: State of Maharashtra

Cost: The total amount spent on the EGS hasincreased progressively since its inception. AlthoughRs 108 billion has been collected under theemployment guarantee fund (EGF) – which funds thescheme through professional tax and other taxescollected from citizens – only Rs 46.8 billion was spenton the EGS in 2006-2007.

Evaluations: EGS is one of the most researched anddiscussed programmes in the country and one of thelarger public programmes in the developing world.When introduced it was seen as innovative as itguarantees employment at a defined wage. It is stillconsidered a model because of the underlyingphilosophy of “fulfilling a guarantee”. However, theeffectiveness of the EGS in covering the target grouphas been debated, as poverty in Maharashtra has notdeclined more rapidly than average for India. However,EGS has a considerable impact on the social life ofworkers by increasing their interactions acrosscastes. Leakages have been of two kinds: employmentleaks to non-targeted groups and misappropriation ofEGS funds by implementing agencies. The fist typeis not frequent, but corruption has been a majorconcern since the programme’s inception. Anotherissue regards the number of agencies having tofunction at six different levels (from central to local) toadminister the programme with many layers ofdecision-making and a heavy bureaucracy.

A recent Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG)investigation has indicted EGS for falling short onseveral fronts: planning, financial management,registration of labourers, selection and execution ofworks, payment of wages, and monitoring. The 2006-2007 CAG report says the scheme has not met itsobjective of poverty alleviation. Some people have beenleft out and budgets prepared for the scheme have

54 Ibid.55 N. Islam, Reducing Rural Poverty in Asia, 2006.56 Barrientos and Holmes, op cit.


not been based on demand. Moreover, registration oflabourers is incomplete, works have been leftunfinished for years, and payment to labourers ispending or has not been in accordance with theMinimum Wages Act. Monitoring has been deficient,as committees have not been set up for this purpose.The CAG pointed out that district collectors did notprepare human resources budgets to assessemployment needs. This resulted in unrealistic plans,which in turn resulted in annual expenditure being just19 per cent of the funds that these plans demanded.57

National Rural Employment GuaranteeScheme (NREGS)Description: To enhance livelihood security in ruralareas by providing at least 100 days of guaranteedwage employment in a financial year to everyhousehold whose adult members volunteer to dounskilled manual work. NREGS provides a rights-based framework for wage employment (employmentdepends on workers exercising their choice to applyfor registration, obtain a Job Card, and seekemployment for the time and duration that they wish).The 100 days of guaranteed employment in a financialyear is per household and can be shared within thehousehold. To register, households must be localresidents, be willing to do unskilled manual work, andapply as a household at the local Gram Panchayat.

As per Schedule I of the Act, the National RuralEmployment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) shall focuson the following:i. water conservation and water harvesting;ii. drought proofing, including afforestation and tree

plantation;iii. irrigation canals, including micro and minor

irrigation works;iv. providing irrigation facility, plantation, horticulture,

land development to land owned by householdsbelonging to scheduled castes or tribes, by thebeneficiaries of land reforms, or by beneficiariesunder the Indira Awas Yojana (IAY; Indira ShelterScheme)/BPL families;

v. renovation of traditional water bodies, includingde-silting of tanks;

vi. land development;vii. flood-control and protection works, including

drainage in waterlogged areas;viii. rural connectivity to provide all-weather access;ix. any other work proposed by the Central

Government in consultation with the StateGovernment.

The programme also entitles beneficiaries tounemployment allowance if a job is not provided withina 15-day period; medical treatment in case of injuryunder the programme; childcare in cases where atleast 20 women are employed on a worksite; andfacilities for the employment of persons with physicalor mental disabilities in activities that are compatiblewith their abilities. At least one third of beneficiariesmust be women. Drinking water, emergency healthcare, crèches, and a minder (preferably female) willbe at work sites. Transparency, public accountabilityand social audit are ensured through institutionalmechanisms at central level. Participatory planningexists at all levels.

The Act covered 200 districts in the first phaseimplemented on February 2, 2006, and was extendedto 330 additional districts in 2007-2008.

Implementing agency: Government of India (Ministryof Rural Development) and state/local governments

Targeting: Categorical for all rural population: alladults residing in any rural area who are willing to dothe work

Geographic coverage: National; from April 1 2008,the Act covers all districts.

Transfers: Wages are paid in cash, in kind or both.The minimum wage across the country has increasedover the past three years, and the average daily wagerate of agricultural labourers under NREGS has risen

57 Report posted at http://www.cseindia.org/programme/nrml/update_may-june08.htm#CAG For further reference, see M. Dev,India’s Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Scheme: Lessons from Long Experience. Posted at www.ifpri.org/pubs/books/vonBraun95ch05.pdf; Datt, G. and M. Ravallion [1994] “Transfer Benefits from Public-Works Employment: Evidence for RuralIndia”, Economic Journal 104:1346-1369; Imai, K and R. Gaiha (2002)’Rural Public Works and Poverty Alleviation - The Case ofthe Employment Guarantee Scheme in Maharashtra’, International Review of Applied Economics, Vol. 16, No. 2, April 2002,pp.131-151. A version of this paper is posted at: http://www.socialsciences.man.ac.uk/economics/staffpages/imai/RuralPublicWork-Gaiha-Imai.pdf; Imai, K (2002) ‘Employment Guarantee Scheme as a Social Safety Net-Poverty Dynamics andPoverty Alleviation’ 2002, Department of Economics Working Paper, Ref. 149, March 2003, Department of Economics,University of Oxford. Posted at: http://www.econ.ox.ac.uk/Research/WP/PaperDetails.asp?PaperID=481


from Rs 65 in 2006 to Rs 83 in 2008. ThroughDecember 2008, more than 58 million savingsaccounts have been opened in banks and post officesacross the country due to this scheme.

Cost and coverage: The 2007 budget for NREGAwas Rs 126 billion, of which the Central Government’sshare is Rs 113 billion; the states bear 10 per cent ofthe total cost. According to Prime Minister Singh, thescheme benefited 35 million rural households in the2007-2008 financial year and generated 1.38 billionperson-days of work up to December 2008. “It hasplayed a role of a catalyst in promoting inclusive growthcoverage with over 50% coverage to the women andthe weaker sections of the society”.58

Evaluations:59 The Comptroller and Auditor Generalconducted a review in 2007, and NGOs have alsoconducted reviews, especially the National Consortiumof Civil society organisations.60

The local press reports numerous examples aroundthe country of how the programme has enabledchildren to go to school, improved nutrition within thefamily, increased wages, reduced indebtedness andeven migration. The wages create assets that yielddirect benefits to the villages.61 In a 2006 evaluation,the Ministry of Local Development highlighted anumber of challenges, including the need for greaterinformation especially about entitlements; the needto put more emphasis on community mobilisation andcommunication; the need to match households’employment demands with community works; and theneed to improve transparency and accountability.NREGS has raised expectations, but still needs tofully deliver on its massive potential.62 Other criticalissues include:• Piece-work rates are low in many places. As a

result, even if one works for 8 hours, workers mayget less than prescribed.

• Workers do not attend public works although JobCards are given to many. For example, Job Cards

are given to 4 million in A.P., but only 400,000seek employment.

• Panchayats (local councils) need capacity-building.63

Swarna Jayanti Shahari Rojgar Yojana (SJSRY)(Golden Jubilee Rural Employment Scheme; 1997-present)

Description: An umbrella programme targeting theurban underemployed or unemployed,64 defined asthose under the poverty line, with two maincomponents: the Urban Self Employment Programme(USEP), and the Urban Wage EmploymentProgramme (UWEP). The scheme is implemented ona whole-town basis with special emphasis on clustersof urban poor. Special attention is given to women,persons belonging to scheduled castes/tribes, anddisabled persons and other such categories indicatedby the Government from time to time. There is nominimum educational qualification for beneficiaries,but this scheme is not applied to beneficiarieseducated beyond the IXth Standard.

Implementing agency: Ministry of UrbanEmployment and Poverty Alleviation

Targeting: Those living below the urban poverty line,as defined periodically. A house-to-house survey isconducted to identify genuine beneficiaries. Non-economic parameters will also be applied to the urbanpoor in addition to the economic criteria of the urbanpoverty line. Women beneficiaries belonging to female-headed households, such as widows, divorcees, orsingle women of households where women are thesole earners, are given higher priority.

Geographic coverage: All urban towns in India

Cost and coverage: The SJSRY is funded by UnionGovernment and the states on a 75:25 basis. Thetotal allocation in 2006-2007 was Rs 2.36 billion, and

58 Government Press Release: http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=4689759 Barrientos and Holmes, op. cit.60 For full review see R. Datt, “Dismal experience of Nrega: Lessons for the Future”, 14 April 2008 //

www.mainstreamweekly.net/article641.html61 http://southasia.oneworld.net/fromthegrassroots/women-augmenting-family-income-creating-community-assets62 SCRIBD, www.scribd.com/doc/2176739)/Two-Years-of-NREGA)63 M. Dev, “Individual Shocks and Social Protection in South Asia, Special Reference to India”, presentation posted at

info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/233761/Mahendra%20Individual%20Shocks.pdf64 According to the 2001 Census, approximately 28% of the total population in India lives in urban areas.


the annual target is to assist 2 million urban poor insetting up micro-enterprises for self employment andtraining.

Evaluations: A comprehensive evaluation was carriedout in 2005-2006 through the Human Settlement &Management Institute (HSMI). The major findings are:i. good impacts on facilitating employment have

been observed in all states;ii. participants make decent earnings under the

scheme;iii. indirect benefit on empowerment of women;iv. some states have not reached their target due to,

inter alia, inadequate skill training and non viabilityof projects;

v. awareness of the scheme is still lacking in somestates;

vi. budget allocations are too low.65

Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana (SGRY) (AllRural Employment Scheme; 2002-2008 andsubsequently absorbed by NREGS)66

Description: To provide additional wage employmentin all rural areas and thereby provide food securityand improve nutritional levels. The secondary objectiveis to create durable communities, socio-economicassets, and infrastructure in rural areas. The wagesunder the programme are paid partly in food grainsand partly in cash.

Implementing agencies: Ministry of RuralDevelopment; local governments

Targeting: The programme is self-targeting and meantto benefit the rural poor who need wage employmentand desire to do manual and unskilled work in andaround their villages.

Geographic coverage: Rural areas

Cost and coverage: Resources allocated in 2007-2008 amount to Rs 291.4 million, with 264 districtscovered.

Evaluations: n.a.

IV. Food TransfersTargeted Public Distribution System (TPDS)Description: Under TPDS, above the poverty line (APL)families are provided food grains at nearly the fulleconomic cost and below poverty line (BPL) families atabout half this rate. TPDS is entirely funded by the UnionGovernment, and its main objective is to improve thePDS consumption of the poor by offering them cerealsat highly subsidised prices while simultaneously guidingthe non-poor away from the PDS.

Targeting means tested: BPL families whose totalannual household income is below Rs 25,985, basedon an average household size of 5.3. Family IdentityCards (ration cards) have been issued to all heads ofBPL families with details of members in the familylisted in the card, entitling them to 20 kg of food grains(rice + wheat) per month (240 kg annually).

Evaluations: The scheme has a near 100 per centtargeting of poor. A 2005 evaluation study confirmsthis. On the other hand, the official offtake of foodgrains for BPL families under TPDS is 22.8 millionmt. On average, therefore, each family receives about95 kg annually as against an entitlement of 240 kg –only about 40 per cent of the quota.67

V. Child Benefits and Services

A number of state-level and local schemes providegrants directed to children.

Grant of Financial Assistance to the Poor ParentsHaving One Girl Child Who is Studying 8th to 10th:Puducherry68, Tamil Nadu

65 Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation, Mhupa.gov.in/ministry/housing/11thplanChapter-XI.pdf66 This programme has been recently evaluated by Icfai University. The evaluation is published in EconPapers, 2006, vol II, issue

3, pages 52-68.67 Social Protection Index for Committed Poverty Reduction Volume 9. India Country Report – Final November 2007. Halcrow

China, p. 2868 Source: Government of Puducherry, http://wcd.puducherry.gov.in/EighttoTenth_Eng.htm


Description: The benefit aims to create awarenessamong parents about the desirability of girl children,to raise the status of girl children in the family and toshare the financial burden of the parents at the timeof marriage of the girl child.

Implementing agency: Women and ChildDevelopment, Government of Puducherry


Geographic coverage: Puducherry

Cost and coverage: Rs 25,000 is deposited in aNational Savings Certificate in the name of the girlchild; the maturity amount is released when she attainsage 18. The parents’ annual income shall not exceedRs 24,000, and they should be Indian nationalsresiding in Puducherry for not less than five years.

Evaluations: n.a.

Grant of Retention Scholarship to S.C. GirlStudents: Puducherry69

Description: Retention scholarship to encouragescheduled caste girl students to continue theirstudies.

Implementing agency: Adidravidar WelfareDepartment, Government of Puducherry


Geographic coverage: Puducherry

Cost and coverage: Rs 1,000 per year to girlsstudying from I to V standard; annual income of parentsshall not exceed Rs 24,000.

Evaluations: n.a.

Ladali Lakshmi Yojna: Madhya Pradesh70

Description: To improve health and educationalfacilities for girls and stop female foeticide.

Implementing agency: Women and ChildDevelopment, Government of Madhya Pradesh

Targeting: Categorical. Girls born after 1 January2006.

Geographic coverage: Madhya Pradesh

Cost and coverage: Girls registered under the schemewill receive Rs 118,000 at the time of marriage.

Evaluations: n.a.

Girl Child Protection Scheme: Tamil Nadu71

Description: Grants to girls in families without malechildren and with one sterilised parent. Interest helpsdefray educational expenses, and the girl receives theprincipal at age 20.

Implementing agency: Social Welfare and NutritiousMeal Programme Department, Government of TamilNadu


Geographic coverage: Tamil Nadu

Cost and coverage: For families with one girl child,Rs 22,200 is deposited; for those with two girls, Rs15,200 is deposited for each..

Evaluations: n.a.

69 Source: http: Government of Puducherry, //adwelfare.puducherry.gov.in/schemesnext7.htm70 Source: National Portal of India, http://india.gov.in/citizen/health/viewscheme.php?schemeid=124171 Government of Tamil Nadu, Source: http://www.tn.gov.in/policynotes/archives/policy2002-03/swnmp2002-03-2a.htm


Typ

e o

fP

rog

ram

me

Pro

gra

mm

e T

itle

and

Des

crip

tio

n

Elig

ibili

ty a

nd

Oth

erB

enef

icia

ry-r

elat

edIs

sues

Targ

etin

g/D

eliv

ery

mec

han

ism

Val

ue

of

the

Ben

efit

&D

eliv

ery

Geo

gra

ph

yC

ove

rag

e

Key

Imp

lem

enti

ng

Age

ncy

Co

sts

and

Bu

dg

et I

ssu

esL

egal

Fra

mew

ork

for

SP

SO

CIA

LIN

SU

RA

NC

E

NA

TIO

NA

LS

OC

IAL

AS

SIS

TAN

CE

PRO

GR

AMM

E

Em

plo

yees

'P

ensi

on

Sch

eme;

Em

plo

yees

' Sta

teIn

sura

nce

Sch

eme

Nat

ion

al O

ld-A

ge

Pen

sio

n S

chem

e(N

OA

PS

). P

rovi

des

cash

pay

men

ts t

ode

stitu

te e

lder

ly.

Nat

ion

al M

ater

nit

yB

enef

it S

chem

e.Lu

mp

sum

cas

has

sist

ance

to

preg

nant

wom

en in

hous

ehol

ds li

ving

belo

w t

he p

over

tylin

e su

bjec

t to

cond

ition

s.

Nat

ion

al F

amily

Ben

efit

Sch

eme.

Unc

ondi

tiona

l cas

htr

an

sfe

r.

Con

trib

utor

y be

nefit

s

Peo

ple

65 y

ears

of

age

or o

lder

Pre

gnan

t wom

en fo

rup

to

the

first

tw

o liv

ebi

rths

, 19

yea

rs o

fag

e an

d ab

ove;

hous

ehol

ds b

elow

the

pove

rty

line.

Hou

seho

lds

belo

w th

epo

vert

y lin

e ar

epr

ovid

ed b

enef

its o

nth

e de

ath

of t

hepr

imar

y br

eadw

inne

r.

Cat

egor

ical

and

mea

ns-t

este

d(in

form

al i

ndiv

idua

las

sess

men

t).

Cat

egor

ical

and

mea

ns-t

este

d

Cat

egor

ical

Rs

450

The

ben

efit

islim

ited

to R

s500

(US

$ 12

). D

istri

cto

ffic

ial

resp

onsi

ble

for

proc

essi

ngap

plic

atio

ns a

ndar

rang

ing

disb

ursa

l of

bene

fits

in 2

inst

allm

ents

12-8

wee

ks p

rior

to t

he d

eliv

ery.

Lum

p su

m o

f R

s10

,000

(US

$ 20

3)

Nat

ionw

ide

Nat

ionw

ide

Nat

ionw

ide

25%

of

Indi

a’s

elde

rly r

ecei

veso

cial

assi

stan

cefr

om t

he s

tate

-le

vel p

ensi

onsc

hem

es o

rth

e N

atio

nal

Old

-Age

Pen

sion

Sch

eme.

1,15

2,55

8be

nefic

iarie

s in

2000

In 2

006-

07 a

tota

l of

9,2

91m

illio

n in

30

dist

rict

s

Min

istr

y of

Labo

ur a

ndE

mpl

oym

ent;

join

tlyad

min

iste

red

byth

e C

entr

alG

over

nmen

t an

dth

e va

rious

sta

tego

vern

men

ts

Min

istr

y of

Labo

ur a

ndE

mpl

oym

ent;

join

tlyad

min

iste

red

byth

e C

entr

alG

over

nmen

t an

dth

e va

rious

sta

tego

vern

men

ts

Min

istr

y of

Labo

ur a

ndE

mpl

oym

ent;

join

tlyad

min

iste

red

byth

e C

entr

alG

over

nmen

t an

dth

e va

rious

sta

tego

vern

men

ts

1952

(em

ploy

ees'

prov

iden

t fu

nds)

,w

ith a

men

dmen

ts;

1972

(pa

ymen

t of

grat

uity

); 1

976

(em

ploy

ees'

depo

sit-

linke

din

sura

nce)

; 199

5(e

mpl

oyee

s'pe

nsio

n sc

hem

e);

and

1995

(nat

iona

lso

cial

ass

ista

nce

prog

ram

me)

.

Indi

anC

onst

itutio

n:A

rtic

les

38-4

1

Tabl

e 8:

IND

IASo

cial

pro

tect

ion

prog

ram

mes

54 SOCIAL PROTECTION IN SOUTH ASIA: A REVIEWTy

pe

of

Pro

gra

mm

eP

rog

ram

me

Tit

lean

d D

escr

ipti

on

Elig

ibili

ty a

nd

Oth

erB

enef

icia

ry-r

elat

edIs

sues

Targ

etin

g/D

eliv

ery

mec

han

ism

Val

ue

of

the

Ben

efit

&D

eliv

ery

Geo

gra

ph

yC

ove

rag

e

Key

Imp

lem

enti

ng

Age

ncy

Co

sts

and

Bu

dg

et I

ssu

esL

egal

Fra

mew

ork

for

SP

CA

SH

FO

RW

OR

KJa

wah

ar R

ojg

arYo

jan

a (J

RY

).P

rovi

des

a m

inim

umw

age

for

unsk

illed

labo

ur a

nd a

mea

nsof

liv

elih

ood

tope

ople

at

criti

cal

leve

ls o

fsu

bsis

tenc

e.

Em

plo

ymen

tG

uar

ante

e S

chem

e,M

ahar

ash

tra

Sta

te.R

ural

pub

licw

orks

for

pov

erty

alle

viai

ton.

Nat

ion

al R

ura

lE

mp

loym

ent

Gu

aran

tee

Sch

eme

(NR

EG

S).

Ent

itles

ever

y in

divi

dual

/ho

useh

old

in ru

ral

area

s to

at

leas

t 10

0da

ys p

er y

ear

ofla

bour

at t

hem

inim

um w

age

for

unsk

illed

wor

k in

the

publ

ic s

ecto

r.

Sw

arn

a Ja

yan

tiS

hah

ari

Ro

jgar

Yoja

na

(SJS

RY

).E

mpl

oym

ent

prog

ram

me

for

urba

n po

vert

yal

levi

atio

n. T

wo

mai

nco

mpo

nent

s i)

the

Urb

an S

elf

Em

ploy

men

tP

rogr

amm

e (U

SE

P)

and

the

ii) U

rban

Wag

e E

mpl

oym

ent

Pro

gram

me

(UW

EP

).

Rur

al p

oor

Rur

al p

oor

Rur

al p

oor

Urb

an p

oor

Geo

grap

hic,

dem

ogra

phic

and

self-

targ

etin

g.P

refe

renc

e g

iven

to u

nder

priv

ilege

dgr

oups

(sch

edul

edca

stes

/tri

bes,

free

d bo

nded

labo

urer

s), a

nd30

% o

f th

eem

ploy

men

top

port

uniti

es a

reea

rmar

ked

for

wom

en.

Sel

f-ta

rget

ing.

Pla

cem

ent

ofsc

hem

es b

y th

eS

tate

fol

low

ed b

yse

lf-se

lect

ion.

Cat

egor

ical

and

geog

raph

ic.

Eve

ryad

ult w

ho r

esid

esin

any

rur

al a

rea

and

is w

illin

g to

do

the

wor

k.

Cat

egor

ical

and

mea

ns-t

este

d. A

hous

e-to

-hou

sesu

rvey

ide

ntifi

esge

nuin

ebe

nefic

iarie

s. N

on-

econ

omic

para

met

ers

are

appl

ied

in a

dditi

onto

the

urba

npo

vert

y lin

e.W

omen

bene

ficia

ries

inw

omen

-hea

ded

hous

ehol

ds a

regi

ven

prio

rity.

Min

imum

wag

ean

d fo

od

Min

imum

wag

epr

escr

ibed

for

agric

ultu

ral l

abou

rfo

r th

eco

ncer

ned

zone

.

Wag

es p

aid

inca

sh,

kind

or

both

. D

aily

wag

era

te o

fag

ricul

tura

lla

bour

ers

has

risen

fro

m R

s 65

in 2

006

to R

s 83

in 2

008

at th

ena

tiona

l le

vel.

The

Sch

eme

isse

tting

a r

ecor

dfo

r th

e la

rges

tnu

mbe

r of

ban

kac

coun

ts o

pene

dth

roug

h a

deve

lopm

ent

prog

ram

me.

Rur

al a

reas

Mah

aras

htra

Sta

te

Nat

ionw

ide

All

urba

n to

wns

in In

dia

In 1

993-

94, t

hefir

st c

ompo

nent

crea

ted

952

mill

ion

pers

on-

da

ys o

fem

ploy

men

t;th

e se

cond

7.3

5m

illio

n pe

rson

days

. M

ore

rece

nt d

ata

are

not

avai

labl

e.

n.a.

35 m

illio

n ru

ral

hous

ehol

ds in

curr

ent

finan

cial

year

; 1.

38bi

llion

per

son-

days

of

wor

kge

nera

ged

up to

Dec

embe

r20

08; 5

0%co

vera

ge t

ow

omen

and

the

wea

ker

sect

ions

of

soci

ety

.

In t

he la

st t

hree

year

s, t

he t

otal

num

ber

of s

elf-

empl

oym

ent

loan

s gi

ven

unde

r S

JSR

Yha

s be

en ju

st95

2, w

hich

isle

ss t

han

one

per

cent

of

the

belo

w-p

over

tylin

e fa

mili

es.

Cen

tral

and

Sta

teG

over

nmen

t;D

istr

ict

Rur

alD

evel

opm

ent

Age

ncy

Cen

tral

and

Sta

teG

over

nmen

t;F

ood

Cor

pora

tion

of I

ndia

(F

CI)

Gov

ernm

ent

ofIn

dia

(Min

istr

y of

Rur

alD

evel

opm

ent)

and

stat

e/lo

cal

gove

rnm

ents

Min

istr

y of

Urb

anE

mpl

oym

ent

and

Po

vert

yA

llevi

atio

n

Rs

108.

18bi

llion

allo

cate

dbu

t on

ly R

s46

.77

billi

onsp

ent i

n 20

06-

2007

.

The

200

7bu

dget

was

Rs

125.

55 b

illio

n,w

ith C

entr

alG

over

nmen

tpa

ying

90

%an

d th

e st

ates

10%

.

The

SJS

RY

isfu

nded

on

a75

:25

basi

sbe

twee

n ce

ntra

lan

d st

ate

gove

rnm

ents

.To

tal a

lloca

tion

in 2

006-

2007

Rs

2.36

bill

ion.

NR

EG

A (

stat

utor

ygu

aran

tee;

righ

t-ba

sed

sche

me)


Typ

e o

fP

rog

ram

me

Pro

gra

mm

e T

itle

and

Des

crip

tio

n

Elig

ibili

ty a

nd

Oth

erB

enef

icia

ry-r

elat

edIs

sues

Targ

etin

g/D

eliv

ery

mec

han

ism

Val

ue

of

the

Ben

efit

&D

eliv

ery

Geo

gra

ph

yC

ove

rag

e

Key

Imp

lem

enti

ng

Age

ncy

Co

sts

and

Bu

dg

et I

ssu

esL

egal

Fra

mew

ork

for

SP

Sam

po

orn

aG

ram

een

Ro

zgar

Yoja

na

(SG

RY

).W

age

empl

oym

ent

and

food

. P

art

cash

,pa

rt i

n-ki

nd t

rans

fer.

Targ

eted

Pu

blic

Dis

trib

uti

on

Sys

tem

. To

pro

vide

cere

al g

rain

s to

the

poor

at s

ubsi

dise

dpr

ices

.

Gra

nt

of

Fin

anci

alA

ssis

tan

ce to

the

Po

or

Par

ents

Hav

ing

On

e G

irl

Ch

ild W

ho

Is

Stu

dyi

ng

8th

to

10th

. F

unds

depo

site

d in

nam

eof

girl

stu

dent

s.

Gra

nt

of

Ret

enti

on

Sch

ola

rsh

ip t

oS

.C.

Gir

l S

tud

ents

:P

ud

uch

erry

.S

chol

arsh

ip to

enco

urag

e gi

rls to

cont

inue

thei

rst

udie

s.

Lad

ali

Lak

shm

iYo

jan

a: M

adh

yaP

rad

esh

. G

rant

to

impr

ove

heal

th a

nded

ucat

ion

for

girls

and

stop

fem

ale

foet

icid

e.

Gir

l C

hild

Pro

tect

ion

Sch

eme:

Tam

ilN

adu.

Gra

nts

to g

irlch

ildre

n of

ste

rilis

edpa

rent

s.

FO

OD

TR

AN

SF

ER

S

CH

ILD

BE

NE

FIT

S

Sel

f-ta

rget

ing

Cat

egor

ical

Cat

egor

ical

Cat

egor

ical

:sc

hedu

led

cast

egi

rls

Cat

egor

ical

: G

irls

born

afte

r 1

Janu

ary

2006

Cat

egor

ical

: G

irls

with

out b

roth

ers

and

with

at l

east

1st

erili

sed

pare

nt.

Wag

es p

aid

inca

sh,

in k

ind

orbo

th

240

kg o

f fo

odgr

ains

ann

ually

per

fam

ily

Rs

25,0

00 is

depo

site

d in

aN

atio

nal

Sav

ings

Cer

tific

ate

in t

hegi

rl's

nam

e. T

hem

atur

ity a

mou

ntis

rele

ased

whe

nsh

e be

com

es 1

8.

Rs

1000

per

yea

rfo

r gi

rls f

rom

I t

oV

sta

ndar

d

Rs

118,

000

per

girl

at t

ime

ofm

arria

ge

Rs

22,0

00de

posi

ted

for

sing

le g

irlch

ildre

n; R

s15

,200

eac

h fo

rtw

o.

The

poo

r, w

ithpr

efer

ence

giv

en t

oag

ricul

tura

l wag

eea

rner

s; n

on-

agric

ultu

ral u

nski

lled

wag

e ea

rner

s;m

argi

nal

farm

ers;

wom

en;

mem

bers

of

sche

dule

d ca

tses

;pa

rent

s of

dis

able

dch

ildre

n or

chi

ldre

nw

ithdr

awn

from

haza

rdou

s la

bour

.

Fam

ilies

bel

ow th

epo

vert

y lin

e

Par

ents

' ann

ual

inco

me

cann

ot e

xcee

dR

s 24

,000

Ann

ual i

ncom

e of

pare

nts

cann

otex

ceed

Rs

24,0

00

Girl

chi

ldre

n

Girl

chi

ldre

n

Rur

al a

reas

Nat

ionw

ide

Pud

uche

rry

Mad

hya

Pra

desh

Tam

il N

adu

264

dist

ricts

in

2007

-200

8M

inis

try

of R

ural

Dev

elop

men

t;lo

cal

gove

rnm

ents

Wom

en a

ndC

hild

Dev

elop

men

t

Adi

drav

idar

Wel

fare

Dep

artm

ent

Wom

en a

ndC

hild

Dev

elop

men

t

Soc

ial

Wel

fare

and

Nut

ritio

usM

eal P

rogr

amm

eD

epar

tmen

t

Rs

291.

4 m

illio

nin

200

7-20

08


General background

Social protection arrangements in the Maldives includesocial insurance covering public sector employees andsome safety net programmes.

Social insurance has two components – the CivilService Pension (CSP) scheme and the GovernmentProvident Fund (GPF). While there is a constitutionalmandate to provide pensions to all employed persons,there is no constitutional definition of the type ofpension or the term ‘employed’. Reform efforts areongoing. In early 2009, the Government introduced auniversal social pension. This programme will befinanced from general budget revenues and will cost1.5-2.0 per cent of GDP.72 The pension allowance willbe available to all those above age 65. Eligible peoplemust register for the pension, a process begun at allinhabited islands of the country in mid-January 2009.The task is being managed by the recently createdNational Social Protection Agency. The Governmenthas also promised to expand healthcare insurance.

The main social assistance programme, the AbsolutePoverty Scheme initiated in 2003, is a cash transfer

programme for the poor. The Government also providesvouchers to defray textbook costs, one school uniform,shoes, and socks for low income families. In addition,the Government provides two types of medicalassistance for Maldivians abroad and at home, as wellas assistance to disabled people (hearing aids/glasses) and critical drugs for people with learningdisabilities.

These programmes are administered by differentagencies, some without formal qualifying criteria or aregular schedule of benefits. While social protectionexpenditures have been increasing, they remain lowcompared to other countries with similar per-capitaincomes. Coverage is also low.

Tsunami-related cash transfers introduced in 2005 havenow been completed. In the months following theDecember 2004 tsunami, a programme of cashtransfers was developed to support the affectedpopulation. The security forces, relying on inter-ministerial teams, were responsible for implementation.All families whose homes were damaged by the


72 World Bank, www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2006/05/01/000160016_20060501163658/Original/348180MV0Socia1white0cover01PUBLIC1.doc

MALDIVES

Total Population:299,000 (source: UNICEF ROSA, 2006)

Estimated Social Protection Expenditures as a % of GDP:1.5% (ADB) - 2.0% (UNICEF ROSA) *


tsunami were eligible. Multi-sectoral teams from Male’together with island committees identified thebeneficiaries, registered them, and disbursed theassistance as a one-time cash transfer. The level ofbenefit was Rf 1500 per family member to those whocompletely lost their houses; Rf 1000 per person tothose whose houses were damaged and neededrepairs; and Rf 500 per family member to those whosehouses were flooded and who therefore lost householditems and belongings. The programme covered 63,000beneficiaries and disbursed approximately Rf 50million. A follow-up income support programme for thepoorest among the affected (i.e., the elderly and peoplewith disabilities) has also been proposed.


I. Social InsuranceIn early 2009 the Maldives Parliament ratified a PensionBill establishing a contributory scheme withcontributions from employers and employees aged 16-65 to cover every working citizen, which means it willopen the pension system to the informal economy aswell. The government also introduced a social pensionof Rf 2,000 (US$156)73 per month for people over age65 not covered by the contributory pension scheme.These efforts will complement the pension scheme inplace for government officials. The Maldives PensionAdministration Office was also created under this Bill.74

Civil Service Pension (CSP)Description: The scheme is a non-contributory, pay-as-you-go, defined-benefit arrangement. Pensions arefinanced directly from the Government budget.Pensions are paid out for every 20 years ofuninterrupted Government service, and there is norequirement to retire. Therefore employees cancontinue to work for another 20 years and earn asecond pension, and in a few cases even a third. Thepension accrues at a rate of 2.5 per cent of the last

wage in the 20-year period per year, and pensionersin Maldives can receive benefits along with their currentearnings. The pensions are not indexed, however, sotheir value in real terms declines over time dependingon inflation rates.75

Coverage: Approximately 26,000 Governmentemployees

The Government Provident Fund (GPF)Description: A defined contribution arrangement withmatching employee and Government contributions of5 per cent of the employee’s basic wage each month.Participation is voluntary and withdrawals are allowedfor the education of children, house construction andrepair, and health care. The scheme does not play amajor role in providing retirement income.76

Evaluations: A World Bank/Government of Maldivesassessment found two major deficiencies. First, thecurrent parameters of the civil service pension schemedo not result in secure and adequate stream of pensionincome after a certain age. As a result, and given thatthe scheme does not stipulate a retirement age, civilservants choose never to retire. The second deficiencyis the absence of any safety net for the elderly in acountry where only civil servants participate in apension scheme.77

Maldives Pension and Social ProtectionAdministration ProjectDescription: Rf 2000 monthly pension

Implementing agency: Ministry of Health and Family

Targeting: Categorical. Citizens over 65.


Evaluations: n.a.

73 US$ 1.00 = 12.80 Rufiyaa74 See World Bank.

Press Release No: 2009/344/SAR. http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/PROJECTS/0. also seeSouth Asian media net.http://www.southasianmedia.net/cnn.cfm?id=579279&category=Social%20Sectors&Country=MALDIVES;MIADHU News. http://www.miadhu.com.mv/news.php?id=10012; andMinivan News http://www.minivannews.com/news_detail.php?id=6519

75 World Bank, Maldives, Social Protection in the Maldives: Options for reforming pensions and safety nets. April 25, 2006Human Development Unit South Asia Region, p. 15

76 Ibid.77 Ibid.


II. Social AssistanceAssistance for health care in Maldives orabroadThe Government provides two types of assistance—medical treatment of catastrophic illness (payment offees/travel costs). It also provides assistance to thedisabled (hearing aids/glasses) and critical drugs forpeople with learning disabilities.

Coverage: For the three types of scheme, the totalnumber of beneficiaries was 3,583 in 2004.

Cost: Over Rf 12 million

Absolute Poverty Scheme (initiated 2003)Description: Cash transfer programme for the poor

Implementing agency: The Social Security sectionof the Ministry of Higher Education, Employment andSocial Security (MHEESS). The Rf 500 monthlybenefit is disbursed through the atoll offices.

Targeting: Proxy means testing. Based on individualsmeeting at least one of the following criteria: not ableto eat more than one meal a day, not in possession ofmore than two sets of clothing, or currently homeless.

Coverage: In 2004, the programme had 1,026beneficiaries.

Cost: Rf 6 million, less than 0.1 per cent GDP

Evaluations: n.a.

Vouchers to defray textbook costs, one uniform,shoes, and socks for low income families

Description: The voucher programme allows poorfamilies to buy textbooks and other essentials for theirchildren.

Implementing agency: The programme isadministered by the Ministry of Education but theselection of eligible children is made by the islandand atoll offices. Island offices also handle thedistribution of the vouchers.

Targeting: At the discretion of the island authorities,conditions are applied (e.g., the absence of a father’ssupport is one reason for granting textbook vouchers).

Evaluations: n.a.


Typ

e o

fP

rog

ram

me

Pro

gra

mm

e T

itle

and

Des

crip

tio

n

Elig

ibili

ty a

nd

Oth

erB

enef

icia

ry-r

elat

edIs

sues

Targ

etin

g/D

eliv

ery

mec

han

ism

Val

ue

of

the

Ben

efit

&D

eliv

ery

Geo

gra

ph

yC

ove

rag

e

Key

Imp

lem

enti

ng

Age

ncy

Co

sts

and

Bu

dg

et I

ssu

esL

egal

Fra

mew

ork

for

SP

SO

CIA

LIN

SU

RA

NC

E

SO

CIA

LP

EN

SIO

N

SO

CIA

LA

SS

ISTA

NC

E

Civ

il S

ervi

ceP

ensi

on

(C

SP

)

Go

vern

men

tP

rovi

den

t F

un

d(G

PF

)

Mal

div

es P

ensi

on

and

So

cial

Pro

tect

ion

Ad

min

istr

atio

nP

roje

ct.

Un

iver

sal

pen

sio

n.

Ass

ista

nce

for

hea

lth

car

e in

Mal

div

es o

rab

road

. M

edic

altr

eatm

ent

of

cata

stro

ph

icil

lnes

s.

Vo

uch

ers

to d

efra

yte

xtb

oo

k co

sts,

on

e u

nif

orm

,sh

oes

, an

d s

ock

sfo

r lo

w i

nco

me

fam

ilies

.

Ab

solu

te P

ove

rty

Sch

eme

Chi

ldre

n in

low

inco

me

fam

ilies

The

ultr

a-po

or

Cat

egor

ical

. A

llci

tizen

s ov

er a

ge65

.

At

the

disc

retio

n of

the

isla

ndau

thor

ities

cond

ition

s ar

eap

plie

d (e

.g.,

the

abse

nce

of a

fath

er’s

sup

port

is

one

reas

on f

orgr

antin

g te

xtbo

okvo

uche

rs).

Con

ditio

nal.

Bas

edon

indi

vidu

als

mee

ting

at le

ast

one

of t

he f

ollo

win

gcr

iteria

: no

t ab

le t

oea

t mor

e th

an o

nce

a da

y, n

otpo

sses

sing

mor

eth

an t

wo

sets

of

clot

hing

, or

curr

ently

hom

eles

s.

Rf

2000

per

mon

th

Rf

500/

mon

th,

disb

urse

dth

roug

h th

e at

oll

off

ice

s.

Nat

ionw

ide

App

roxi

mat

ely

26,0

00go

vern

men

tem

ploy

ees

3,58

3be

nefic

iarie

s in

2004

1026

bene

ficia

ries

(200

4)

Min

istr

y of

Hea

lth a

ndF

am

ily

Adm

inis

tere

d by

the

Min

istr

y of

Edu

catio

n bu

tel

igib

le c

hild

ren

are

sele

cted

by

the

isla

nd a

ndat

oll

offic

es.

Isla

nd o

ffic

esal

so h

andl

edi

strib

utio

n of

the

vouc

hers

.

Soc

ial

Sec

urity

sect

ion

of t

heM

inis

try

ofH

ighe

rE

duca

tion,

Em

ploy

men

t an

dS

ocia

l S

ecur

ity(M

HE

ES

S)

Ove

r R

f 12

mill

ion

Rf

6 m

illio

n,le

ss t

han

0.1%

GD

P

Con

stitu

tion

ofth

e M

aldi

ves

Tabl

e 9:

MA

LDIV

ESSo

cial

pro

tect

ion

prog

ram

mes


General background

The current formal social protection system consistsof social and health insurance, social assistanceprogrammes (including the old-age pension, adisability pension, widow-allowances and a maternityscheme), microcredit schemes, and labour marketprogrammes. Social insurance is limited to a providentfund, in place since 1962, that covers civil servants,the army, the police and teachers. Less than 10 percent of the labour force has formal old-age protection.78

Informal sector workers benefit mainly from income-generating programmes such as public works fundedby the Food for Work Scheme and block grants. Animportant component of the social protection systemis the old-age allowance, a universal non-contributorysocial pension in place since 1995 that was expandedin 2008.

Recent trends

Nepal’s political transition provides an opportunity tostrengthen social protection by introducing newprogrammes while improving existing ones byexpanding coverage and improving service delivery.The 2008-2009 budget places a “reasonable priority”on extending the benefits of economic growth to “thesuppressed classes, ethnicities, region, and gender,also guaranteeing social security to the seniorcitizens, differently able, widows, Dalits andendangered ethnicities”.79

In particular, the new provisions are:80

I. monthly Rs 50081 for all age groups of “endangeredethnicities”;


78 ILO Technical Note, “Affordable and not an Illusion. Costing of basic social protection benefits for Nepal 2007-2034”. SocialSecurity Department. International Labour Organisation. June 2007

79 Government of Nepal, Ministry of Finance. Budget speech 2008-2009. ‘Endangered ethnicities’ is the Government’s term forethnic or linguistic groups so small in numbers that their language may disappear or who pursue very precarious sources oflivelihoods, from forest or other resources.

80 ibid., par. 4781 US$ 1.00 = 77.80 Rupees

NEPAL

Total Population:27,641,000 (source: UNICEF ROSA. 2006)

Estimated Social Protection Expenditures as a % of GDP:1.0% (UNICEF ROSA) - 2.3% (ADB)*


II. monthly Rs 500 for Dalits, single women, andpeople above age 60 living in the Karnali zone;

III. monthly Rs 500 for all other citizens above 70years (see old-age pension);

IV. increased monthly allowance for the blind ordisabled: Rs 1000 for fully disabled and Rs 300for partially disabled;

V. subsistence allowances to families of thosemartyred or handicapped as a result of the conflict(Rs 1.5 billion in compensation to conflict-affectedpeople in the 2008-2009 budget).

With donors’ support, the Government provides asubsistence allowance of Rs 6,800 per month to theex-combatants of the People’s Liberation Army.82

In addition, the Ministry of Health and Population hasextended the free healthcare services currentlyavailable in health posts and sub health posts to 180primary healthcare centres. Free health services willbe further extended to include district hospitals frommid-January 2009.83

The Government’s formal-sector social security plancame into effect in mid-December 2008. The Ministryof Local Development has issued circulars to localbodies regarding creating a beneficiaries’ databaseand issuing identity cards. The budget has alreadybeen released.


Social protection in Nepal has traditionally been limitedin scope and coverage, and mainly donor driven.According to the ADB Social Protection Index,coverage rates for the seven key social protectiontarget groups (the unemployed, the underemployed,the elderly, the sick, the poor, the disabled, andchildren with special needs) vary markedly – from overone third the eligible elderly population to under 10per cent for the disabled, heath insurance and thepoor.84 By the same index, 2.3 million people areestimated to be beneficiaries of some form of social

assistance (less than a quarter of the total poorpopulation). Another feature of the current system isthat programmes are administered by a large numberof Government agencies, and the finance andgovernance structure remains highly fragmented.

A recent World Bank evaluation pointed out the “lackof rigorous analysis to determine coverage, targeting,labor to capital ratios, payment systems, share ofdistricts covered, matching with seasons, quality ofassets created, wage rates, design, finance andmanagement”.85 Donors and government are workingtogether to address some of these issues.


I. Social InsuranceSocial security only applies to permanent workers inthe formal sector. There is no comprehensive socialsecurity system under the Nepali labour law. Employeesare entitled to receive the following benefits as part ofsocial security under the Labour Act and Rules.

Provident fund: Provident fund is a contributory old-age benefit under the labour law. The employer deducts10 per cent of basic salary of the employee, adds 10per cent to it, and deposits the amount in anycommercial bank or the Karmachari Sanchaya Kosh,the autonomous provident fund authority in Nepal.

Gratuity: Gratuity is also part of an old-age benefit.Employees serving for three years or more and retiringfrom the service are entitled to get gratuities at differentrates depending on the years of service.

Employees are also entitled to treatment expenses;salary during treatment; disability compensation;compensation in case of death; insurance andcompensation; termination on health grounds; housingfund; welfare fund; pension (limited to Governmentemployees in civil services, police and armed forces,including some public corporations); retrenchment;sick leaves; maternity leaves.

82 Himalayan Times, 1 June 2009, “Bank Route for PLA Payment”83 Kantipur on Line, www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=16670184 ADB, Social Protection Index for Committed Poverty Reduction, 2008, p. 21685 “Social Protection in Nepal: Present Characteristics and Future Prospects”. L. Joshua, Social Protection Specialist SAS HD

World Bank. Power Point Presentation, Kathmandu, December 4th 2008


II. Social AssistanceOld-Age AllowanceDescription: Pension for people aged 70 years andolder (lowered from age 75 by the Maoist Government).The 2008-2009 budget has raised the amount to Rs500 rupees/month from 250.

Implementing agency: Ministry of LocalDevelopment

Targeting: Categorical by age. Benefits are distributedquarterly at the Village Development Committee (VDC)offices upon presentation of certificate of entitlement.Coordination and financial management take place atthe district level.


Coverage: “According to a study based on a surveyundertaken among recipients of the social pension(Rajan, 2003), 83 percent of the eligible elderly werereceiving the benefit. At the time of the survey in 2002,the old-age allowance was rupees 150. The amountof the benefit was considered as sufficient to meettheir daily needs by only 40 percent of the beneficiariessurveyed, whereas approximately 26 percentconsidered that the benefit should be doubled andabout 16 percent that it should be tripled.”86

Cost: The entire social security budget for 2008-2009is Rs 4.4 billion.

Evaluations: HelpAge International is currentlypreparing a comprehensive evaluation of the scheme.

Survivor Allowance (widow cash grant)Description: Cash transfer for female Nepali citizensabove 60 years of age and who satisfy a means test.Conditions include: no income source, no caretakingfamily member, no pension income from husbands.


Geography: Nationwide

Targeting: Categorical and means tested. Distributionmechanism same as the old-age pension.

Disability Cash GrantDescription: Cash transfer conditional on Nepalicitizenship; disability as per the Ministry of LocalDevelopment list: age above 16 years with blindnessin both eyes or without / dysfunctional two hands orlegs. The 2008/09 budget raised the benefit from Rs250/month to 1000/month for fully handicapped, anddisabled; and 300/month for partially handicapped anddisabled.

Implementing Agency: Ministry of LocalDevelopment


Targeting/delivery mechanism: same as above

Evaluations: n.a.

III. Block GrantsDistrict Development Committee (DDC) BlockGrantDescription: A block grant to local bodies to supportlocal governance and community development. Themain objective is to develop infrastructure and improveservice delivery based on the beneficiaries’preferences. The allocation is based on the followingformula: population (20%), area of the district (10%),human development index (50%), cost index (20%),along with analysis of internal revenue received fromthe respective districts. Minimum conditions andperformance measures have been introduced.

Implementing agency: The Ministry of LocalDevelopment (MLD) and donor/implementing partners

Targeting and delivery mechanism: Nationwide.DDCs and VDCs provide 10 per cent matching grants.Communities are expected to contribute anunspecified amount to the project in cash or kind.Block grants are transferred to DDCs in three tranchesupon confirmation of matching funds allocation, firstto the DDC account and then to the user committeebank account; six per cent of the block grant is usedto employ full-time technical staff (rather than tocontract consultants for specific schemes); theprojects should cover a large number of VDCs andshould not exceed 40 per cent of district budget.

86 ILO Technical Note (2007), p. 9


Projects are identified through local planningprocesses based on social mobilisation of NGOs, etc.The block grants to DDCs are linked to an annualreview of their compliance with Minimum Conditionsand Performance Measures (MC/PM), derived fromthe Local Self-governance Act (LSGA), local self-governance regulations, and local financial andadministrative regulations.

Geographic coverage: 20 DDCs until the end of2007; now proposed for replication in all 75 districtsand municipalities

Cost and coverage: A total of US$ 391.5 million forDDC, VDC, and top-up capital grants over 4 years.By end of 2007, almost 1,700 micro-projects hadbenefitted over 2.7 million people.

Evaluations: “Final Joint Assessment Report”, LocalGovernance and Community DevelopmentProgramme, May 2008.

Village Development Committee (VDC) BlockGrantDescription: A block grant to local bodies to supportlocal governance and community development. DDCsand VDCs provide 10 per cent matching grants, andcommunities are expected to contribute an unspecifiedamount to the project in cash or kind.

Implementing agency: MLD and developmentpartners

Targeting: Untargeted

Delivery mechanism: Being formulated

Geographic coverage: Selected VDCs

Value of benefit: As of 2008-2009, the annual blockgrant to each of Nepal’s 3,915 VDCs to provide localgovernance and basic services has increased to Rs1.5 million each (more than $80 million) per year, or atotal of about US$ 80M.

Cost and coverage: The Government’s share totalsUS$ 391.5 million for DDCs, VDCs and top-up capitalgrants, under the Local Governance and CommunityDevelopment Programme, over a period of four years.

Evaluations: n.a.

Top-up Grant to VDCsDescription: The scheme is aimed at enabling localgovernment to deliver more public goods and servicesand respond more effectively to citizens’ needs andpriorities. Top-up grants are also expected to act as afiscal incentive for empowerment of local communitiesand citizens. The allocations are formula based (basedon population and poverty targeting) and mapping ofthe disadvantaged group. These grants will be linkedto the Government block grant system.

Implementing agency: Ministry of LocalDevelopment (MLD)

Targeting and delivery: 7 per cent of the total top-up has been set aside to cover investment costs andtechnical assistance. VDCs and municipalities canspend up to 5 per cent of their expanded block grantson investment servicing and technical assistancecosts. The blended grants (block + top up) will containa minimum eligible allocation for each local body (20-30 per cent of the total blended development blockgrants), and the remainder (the largest share) will beallocated in accordance with the MC/PM system.

Geographic coverage: Top-up grants will be piloted inabout 900 VDCs in 2008-2009 and in 2000 VDCs thefollowing year. Detailed piloting of systems for VDC blockgrants will take place in 50 VDCs. Top-up grants willalso be piloted in 10 smaller municipalities in 2009-2010.

Cost and coverage: The Government has allocateda total of US$ 391.5 million for DDC, VDC and top-upcapital grants over a period of four years.

Evaluations: n.a.

IV. Cash for WorkOne Family, One EmploymentDescription: Unemployed persons (or those withannual income insufficient to feed the family for morethan three months) in the most remote parts of thecountry will be offered jobs yielding between Rs 180and 350 per day. With the 2008/2009 budget, 270,000people will get employment for 100 days through a“labour-oriented Development Programme” based onpeople’s participation, local infrastructure developmentprogrammes, and the Karnali Employment Programme.



Targeting and delivery: Self-targeting. Funds aredisbursed among the 30 VDCs in the Karnali zone.Applicants should form a team with at least fiveunemployed people of separate families and submit aproject proposal. This could be anything from small-scale infrastructure development, self-employment, totrade.

Geographic coverage: 30 VDCs in the Karnali region

Cost and coverage: The amount allocated in 2007was Rs 41.64 million. Around 55,000 households inthe Karnali region have been covered.

Evaluations: n.a.

V. Health-related TransfersMaternity SchemeDescription: Promotes safe motherhood by enablingwomen to reach a facility for delivery or by ensuringthat home deliveries are attended by a health worker.The scheme includes the following components:i. all women who deliver at a Government health

facility receive a cash incentive as transport-costsupport (Rs 500 in the Terai, Rs 1000 in the Hills,Rs 1500 in the Mountains);

ii. free delivery service in 25 low-Human DevelopmentIndex (HDI) districts;

iii. health institutions that provide free deliveryservices in 25 low HDI districts receive cashincentive (Rs 1000, used for improving quality ofservices);

iv. health workers also receive cash incentives (Rs300 per delivery) for conducting delivery at facilityor home.

Implementing agency: Ministry of Health withsupport from DFID and NGOs

Targeting and delivery: Categorical. The Departmentof Health Services (Ministry of Health) allocates fundsto the districts. The District Public Health Officeprovides parts of the funds to health institutions fordistribution. The health management committeedistributes the incentives.

Geographic coverage: Women and birth attendants;additional free delivery care for the lowest 25 HDI districts.

Evaluations: Data from 2006-2007 indicate thatinstitutional deliveries increased from 13.5 to 15.3 percent and attended home births from 10 to 14.4 percent. Lessons learnt include:87

i. Reliable and timely flow of funds is essential tobuild confidence.

ii. More information on the scheme is needed,especially in remote areas.

iii. Strong local leadership and management arecritical for successful implementation.

VI. Education-related TransfersStipends for Dalits and Girl StudentsDescription: Incentives in the education area haveexisted for decades in Nepal, but with theGovernment’s Education for All (EFA 2004-2009)programme emphasis has been put on new andimproved scholarship and incentive programmes forgirls and children from disadvantaged groups. All majoractors involved in the development of education inNepal – the Government, international developmentagencies, UN agencies and the donor community –have combined scholarship and incentive schemeswith several other reform interventions. There areseveral type of stipends in primary and secondaryschools for girls and Dalit students.

Implementing agency: Ministry of Education andSport (MOES)

Targeting Categorical: Most of the Governmentscholarships are in the form of monetary support toindividual students. The number of differentscholarships allocated to individual schools isdetermined by the Department of Education (DOE)as per the information provided by schools. At thedistrict level a committee called the District SchoolManagement Committee (DSMC) is formed to lookafter the entire process of school selection and thedistribution of scholarships. Provisionally, publicnotices about scholarships are broadcast on local FMradios and posted in newspapers. At the local level,the School Management Committee (SMC) isresponsible for the selection, distribution and overallmonitoring of different scholarships. In addition MOEShas a separate incentive package for schools. Suchincentives are provided on the basis of a school’sperformance in terms of girls’ enrolment, Dalit and

87 “The Maternity Incentive Scheme in Nepal: Increasing Demand & Equity”. Presentation by the Ministry of Health, 2007. Availableat www.womendeliver.org/presentation/slides/103_Marasini.ppt


other disadvantaged children’s enrolment, SchoolLeaving Certificate results, girls’ retention, etc.


Evaluation: No significant improvement is reportedas measured in terms of the gross enrolment rate(GER), NER and other educational indicators. Whilescholarships and incentives have at least 40 years ofhistory in Nepal, very little is known about how theseschemes function and the extent to which they have

88 UNESCO Kathmandu series of working papers, n.9. S. Acharya, B.C. Luitel, “The Functioning and Effectiveness ofScholarship and Incentive Schemes in Nepal”, p.25

been effective in meeting the expectations of thebeneficiaries. “Looking at the effectiveness of Dalitscholarships, various problems such as inadequateincentive quota, untimely delivery of scholarships,and delayed information about students were reportedin a study conducted by CERID (1999) for MOES.Furthermore, reports of unavailability of records ofthe Dalit population, even in the Dalit Committee,indicate a messy situation which by no meansrepresents the envisioned system of functioning atthe local level”.88


Typ

e o

fP

rog

ram

me

Pro

gra

mm

e T

itle

and

Des

crip

tio

n

Elig

ibili

ty a

nd

Oth

erB

enef

icia

ry-r

elat

edIs

sues

Targ

etin

g/D

eliv

ery

mec

han

ism

Val

ue

of

the

Ben

efit

&D

eliv

ery

Geo

gra

ph

yC

ove

rag

e

Key

Imp

lem

enti

ng

Age

ncy

Co

sts

and

Bu

dg

et I

ssu

esL

egal

Fra

mew

ork

for

SP

SO

CIA

LIN

SU

RA

NC

E

SO

CIA

LA

SS

ISTA

NC

E

BLO

CK

GR

AN

TS

Pro

vid

ent

Fu

nd

.G

ratu

ity.

Old

-age

be

ne

fits.

Old

-ag

e A

llow

ance

.C

ash

allo

wan

ce f

orth

e el

derly

.

Su

rviv

or

allo

w-

ance

. C

ash

tran

sfer

for

fem

ale

Nep

alis

abov

e 60

yea

rs w

hosa

tisfy

a m

eans

-te

st.

Dis

abili

ty C

ash

Gra

nt.

Cas

htr

ansf

er t

o di

sabl

edan

d ha

ndic

appe

d .

Dis

tric

t D

evel

op

-m

ent C

om

mit

tee

Blo

ck G

ran

t.G

rant

s to

sup

port

loca

l gov

erna

nce

and

com

mun

ityde

velo

pmen

t.

For

mal

em

ploy

men

t

Ben

efic

iary

age

is

70

Ben

efic

iary

age

low

ered

to 6

0 in

200

8-20

09 b

udge

t.

Str

ict

disa

bilit

y an

dag

e cr

iteria

For

mul

a-ba

sed

allo

catio

ns: p

opul

atio

n(2

0%),

dis

tric

t (1

0%),

hum

an d

evel

opm

ent

inde

x (5

0%),

cos

tin

dex

(20%

) alo

ng w

ithan

alys

is o

f in

tern

al

Cat

egor

ical

Cat

egor

ical

. A

llci

tizen

s ov

er a

ge65

.

Nep

ali c

itize

ns w

ithdi

sabi

lity

as p

er t

heM

LD l

ist

ofdi

sabi

litie

s

Rs

500/

mon

th in

2008

-200

9bu

dget

. D

istr

ict-

leve

l coo

rdin

a-tio

n. B

enef

its a

redi

strib

uted

quar

terly

at

VD

Cof

fices

upo

npr

esen

tatio

n of

cert

ifica

te o

fen

title

men

t.

Rs

500/

mon

th;

dist

rict

-lev

elco

ordi

natio

n;be

nefit

sdi

strib

uted

quar

terly

at

VD

Cof

fices

upo

npr

esen

tatio

n of

cert

ifica

te o

fen

title

men

t.

Rs

1,00

0 fo

rfu

lly h

andi

capp

edan

d di

sabl

ed; R

s30

0/m

onth

for

part

ially

hand

icap

ped

and

disa

bled

. D

istr

ict-

leve

l coo

rdin

a-tio

n. B

enef

itsdi

strib

uted

quar

terly

at

VD

Cof

fices

upo

npr

esen

tatio

n of

cert

ifica

te o

fen

title

men

t.

DD

C a

nd V

DC

spr

ovid

e 10

%m

atch

ing

gran

ts;

com

mun

ities

cont

ribut

e in

cas

hor

kin

d (m

ater

i-al

s, la

bour

).

Nat

ionw

ide

Nat

ionw

ide

Nat

ionw

ide

Nat

ionw

ide

20 D

DC

s un

tilth

e en

d of

200

7;pr

opos

ed f

orre

plic

atio

n in

all

75 d

istr

icts

, an

dm

unic

ipal

ities

.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Min

istr

y of

Loc

alD

evel

opm

ent

Min

istr

y of

Loc

alD

evel

opm

ent

Min

istr

y of

Loc

alD

evel

opm

ent

Min

istr

y of

Loc

alD

evel

opm

ent

All

soci

alse

curit

y i

s R

s4.

4 bi

llion

in20

08/0

9 bu

dget

.

All

soci

alse

curit

y i

s R

s4.

4 bi

llion

in20

08/0

9 bu

dget

.

All

soci

alse

curit

y i

s R

s4.

4 bi

llion

in20

08/0

9 bu

dget

.

US

$ 39

1.5

mill

ion

for

DD

C,

VD

C a

ndto

p-up

cap

ital

gran

ts,

over

4ye

ars

Labo

ur la

w

Tabl

e 10

:NEP

ALSo

cial

pro

tect

ion

prog

ram

mes


Typ

e o

fP

rog

ram

me

Elig

ibili

ty a

nd

Oth

erB

enef

icia

ry-r

elat

edIs

sues

Targ

etin

g/D

eliv

ery

mec

han

ism

Val

ue

of

the

Ben

efit

&D

eliv

ery

Geo

gra

ph

yC

ove

rag

e

Key

Imp

lem

enti

ng

Age

ncy

Co

sts

and

Bu

dg

et I

ssu

esL

egal

Fra

mew

ork

for

SP

CA

SH

FO

RW

OR

K

HE

ALT

H-

RE

LAT

ED

TR

AN

S-

FE

RS

ED

UC

A-

TIO

N-

RE

LAT

ED

TR

AN

S-

FE

RS

Pro

gra

mm

e T

itle

and

Des

crip

tio

n

VD

C B

lock

Gra

nt.

Blo

ck g

rant

to

supp

ort l

ocal

gove

rnan

ce &

com

mu

nic

tyde

velo

pmen

t.

Top

-up

Gra

nt

toV

DC

s. A

lloca

tions

linke

d to

the

Blo

ckG

rant

sys

tem

.

On

e F

amily

, O

ne

Em

plo

ymen

t.In

fras

truc

ture

deve

lopm

ent

prog

ram

me.

Mat

ern

ity

Sch

eme.

Hel

ps w

omen

rea

chhe

alth

car

e fa

cilit

ies

for

birt

h.

Sti

pen

ds

for

Dal

its

and

Gir

l S

tud

ents

.S

tipen

ds

reve

nue

rece

ived

from

the

di

stric

ts.

Min

imum

Con

ditio

nsan

d P

erfo

rman

ceM

easu

res

(MC

/PM

)al

so a

pply

.

For

mul

a-ba

sed

allo

catio

ns

For

mul

a-ba

sed

allo

catio

ns

Une

mpl

oyed

peop

le in

rem

ote

area

s

Poo

r wom

en

Cat

egor

ica

Gra

nt t

rans

ferr

edto

DD

C D

DF

in

3tr

anch

es (u

pon

conf

irmat

ion

of10

% m

atch

ing

fund

s al

loca

tion)

,th

en t

o us

erco

mm

ittee

ban

kac

coun

t.

As

of 2

008-

2009

,th

e an

nual

blo

ckgr

ant

to e

ach

ofN

epal

's 3

,915

VD

Cs

has

incr

ease

d to

at

leas

t R

s 1.

5m

illio

n (m

ore

than

$80

mill

ion

tota

l pe

r ye

ar).

Jobs

pay

Rs

180

- R

s 35

0 pe

r da

y

Rs

500-

Rs

1500

tran

spor

tatio

nal

low

ance

; fr

eede

liver

y se

rvic

esin

low

-HD

Idi

stric

ts;

Rs

300

cash

inc

entiv

e to

heal

th c

are

wor

kers

Sel

ecte

d V

DC

s

Sel

ecte

d V

DC

s

Kar

nali

regi

on

Nat

ionw

ide

Nat

ionw

ide

n.a.

n.a.

55,0

00ho

useh

olds

inK

arna

li re

gion

to d

ate

Min

istr

y of

Loc

alD

evel

opm

ent

Min

istr

y of

Loc

alD

evel

opm

ent

Min

istr

y of

Loc

alD

evel

opm

ent

Min

istr

y of

Hea

lth

Min

istr

y of

Edu

catio

n an

dS

port

a to

tal

of39

1,52

5,00

0U

SD

for

bot

hD

DC

, V

DC

and

top-

up c

apita

lgr

ants

, und

erLG

CD

P, o

ver

ape

riod

of 4

yea

rs

a to

tal

of39

1,52

5,00

0U

SD

for

bot

hD

DC

, V

DC

and

top-

up c

apita

lgr

ants

, und

erLG

CD

P, o

ver

ape

riod

of 4

yea

rs

Rs

41.6

4m

illio

n al

loca

ted

in 2

007.


General background89

Social protection in Pakistan is grounded inconstitutional norms (Constitution of Pakistan, article38)90 and forms part of the country’s poverty reductionstrategy. Social insurance was introduced in 1976,with the Employees’ Old-Age Benefits Act. The mostcomprehensive social insurance scheme is thepension for government employees. There are twoformal contributory schemes nationwide – theEmployees Social Security Institution (ESSI), and theEmployees Old-age Benefits Institution – foremployees of industries and establishments.91

Pakistan’s social assistance comprises three mainfederal cash transfer programmes (Zakat, Bait-ul-Mal,and the Benazir Income Support Program introducedin 2008), and small programmes that provide socialwelfare and care services to seven target groups (theunemployed, the under-employed, the elderly, the sick,the poor, the disabled, and children with special needs).

A People Works Programme Phase-II (PWP-II)formelyknown as Khushal Pakistan Programme is in place,available to create employment in electrification


89 Draft Social Protection Strategy for Pakistan. Presentation by P. Tahir, Chief Economist, Planning Commission, Government ofPakistan at the Workshop on Social Protection in South Asia. 17-19 May 2006 Colombo, Sri Lanka.

90 “The State shall – (a) secure the well-being of the people, irrespective of sex, caste, creed or race, by raising their standardof living, by preventing the concentration of wealth and means of production and distribution in the hands of a few to thedetriment of general interest and by ensuring equitable adjustment of rights between employers and employees, and landlordsand tenants; (b) provide for all citizens, within the available resources of the country, facilities for work and adequatelivelihood with reasonable rest and leisure; (c) provide for all persons employed in the service of Pakistan or otherwise,social security by compulsory social insurance or other means; (d) provide basic necessities of life, such as food, clothing,housing , education and medical relief, for all such citizens, irrespective of sex caste, creed or race, as are permanently ortemporarily unable to earn their livelihood on account of infirmity, sickness or unemployment; (e) reduce disparity in the incomeand earnings of individuals, including persons in the various classes of the service of Pakistan; and (f) eliminate riba [usury]as early as possible.”

91 All employees of the federal government, provincial governments, armed forces, civilian employees of armed forces, andsemi-autonomous organisations, most statutory bodies and Water and Power Development Authority are entitled to pensionand other benefits on completion of 25 years of service or on reaching the age of 60 years.

PAKISTAN

Total Population:160,943,000 (source: UNICEF ROSA, 2006)

Estimated Social Protection Expenditures as a % of GDP:1.4% (WB) - 2.0% (ADB)*


schemes, road schemes, gas schemes and otherdevelopment schemes project.92

Recent trends

In July 2007 the Government approved the NationalSocial Protection Strategy (NSPS). The NSPS’s long-term goal is social protection for all within an integratedand comprehensive social protection system includingsocial insurance and social assistance. In the short-term, the focus is on providing social protection to thepoorest households by improving targeting andadministration, expanding educational and healthservices for the poor, and providing school meals andfree textbooks. The NSPS commits the Governmentto increasing spending on social protection and toincreasing the number of poor who receive regular cashtransfers from just over 2 million to over 6 million inthe first five years of implementation.93 A year afteradopting the strategy, the Government is auditingseveral programmes, and people are anxious to seeconcrete improvements.94

At the 2008 general election, the issue of increasingsocial development and social protection spendingfigured prominently in the parties’ manifestos. Thiscommitment has already translated into newprogrammes and increased spending (the Governmenthas pledged to increase expenditures from Rs 10 billionto 60 billion).95

The Government recently has launched the BenazirIncome Support Program (BISP), which involves cashpayments to persons below the poverty line. The initialscope is limited due to severe fiscal resourcelimitations, but is to be expanded to increase thenumber of beneficiaries. The Government hasearmarked Rs 34 billion (US$ 625 million) for BISP in2009. This programme will run in parallel with otherpoverty reduction programmes, including Zakat andBait-ul-Mal.96


Pakistan’s social protection expenditures aretraditionally low.97 Resources are scarce and poorlytargeted, resulting in inadequate coverage. The ADBindex reports that coverage rates for the six key targetgroups are low,98 with none exceeding 10 per cent.For example, Zakat and Bait-ul-Mal cover less than35 per cent of households living below the poverty line(7 million). Pension schemes benefit only a smallportion of the population in the formal sector and coverless than 3 per cent of the total employed labour force.There are few informal, traditional, community-basedinsurance arrangements (for example micro-insurance). Social protection schemes often show agender and rural-urban bias. Overall, around 2.5 millionpeople are covered by some form of social protection(1.6 per cent of the population).

A recent World Bank report recommends that theeffectiveness of these schemes could be significantlyimproved.99 Many programmes are seen to overlap andto lack coordination. On the implementation side, theorganisations frequently manage multiple activities thatare not part of their core competencies (runningschools, hospitals, training centres, etc.) and thereseems to be a lack of synergy between agencies andprogrammes. Targeting flaws and leakages of fundshave been reported. In terms of geographic coverage,some areas are consistently covered while others donot benefit from any programme. Monitoring, evaluationand data management are weak overall.


I. Social InsuranceThe main social insurance schemes are run underthe Worker Welfare Fund (WWF), Worker ProfitParticipation Fund (WPPF), Employee Social SecurityInstitutions (ESSI), Education Cess Fund, and theEmployee Old Age Benefits (EOAB). Together, they

92 National Assembly Secretariat, Government of Pakistan, 8th session, http://www.na.gov.pk/questions/session8/thursday131108_8S.pdf

93 Social Protection Strategy for Pakistan; Government of Pakistan: National Planning Commission; May 200694 “Social Protection Plans Fail to Reduce poverty” The Nation, 18 November 2008 www.thenews.com.pk/

editorial_detail.asp?id=12605795 US$ 1.00 = 79.8 Rupees96 “Social Protection Promise”, The Nation, www.natino.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspape-daily-english-online/Opinions/Colums/

29-Sep-2008/Social-protection-promise97 World Bank Human Development Unit, South Asia Region, “Social Protection in Pakistan”, October 18, 2007, p. 3098 Asian Development Bank (2008). Social Protection Index for Committed Poverty Reduction, 200899 World Bank Human Development unit, op. cit.


account for less than 25 per cent of total expenditureson social protection. The ESSI provides health servicesand some cash benefits to registered employees. TheEOAB is a compulsory pension scheme for employeesof establishments employing 10 or more persons. Thiscost the Government Rs 1.7 billion in 2006, or 0.03per cent of GDP, and covered approximately 850,000people.

II. Social AssistanceZakat disbursementDescription: Zakat or “charity to the poor” is one ofthe pillars of Islam. The programme is entirely basedon private, voluntary contributions but is administeredby the Government. Zakat seeks to provide incomeand other support to the ‘deserving needy’ amongMuslims. Support takes various forms, the mostimportant of which are the subsistence (guzara)allowance and the rehabilitation grants for establishingsmall businesses. The scheme was introduced in 1980and financed by taxes deducted once a year at therate of 2.5 per cent at source from specified financialassets. The tax is levied on Muslims and the fundsare intended for Muslims, which are over 90 per centof the population in Pakistan thus making the schemea nearly universal one. However, more recently ShiaMuslims have been made exempt from the tax,reducing the inclusiveness of the scheme.100

Implementing agency: The Ministry of ReligiousAffairs seeks guidance by the Zakat Council, headedby a Supreme Court judge.

Targeting: The almost 40,000 local Zakat committeesselect recipients of zakat from among the eligiblepopulation. The person’s income must be below theofficial poverty line.


Value of the benefit: The guzara allowance is arecurrent monthly transfer of Rs 500 per household,while the rehabilitation grants are one-time paymentsof Rs 10,000 to 30,000 per household. The programmealso provides health and education benefits.

Cost and coverage: According to the World Bank,in 2005, Rs 5.9 billion or 0.17 per cent of GDP; 11.3per cent of total social protection budget. Benefitsapproximately 1.7 million people.

Evaluations: Lack of information and clarity oneligibility criteria may explain some of the exclusionaryoutcomes. Using data from the Pakistan Socio-economic Survey (PSES) for 2000-2001, a 2006 studyconcluded that public Zakat currently covers far fewerhouseholds than the number actually eligible and thatmost microfinance programmes fail to target thepoorest households, while health services have notreached the most disadvantaged areas of thecountry.101 The scheme’s targeting efficiency variesconsiderably between urban (64 per cent of the poorestquintile) and rural areas (37 per cent).102 “Zakat transfersare neither regular nor predictable, nor are the eligibilitycriteria transparent. The programme is also fragmentedalong religious and sectarian lines”.103

The World Bank reports corruption and patronage inthe Zakat distribution system. People perceiveeligibility decisions as taken randomly. Zakat’stargeting has some pro-poor elements but coverageis limited relative to needs. The lack of objectivetargeting tools might be a problem. Zakat’s benefitshave limited impact on poverty and income distribution.Impact on rehabilitation through the grant seemspositive albeit limited, whereas school enrolment doesnot seem to be improved by the programme.104

Pakistan Bait-ul-Mal (PBM)Description: The programme is a tax-financed safetynet combining food subsidies and cash transfers toassist destitute widows, orphans, disabled, needy andpoor persons. Funds for Bait-ul-Maal come in the formof non-lapsable grants from the federal Government.PBM’s main programmes directly assisting individualsare the Food Support Programme (FSP), IndividualFinancial Assistance, Prevention of Child Labour, andTawana Pakistana (girls’ school feeding programme).Benefits include residential accommodation, freemedical treatment, stipends for education, and cashto sponsor self-employment schemes.

100 N. Kabeer, Mainstreaming Gender in Social Protection for the Informal Economy, 2008, p. 269101 Arif, G. M. (2006) Targeting Efficiency of Poverty Reduction Programs in Pakistan, Pakistan Resident Mission Working Paper

No. 4, May. Islamabad: Asian Development Bank102 Kabeer op cit., p. 270103 Ibid., p. 273104 World Bank Human Development Unit, South Asia Region, “Social Protection in Pakistan”, October 18, 2007, pp. 38-41


Targeting and delivery: Categorical and proxymeans testing. Three local people (including a localZakat Committee member) must support theapplication, which is then processed both at the districtand provincial levels. However, the Prime Minister andother high-level functionaries can approve individualfinancial assistance in open kutcheries (publicgatherings) or elsewhere.


Value of benefit: Depending on the type of support(e.g., in 2003, households would receive Rs 2000 peryear under the food support programme; at the samepoint in time, support for small business would beapproximately Rs 40,000)

Implementing agency: Ministry of Social Welfareand Special Education (MOSWSE)

Cost and coverage: Rs 2.5 billion; 0.05 per cent ofGDP; 4.9 per cent of the total federal social protectionbudget. Since its inception, the FSP (core programme)has provided cash transfers to 1.25 - 1.46 millionhouseholds. Food assistance is provided toapproximately 30,000 households per year.

Evaluations: PBM’s performance is similar to Zakat’s.As reported by the World Bank, fiscal allocations forBait-ul-Mal have increased. The two programmestogether cover two million households (eight per centof the population) with cash transfers; in contrast,some eight million households are vulnerable to chronicpoverty. PBM’s benefit levels are small and paymentsirregular; governance and eligibility criteria are nottransparent; and conditions reduce targetingeffectiveness. Both programmes are seen to have littleimpact on poverty of the recipient households.105

Child Support ProgrammeDescription: The scheme pays quarterly benefits tochronically poor households with children aged 5-12who have been selected for participation in the Bait-ul-Mal Food Support Programme. Payments areconditional on the children enrolling in and attending

school regularly. The scheme aims at short-termpoverty alleviation and raising primary schoolattendance. At present the programme is piloted inthree districts, and will be scaled up nationally in aphased manner, once approved.106

Implementing agency: Bait-ul-Mal in the Ministryof Social Welfare and Special Education

Targeting Categorical and proxy means tested:Cash transfer to chronically and extremely poorhouseholds with children aged 5-12, conditional onchildren attending school and passing examinations.The transfer is paid quarterly together with the FoodSupport Programme transfer.

Geographic coverage: 125,000 households in fivedistricts of every province in the country

Value of benefit: Rs 300 (US$ 3.50) per month forone child; Rs 600 (US$ 6) if two or more children

Cost and Coverage: US$7 million for fiscal year 2006-2007; 10 per cent of Food Support Programmebeneficiaries

Tawana PakistanaDescription: Mid-day meals for girls in rural primaryschools. The scheme is not only a food supplement,but part of a wider community-based intervention targetingsome underlying determinants of malnutrition such ashousehold food security for women and children, foodchoices, etc. The strategy addresses malnutrition andmicro-nutrient deficiencies in girl children, andimprovement in school enrolment and cognitive learning.The project uses a participatory approach to buildpartnership between Government departments and localcommunities through elected district representatives.107

Implementing agency: Ministry of WomenDevelopment, Pakistan Bait-ul-Mal. The Aga KhanUniversity partnered the Government for the design,management, monitoring and evaluation of the project,and 11 NGOs facilitated implementation in 4,035 ruralGovernment girls’ schools.

105 World Bank Human Development Unit, South Asia Region, “Social Protection in Pakistan”, October 18, 2007, p. 38-41106 Interview with PBM; Pakistan Bait ul Mal, Child Support Programme, A Conditional Cash Transfer in Pakistan. Powerpoint

presentation [Islamabad May 2009]107 South Asia Partnership Project: http://www.sappk.org/tawana.htm


Targeting Categorical: Targeted coverage of 650,000girls aged 5 to 12, with equal proportions of enrolledand out-of-school girls. It extends to approximately250 primary schools for girls in each district (6,500schools in all) with participation of about 100 girls ineach school location.

Geographic coverage: 26 of the most malnourisheddistricts of Pakistan

Cost and coverage (data from 2002-2003): Rs 700million; 530,000 beneficiaries108

Evaluations: Tawana Pakistana’s strategy is to createsafe environments empowering village women to takecollective decisions. Women learned to plan balancedmenus, purchase food, prepare and serve a noon mealat school from locally available foods at nominal costs(US$ 0.12/child). Between 2002 and 2005, trainingwas provided to 663 field workers, 4,383 communityorganisers, 4,336 school teachers and around 95,000rural women. Height and weight were recorded atbaseline and every six months thereafter. Wasting,underweight and stunting decreased by 45, 22, and 6per cent, respectively. Enrolment increased by 40 percent. Women’s’ ability to plan balanced mealsimproved and by end of the project over 76 per cent ofall meals provided the basic three food groups. Thereare some bureaucratic issues, which especially atthe district level proved to be the most challengingbottlenecks. Success can be attributed to synergiesgained by dealing with nutrition, education andempowerment issues simultaneously.109

Benazir Income Support Program (BISP)Description: The Benazir Income Support Programme(BISP)110 was launched in 2008 as a family grant of Rs1000 per month, primarily to address food price increases,disbursed to the woman in the family. Beneficiaries were

originally identified through parliamentarians’ officeswhich were to identify the poorest in the constituencies.This approach was changed in 2009 to systematic proxymeans testing based on a scorecard. The scorecard isbeing piloted in 16 districts.111 The benefit delivered inbimonthly installments via the post offices. In mid-2009,1.8 million people were receiving a benefit. The programmeaims to cover 15 per cent of the population, and 40 percent of the population below the poverty line.

Targeting: Below-the-poverty-line families; internallydisplaced persons

Geographic coverage: Nationwide Cost andcoverage: Eligibility criteria include that the woman ofthe household have a Citizens Card and that monthlyfamily income is below Rs 6000. For registered IDPs,the Government will disburse a one-off emergencypayment plus monthly transfers.112 The initial budgetallocation for 2008-09 was Rs 34 billion or US$ 425million, roughly 0.3 per cent of GDP. The allocationfor 2009-2010 is $625 million, of which $200 million isa World Bank IDA loan for capacity building.

Evaluations: n.a.

III. Cash for WorkPeople’s Works Programme Phase II (formerlyKhushal Pakistan Programme)113

Description: Cash for work

Targeting: Parliamentarians’ development schemesas approved by the Prime Minister: electrification, roadbuilding, etc.

Cost and coverage: Rs 22 billion has been allocatedfor 2008-2009114

Evaluations: n.a.

108 Source: World Bank (2006)109 Badruddin SH, Agha A, Peermohamed H, Rafique G, Khan KS, Pappas G. The Aga Khan University, Department of Community

Health Sciences, Stadium Road, Karachi, Pakistan. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18296378110 See Benazir Income Support Program. http://www.bisp.gov.pk/benazir/; Briefing for UNICEF at BISP Office, Islamabad, 27 May

2009.111 The districts were selected based on poverty level, security issues and to cover the provinces and regions of the country.

Briefing for UNICEF at BISP Office, Islamabad, 27 May 2009112 Dawn Newspaper. Islamabad, 30 May 2009113 National Assembly Secretariat, Government of Pakistan, 8th session, http://www.na.gov.pk/questions/session8/

thursday131108_8S.pdf114 “Social Protection Promise”, The Nation, www.natino.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspape-daily-english-online/Opinions/Colums/

29-Sep-2008/Social-protection-promise


Typ

e o

fP

rog

ram

me

Pro

gra

mm

e T

itle

and

Des

crip

tio

n

Elig

ibili

ty a

nd

Oth

erB

enef

icia

ry-r

elat

edIs

sues

Targ

etin

g/D

eliv

ery

mec

han

ism

Val

ue

of

the

Ben

efit

&D

eliv

ery

Geo

gra

ph

yC

ove

rag

e

Key

Imp

lem

enti

ng

Age

ncy

Co

sts

and

Bu

dg

et I

ssu

esL

egal

Fra

mew

ork

for

SP

SO

CIA

LIN

SU

RA

NC

E

SO

CIA

LA

SS

ISTA

NC

E

Wo

rker

Wel

fare

Fu

nd

, W

ork

erP

rofi

t P

arti

cip

atio

nF

un

d,

Em

plo

yee

So

cial

Sec

uri

tyIn

stit

itio

ns,

Ed

uca

tio

n C

ess

Fu

nd

, E

mp

loye

eO

ld A

ge

Ben

efit

s.

Zak

atd

isb

urs

emen

t.E

ntire

ly b

ased

on

priv

ate,

vol

unta

ryco

ntrib

utio

ns b

utad

min

iste

red

by t

heG

over

nmen

t.P

rovi

des

inco

me

and

othe

r su

ppor

t to

the

‘des

ervi

ng n

eedy

’am

ong

Mus

lims.

Pak

ista

n B

ait-

ul-

Mal

. Tax

-fin

ance

dsa

fety

ne

tco

mbi

ning

foo

dsu

bsid

ies

and

cash

tran

sfer

s to

ass

ist

dest

itute

wid

ows,

orph

ans,

dis

able

d,ne

edy

and

poor

pers

ons.

Ch

ild S

up

po

rtP

rog

ram

me.

Pay

squ

arte

rly b

enef

its t

obe

nefic

iarie

s of

Foo

d S

uppo

rtP

rogr

amm

e w

ith

'Des

ervi

ng n

eedy

'am

ong

Mus

lims

Dis

able

d pe

rson

s,in

valid

s, w

idow

s,or

phan

s an

dho

useh

olds

livi

ngbe

low

the

pov

erty

line.

Poo

r hou

seho

lds

with

child

ren

aged

5-1

2

Loca

l Zak

atco

mm

ittee

s se

lect

reci

pien

ts f

rom

the

popu

latio

n of

tho

sebe

low

the

offi

cial

inco

me

pove

rty

line.

App

licat

ions

mus

tbe

sup

port

ed b

yth

ree

loca

l peo

ple

(incl

udin

g a

loca

lZ

akat

com

mitt

eem

embe

r). T

heP

rime

Min

iste

r and

othe

r hi

gh-le

vel

func

tiona

ries

can

sanc

tion

amou

nts

in o

pen

kutc

herie

sor

els

ewhe

re fo

rin

divi

dual

fin

anci

alas

sist

ance

.

Chi

ldre

n at

tend

ing

scho

ol a

nd p

assi

ngex

amin

atio

ns.

The

guz

ara

allo

wan

ce is

are

curr

ent

mon

thly

tran

sfer

of

Rs

500

per

hous

ehol

d;re

habi

litat

ion

gran

ts a

re o

ne-

time

paym

ents

of R

s 10

,000

to

30,0

00 p

erho

useh

old.

The

prog

ram

me

also

prov

ides

hea

lthan

d ed

ucat

ion

be

ne

fits.

Dep

ends

on

the

type

of

supp

ort.

US

$ 3.

50 p

erch

ild p

er m

onth

,ris

ing

to U

S $

6 if

two

or m

ore

child

ren.

Thi

str

ansf

er i

s pa

id

Nat

ionw

ide

Nat

ionw

ide

125,

000

hous

ehol

ds in

5di

stri

cts

ofev

ery

prov

ince

in t

he c

ount

ry

1.7

mill

ion

peop

le

Sin

ce i

tsin

cept

ion,

cas

htr

ansf

ers

to1.

25-

1.46

mill

ion

hous

ehol

ds.

Foo

das

sist

ance

to

appr

oxim

atel

y30

,000

hous

ehol

ds p

erye

ar.

In p

ilot

phas

e(2

006)

, 10

% o

fF

ood

Sup

port

Pro

gram

me

bene

ficia

ries.

The

Min

istr

y of

Rel

igio

us A

ffairs

seek

s gu

idan

ceby

the

Zak

atC

ounc

il, h

eade

dby

a S

upre

me

Cou

rt ju

dge.

Min

istr

y of

Soc

ial

Wel

fare

and

Spe

cial

Edu

catio

n(M

OS

WS

E)

Bai

t-ul

-Maa

l in

the

Min

istr

y of

Soc

ial

Wel

fare

and

Spe

cial

Edu

catio

n

Rs

5.9

billi

on(2

006)

or 0

.17%

of G

DP,

11.

3%of

tot

al S

Pbu

dget

Rs

2.5

billi

on;

0.05

% o

f G

DP

;4.

9% o

f to

tal

fede

ral

soci

alpr

otec

tion

budg

et

US

$ 7

mill

ion

for

fisca

l ye

ar20

06-2

007

Tabl

e 11

:PAK

ISTA

NSo

cial

pro

tect

ion

prog

ram

mes


Typ

e o

fP

rog

ram

me

Pro

gra

mm

e T

itle

and

Des

crip

tio

n

Elig

ibili

ty a

nd

Oth

erB

enef

icia

ry-r

elat

edIs

sues

Targ

etin

g/D

eliv

ery

mec

han

ism

Val

ue

of

the

Ben

efit

&D

eliv

ery

Geo

gra

ph

yC

ove

rag

e

Key

Imp

lem

enti

ng

Age

ncy

Co

sts

and

Bu

dg

et I

ssu

esL

egal

Fra

mew

ork

for

SP

child

ren,

con

ditio

nal

on th

eir

child

ren

enro

lling

in a

ndat

tend

ing

scho

olre

gula

rly.

Taw

ana

Pak

ista

na.

Mid

-day

mea

ls f

orgi

rls in

rur

al p

rimar

ysc

hool

s an

dco

mm

unity

-bas

edin

terv

entio

ns t

oad

dres

s m

alnu

triti

on.

Ben

azir

In

com

eS

up

po

rt P

rog

ram

.C

ash

gran

t to

miti

gate

foo

d pr

ice

incr

ease

s.

Girl

s in

rur

alpr

imam

ary

scho

ols

Mon

thly

fam

ilyin

com

e be

low

Rs

6000

; wom

en m

ust

have

a C

itize

ns C

ard.

650,

000

girls

age

d5

- 12

, ha

lfen

rolle

d an

d ha

lfou

t-of

-sch

ool,

in

appr

oxim

atel

y 25

0gi

rls'

prim

ary

scho

ols

in e

ach

dist

rict

(6,5

00sc

hool

s in

all)

.

BP

L fa

mili

es a

ndID

Ps

quar

terly

toge

ther

with

the

Foo

d S

uppo

rtP

rogr

amm

etr

an

sfe

r.

Mid

-day

mea

ls

Rs

1000

/mon

th in

2008

26 m

ost

mal

nour

ishe

ddi

stri

cts

ofP

akis

tan

Nat

ionw

ide

530,

000

bene

ficia

ries

(200

2-20

03)

1.8

mill

ion

peop

le in

mid

-20

09

Min

istr

y of

Wom

enD

evel

opm

ent

Rs

0.70

bill

ion

US

$ 42

5 m

illio

nin

200

8-20

09;

US

$ 62

5 m

illio

nin

200

9-20

10


General background

A formal system of social protection, including socialinsurance and a strong social assistance component,has been in place since independence. Sri Lanka hasa well-established tradition of providing social protectionand a long history of social programmes. Its socialprotection efforts include employment protection andpromotion, social security/insurance, and safety nets.While some social protection programmes have auniversal coverage (i.e., health education), others arespecially targeted programmes (Samurdhi, old age,disability, conflict affected). The country has anextensive safety net system comprising incometransfers (social assistance) to address chronicpoverty and individual risks (illness, disability), andcovariate shocks (e.g., conflict, tsunami).

Recent trends

Social security coverage is more extensive than inmost South Asian countries and includes schemes

for government employees largely funded by the state,various provident funds essentially for private sectorworkers, and voluntary schemes in the informaleconomy funded through employer-employeecontributions.115 While Sri Lanka’s social securityperformance is better than most of its neighbours,some gaps remain. For instance, only 28 per cent ofthe working age population is covered under pensionand benefit schemes. Moreover, Sri Lanka is one ofthe fastest-aging countries in South Asia, so theexisting system is unable to guarantee a minimumincome for older people and prevent them from livingin poverty. In recent months, the Sri LankanGovernment has been considering implementing auniversal pension. A recent feasibility study revealedthat a pension giving around US$ 27 per month toeveryone over 70 would cost only 0.8 per cent of GDP.This is equivalent to less than 5 per cent of currentGovernment expenditure and could be covered by asmall increase in VAT.116


115 ILO, “Social Protection in Sri Lanka”, advisory report for the Ministry of Labour Relations and Manpower. Social SecurityDepartment, International Labour Office, Geneva, August 2008, p. 4

116 S. Kidd; L.Wilmore, Helpage, Tackling Poverty in Old Age: A universal pension for Sri Lanka. November 2008, available atwww.pensionreorms.com

SRI LANKA

Total Population:19,207,000 (source: UNICEF ROSA, 2006)

Estimated Social Protection Expenditures as a % of GDP:3% (WB; UNICEF ROSA) - 5.7% (ADB)*


Social assistance programmes provide cash transfersto approximately 1.9 million poor families. Existingschemes present some deficiencies such as lack ofcoherence in the design, management and methodsof financing.


A 2006 World Bank evaluation found that the safetynet system could be strengthened not only to producemore equitable outcomes but also to promote growth.It pointed out that this could be achieved by: “(i) bettertargeting existing social assistance/cash transferprograms to the poor; (ii) ensuring that poor participatein human development and income earning programs;(iii) ensuring that programs are designed to helpindividuals cope with vulnerability (sickness, disability,and loss of employment) by providing them socialwelfare and care services and by integrating workfareinto social assistance programs; and finally (iv) scalingup safety net programs to help address the communitylevel shocks (natural disasters and the civil conflict)”.117

In line with the above, the ADB assessment highlightssome contradictions in the overall situation of socialprotection in Sri Lanka. On the one hand, its socialprotection indicators are above average for Asiancountries. On the other hand, overall expenditure isbiased towards the not poor, the average value of benefitsto poor households is low relative to the poverty line andthere are major targeting issues with the Samurdhiprogramme, where the majority of beneficiaries are notpoor. Coverage rates for the elderly and the disabled arealso below the all-Asia average. Finally, the formal socialinsurance schemes have weak administrations and theirfinancial sustainability is in question.118 Strengtheningthe current social protection system is thus an importantchallenge for Sri Lankan policymakers.

Summary of programmesI. Social InsuranceOld-age income supporta. Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF)

Established through legislation by the Employees’Provident Fund Act No. 15 of 1958, administeredby the EPF division of the Department of Labour.

b. Civil Service Pension Scheme (CSPS)

c. Voluntary schemes for informal sector workers(farmers’ pension scheme; fishermen’s pensionscheme; self-employed pension scheme)

Coverage: the EPFO, the CSPS, and the two informalschemes combine to cover one quarter of the workingage population and about a third of the labour force.

Disability and survivor insuranceAd hoc schemes tied directly to coverage in thepension system and provided as defined benefits.

Unemployment schemesWorkfare schemes also exist on an ad-hoc basis toprovide employment for low-wage workers. Theseschemes provide labour-intensive low-skill jobs for thepoorest unemployed, self-targeted through thepayment of low wages.

II. Social AssistanceThe Samurdhi (“Prosperity”) income transfer tothe poorDescription: A comprehensive poverty alleviationprogramme seeking to create opportunities for youngpersons, women, and vulnerable and disadvantagedgroups. It has three major components: (i)consumption grant transfers to eligible households;(ii) savings and credit operated through Samurdhibanks together with loans for entrepreneurial andbusiness development; (iii) workfare and socialdevelopment programmes to rehabilitate and developcommunity infrastructures. Beneficiaries are requiredto participate in microcredit and communityinfrastructure development programmes.

Implementing agency: Ministry of Nation Buildingof Estate and Infrastructure Development. Theprogramme is managed by offices at national and sub-national/local levels under the authority of theCommissioner General of Samurdhi.

Targeting: Means tested (based on a householdsurvey conducted in 2005); the Samurdhi DevelopmentOfficers oversee the selection.

Cost and coverage: According to last available data,2.1 million households (41 per cent of the eligible

117 World Bank, “Strengthening Social Protection” (April 2006), p. 62118 ADB, Scaling Up of the Social Protection Index for Committed Poverty Reduction. Volume 20: Sri Lanka country report -

Final Version November 2007. Halcrow China Limited. In association with Health Policy research Associates (Pvt) Ltd, p. 5


population) benefited from income transferprogrammes that cost about 0.4 per cent of GDP in2004. The 2008-2009 budget allocates Rs 41 million119

for the programme, against expected total Governmentexpenditures of Rs 1,719 billion.120

Evaluations:121 The programme presents an innovativeapproach that seeks to both reduce vulnerability andhelp the poor move on to higher income growth paths.122

The main issues observed include: (i) mistargeting:44 per cent of the richest quintile received transfers in2000 while only 60 per cent of the poorest quintilereceived them; (ii) administrative cost and problemswith the delivery system; (iii) inadequacy of the benefit.Programme expenditures declined from 0.9 per centof GDP in 2001 to 0.4 per cent of GDP in 2004. Itswelfare impact is minimal. “Thus, as currentlydesigned, the program provides inadequate assistanceto the poor. It also does not adequately help the poorescape poverty”.123

Cash Transfers for DisabledDescription: This is the second-largest income-transferscheme and encompasses several types of disabilitiesaccording to a broad definition of the Ministry of Welfare,but is primarily focused on disabled soldiers injured inthe conflict, who are the main beneficiaries along withfamilies of soldiers killed in action. This componentconsumed 92 per cent of transfers by the Ministry in2003 and 85 per cent of its total budget, leaving verylittle support for other disabled groups.

Implementing agency: Ministry of Social Serviceand Social Welfare

Cost and coverage: Rs 3.86 billion, 0.32 per cent ofGDP in 2004. The number of beneficiaries is unknown.

Evaluations: Expenditure on disability payments hasincreased over time due to the conflict. There is oftenpressure on Government to extend the definition ofdisability, which increases the number of eligibleindividuals and therefore expenditures.

Assistance for Internally Displaced Persons(IDPs)Description: Food assistance for internally displacedpersons (IDPs) if their monthly income is less thanRs 1500 for 12 months from date of permanentresettlement

Implementing agency: Ministry of Women’sEmpowerment and Social Welfare

Evaluations: The relief for the displaced is insufficientto meet basic nutrition needs, and rehabilitationassistance for permanent settlements faces strongfiscal constraints.124

Emergency Assistance to People Affected byNatural Disasters such as Drought and FloodsDescription: Cash grants or food stamps

Implementing agency: Ministry of Women’sEmpowerment and Social Welfare

Targeting: Beneficiaries are selected on the basis ofthe disaster’s impact rather than on income poverty.However, a broad income criterion of Rs 3000/month perfamily exists for long-term assistance to recipients ofdisaster relief. In the short term, disaster relief covers allaffected persons on the basis of the impact and injuriessuffered. Divisional Secretaries in the affected regionsselect beneficiaries with the assistance of GramaNiladharis and social service officers at the divisional level.Drought relief is provided to families with incomes lessthan Rs 2000 a month from agriculture or relatedactivities. Families become eligible for the relief ifcultivation has been disrupted or crops damaged for atleast two consecutive seasons due to drought, the cropshave not been insured, and the family does not have analternative source of income.

Cost: 0.07 per cent of GDP (2004)

Evaluations: Disaster relief covers all affected personsand works effectively.

119 US$ 1.00 = 114 Rupees120 Sri Lanka Government Budget Speech, available at www.treasury.gov.lk121 ILO (2008)122 M. Vodopivec et al., “Sri Lanka: Strengthening Social Protection”, the World Bank (2006), p.66123 World Bank (2006), p.8124 World Bank (2006), p.86


Typ

e o

fP

rog

ram

me

Pro

gra

mm

e T

itle

and

Des

crip

tio

n

Elig

ibili

ty a

nd

Oth

erB

enef

icia

ry-r

elat

edIs

sues

Targ

etin

g/D

eliv

ery

mec

han

ism

Val

ue

of

the

Ben

efit

&D

eliv

ery

Geo

gra

ph

yC

ove

rag

e

Key

Imp

lem

enti

ng

Age

ncy

Co

sts

and

Bu

dg

et I

ssu

esL

egal

Fra

mew

ork

for

SP

SO

CIA

LIN

SU

RA

NC

E

SO

CIA

LA

SS

ISTA

NC

E

1.O

ld A

ge

Inco

me

Su

pp

ort

a.E

mp

loye

esP

rovi

den

t F

un

db

.C

ivil

Ser

vice

Pen

sio

n S

chem

ec.

Vo

lun

tary

sch

emes

fo

rin

form

al s

ecto

rw

ork

ers

2.D

isab

ility

an

dsu

rviv

or

insu

ran

ce3.

Un

emp

loym

ent

sche

mes

Th

e S

amu

rdh

iin

com

e tr

ansf

er t

oth

e p

oo

r.C

onsu

mpt

ion

gran

ttr

ansf

ers

to e

ligib

leho

useh

olds

, tog

ethe

rw

ith lo

ans

for

entr

epre

neur

ial a

ndbu

sine

ssde

velo

pmen

t,w

orkf

are

and

soci

alde

velo

pmen

tpr

ogra

mm

es to

reha

bilit

ate

and

deve

lop

com

mun

ityin

fras

truc

ture

.

Cas

h T

ran

sfer

s fo

rD

isab

led

.E

ncom

pass

esse

vera

l ty

pes

ofdi

sabi

litie

s ac

cord

ing

to a

bro

ad d

efin

ition

of t

he M

inis

try

ofW

elfa

re b

utpr

imar

ily f

ocus

ed o

ndi

sabl

ed s

oldi

ers

inju

red

in th

eco

nfli

ct.

The

poo

r. Yo

ung

pers

ons

and

wom

enof

vul

nera

ble

and

disa

dvan

tage

dgr

oups

. Tho

se e

ligib

lear

e re

quire

d to

part

icip

ate

inm

icro

cred

it an

dco

mm

un

ityin

fras

truc

ture

deve

lopm

ent

prog

ram

mes

.

Dis

able

d pe

rson

s

Mea

ns-t

este

d(b

ased

on

aho

useh

old

surv

eyco

nduc

ted

in 2

005)

.T

he S

amur

dhi

Dev

elop

men

tO

ffice

rs s

elec

t th

epa

rtic

ipan

ts.

Nat

ionw

ide

2.1

mill

ion

hous

ehol

dsbe

nefit

ed f

rom

the

inco

me

tran

sfer

prog

ram

mes

(41%

of

the

targ

etpo

pula

tion)

.

Min

istr

y of

Nat

ion

Bui

ldin

g of

Est

ate

and

Infr

astr

uctu

reD

evel

opm

ent

Min

istr

y of

Soc

ial

Ser

vice

and

Soc

ial

Wel

fare

RS

41

mill

ion

inth

e 20

08-2

009

budg

et, a

bout

0.4%

of

2004

GD

P

Rs

3. 8

6 bi

llion

;0.

32%

of

GD

P(2

004)

Tabl

e 12

:SR

ILA

NK

ASo

cial

pro

tect

ion

prog

ram

mes


Typ

e o

fP

rog

ram

me

Pro

gra

mm

e T

itle

and

Des

crip

tio

n

Elig

ibili

ty a

nd

Oth

erB

enef

icia

ry-r

elat

edIs

sues

Targ

etin

g/D

eliv

ery

mec

han

ism

Val

ue

of

the

Ben

efit

&D

eliv

ery

Geo

gra

ph

yC

ove

rag

e

Key

Imp

lem

enti

ng

Age

ncy

Co

sts

and

Bu

dg

et I

ssu

esL

egal

Fra

mew

ork

for

SP

Ass

ista

nce

for

inte

rnal

lyd

isp

lace

d p

erso

ns

(ID

Ps)

. M

ainl

y fo

odas

sist

ance

.

Em

erg

ency

assi

stan

ce to

peo

ple

aff

ecte

d b

yn

atu

ral

dis

aste

rssu

ch a

s d

rou

gh

tan

d f

loo

ds.

Cas

hgr

ants

or

food

sta

mp

s.

IDP

s w

ith m

onth

lyin

com

e le

ss t

han

Rs

1,50

0 fo

r 12

mon

ths

from

dat

e of

perm

anen

tre

settl

emen

t

Sel

ectio

n ba

sed

onth

e di

sast

er's

impa

ct r

athe

r th

anin

com

e po

vert

y,th

ough

onl

yfa

mili

es w

ith l

ess

than

Rs

3000

inco

me

per

mon

thre

ceiv

e lo

ng-t

erm

assi

stan

ce.

Dro

ught

rel

ief

prov

ided

to

fam

ilies

with

inco

me

less

than

Rs

2000

am

onth

fro

mag

ricul

ture

or

rela

ted

activ

ities

.

Aff

ect

ed

regi

ons

Min

istr

y of

Wom

en’s

Em

pow

erm

ent

and

Soc

ial

Wel

fare

Min

istr

y of

Wom

en’s

Em

pow

erm

ent

and

Soc

ial

Wel

fare

0.07

% o

f G

DP

(200

4)


Bibliography

Acharya, B.C., & Luitel. “The Functioning and Effectiveness of Scholarship and Incentive Schemesin Nepal”. UNESCO Kathmandu series of working papers, n.9. S.

Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, Economic and Social Rights Report,Afghanistan III. December 2008

Afghanistan National Development Strategy 2008-2013, posted at www.ands.gov.af/ands

Arif, G. M. (2006) Targeting Efficiency of Poverty Reduction Programs in Pakistan. PakistanResident Mission Working Paper No. 4, May. Islamabad: Asian Development Bank

Asher, M. G. Pension Reform in India. National University of Singapore

Asian Development Bank (2008). Social Protection Index for Committed Poverty Reduction, 2008

Asian Development Bank, Scaling Up of the Social Protection Index for Committed PovertyReduction. Volume 20: Sri Lanka Country Report - Final Version November 2007. Halcrow ChinaLtd in association with Health Policy research Associates (Pvt) Ltd

Asian Development Bank, http://www.adb.org/Documents/Books/Social-Protection/default.asp

Badruddin S.H., Agha A, Peermohamed H, Rafique G, Khan KS, Pappas G. The Aga KhanUniversity, Department of Community Health Sciences, Stadium Road, Karachi, Pakistan. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18296378

Bangladesh Institute for Development Studies, “The Old-age Assistance Programme for the PoorElderly in Bangladesh”, May 2008

Bangladesh Institute for Development Studies, “Social Assistance Programme for Destitute Womenin Bangladesh”, February 2008

The Bangladesh Primary Education Stipend Project: A descriptive analysis. A study prepared underthe management and guidance of Carolyn Winter (World Bank). Posted at http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2004/03/29/000160016_20040329173239/Rendered/PDF/282570PAPER0BangladeshStipend.pdf

Barrientos, A. Cash transfers for older people to reduce poverty and inequality (2006), posted at:siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2006/Resources/.../Cash_transfers_for_Older_People_Reduce_Poverty_and_Inequality.pdf –

Barrientos, A. and Holmes, R. Social Assistance in Developing Countries Database (2007).Available online at http://www.chronicpoverty.org/2/partners-pages.php

Barrientos, A. and Hulme, D. Social Protection for the Poor and Poorest in Developing Countries:Reflections on a quiet revolution. Brooks World Poverty Institute Working Paper No. 30

Barrientos & Smith, Social Assistance in Low Income Countries, Version 1, March 2005. IDPM andCPRC, The University of Manchester


Basic Education for Urban Working Children http://www.unicef.org/bangladesh/Education_for_Working_Children_(BEHTRUWC).pdf

Bdoza.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/Bangladesh-budget2008-09and-social-safety-net/

Benazir Income Support Program. http://www.bisp.gov.pk/benazir/; Briefing at BISP Office,Islamabad, 27 May 2009.

Bonnerjee, A. ROSA internal note on the food crisis in South Asia Kathmandu, UNICEF ROSA 2008

Bonnerjee, A. et al. Hunger and the Economic Crisis: Findings from South Asia. UNICEF ROSA,Kathmandu forthcoming 2009

Byrd, W. Afghanistan State Building-Sustaining Growth and Reducing Poverty, World Bank, (2005)

Datt, G. and Ravallion, M. [1994] “Transfer Benefits from Public-Works Employment: Evidence forRural India”, Economic Journal 104:1346-1369

Datt, R. “Dismal experience of Nrega: Lessons for the Future” 14 April 2008 //www.mainstreamweekly.net/article641.html

Dawn Newspaper. Islamabad, 30 May 2009

Dev, M. India’s Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Scheme: Lessons from Long Experience.Posted at www.ifpri.org/pubs/books/vonBraun95ch05.pdf

Dev, M. “Individual Shocks and Social Protection in South Asia” (Special Reference to India); postedat info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/233761/Mahendra%20Individual%20Shocks.pdf.

Douthwaite, M. and Ward, P. Increasing Contraceptive Use in Rural Pakistan: An evaluation of theLady Health Worker Programme. Centre for Population Studies, London School of Hygiene andTropical Medicine and Oxford Policy Management, 2005. Available at http://heapol.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/20/2/117

Faridi, R. and Baqui Khalily, M.A. “Impact of Prime Interventions at the Household Level” posted onwww.org.bd/sem_monga/document/summary/surhad.pdf

Glinskaya, E. An empirical evaluation of Samurdhi Programme

Gordon D.; Nandy S.; Pantazis C.; Pemberton S.; Townsend P. The Distribution of Child Poverty inthe Developing World; Report to UNICEF by Center for International Poverty Research, University ofBristol, July 2003; available at www.bris.ac.uk/poverty/Child%20poverty_files/Child%20Poverty%20Report%20Unicef.pdf

Government of India, Ninth Plan, Chapter 15: Social Welfare p. 366, http://planningcommission.nic.in/plans/mta/mta-9702/mta-ch15.pdf, accessed 23-5-06

Government of India Press Release: http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=46897

Government of India, http://adwelfare.puducherry.gov.in/schemesnext7.htm


Government of India, http://www.mprip.in/socialprotect.htm#1.1

Government of India, http://www.tn.gov.in/policynotes/archives/policy2002-03/swnmp2002-03-2a.htm

Government of Nepal, 2009. Budget Speech 2008-2009

Government of Pakistan, http://www.na.gov.pk/questions/session8/thursday131108_8S.pdf

Government of Pakistan, http://www.na.gov.pk/questions/session8/thursday131108_8S.pdf

HelpAge International [2003] Non-contributory pensions in India: A case study of Uttar Pradesh,London: HAI

HelpAge International, 2009. Social Pensions in Bangladesh. Available at http://www.helpage.org/Researchandpolicy/PensionWatch/Bangladesh

HelpAge News, Vol. 5 No.2, July-September 2006

Himalayan Times, 1 June 2009, “Bank Route for PLA Payment”.

Hofmann, C. A. “Cash transfer programmes in Afghanistan: A desk review of current policy andpractice”. HPG Background Paper: June 2005

Holmes, R., Farrington, J., Rahman, T. and Slater, R. “Extreme Poverty in Bangladesh: Protectingand promoting rural livelihoods”. ODI Project Briefing No. 15, September 2008

Holzmann, R., and Jorgensen, S. 2000. Social Risk Management: A new conceptual framework forsocial protection. Washington, DC; World Bank. 2000

Hossain, N. “The Politics of What Works: The case of the Vulnerable Development Programme inBangladesh”, December 2007. CPRC Working Paper 92; p.3. Posted at www.cprc.abrc.co.uk/pubfiles/92Hossain.pdf

Imai, K (2002) ‘Employment Guarantee Scheme as a Social Safety Net-Poverty Dynamics andPoverty Alleviation’, Department of Economics Working Paper, Ref. 149, March 2003, Department ofEconomics, University of Oxford. Posted at: http://www.econ.ox.ac.uk/Research/WP/PaperDetails.asp?PaperID=481

Imai, K and Gaiha R. (2002) ‘Rural Public Works and Poverty Alleviation - The Case of theEmployment Guarantee Scheme in Maharashtra’, International Review of Applied Economics, Vol.16, No. 2, April 2002, pp.131-151. A version of this paper is posted at: http://www.socialsciences.man.ac.uk/economics/staffpages/imai/RuralPublicWork-Gaiha-Imai.pdf

International Food Policy Research Institute, http://www.ifpri.org/PUBS/cp/ghi08.asphttp://india.gov.in/outerwin.php?id=http://wcd.puducherry.gov.in/One_TwoGirl_Eng.htm

International Labour Organisation, http://www.ilo.org/global/About_the_ILO/Mainpillars/Socialprotection/lang—en/index.htm

ILO Technical Note, “Affordable and not an Illusion. Costing of basic social protection benefits forNepal 2007-2034”. Social Security Department, International Labour Organisation. June 2007


ILO, “Social Protection in Sri Lanka”, Advisory report for the Ministry of Labour Relations andManpower. Social Security Department, International Labour Office, Geneva, August 2008

Islam, N. Reducing Rural Poverty in Asia, 2006

Joshua, L. “Social Protection in Nepal: Present Characteristics and Future Prospects”. Power PointPresentation, Kathmandu, December 4 2008

Kabeer, N. “Mainstreaming gender in social protection for the informal economy”, New GenderMainstreaming Series on Development Issues, Commonwealth Secretariat, 2008, p.4

Kabeer, N., Köhler, G. Extending and Deepening Social Protection in South Asia: Towards astrategy of socio-economic security for all. Policy Note. UNICEF ROSA. Mimeo. November 2008

Kabeer, N., Sharma, A., Upendranadh, C. Social Security in South Asia: Issues and perspectives.Draft for discussion, November 2008; United Nations DESA, National Development Strategies.Policy Notes. New York 2008

Khadria, B. Migration and Social Policy in Asia, UN Research Institute for Social Development 2008

Kidd, S.; Wilmore, L. Tackling Poverty in Old Age: A universal pension for Sri Lanka

Maldives, Social Protection in the Maldives: Options for reforming pensions and safety nets. April25, 2006

Mehrotra, S. Costs and financing of a social insurance in India, presentation at the UNICEF ROSARegional Symposium on Social Protection, Dhaka, April 2008

Meng, X. and Ryan, J. 2003. “Evaluating the Food for Education Program in Bangladesh,” availableat www.worldbank.org

Ministry of Education, Bangladesh, data reported on the World Bank website: http://www.worldbank.org.bd/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/SOUTHASIAEXT/BANGLADESHEXTN/0,,contentMDK:21227882~menuPK:295791~pagePK:1497618~piPK:217854~theSitePK:295760,00.html

Ministry of Finance and Treasury, Government of the Maldives, Reaching the MDGs with Equity.March 2009

Ministry of Health, Nepal, 2007 “The Maternity Incentive Scheme in Nepal: Increasing Demand &Equity”. Available at www.womendeliver.org/presentation/slides/103_Marasini.ppt

Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India. “Executive Summary of National SocialAssistance Programme”. Posted at: http://www.drd.nic.in/jry2/esnsap.htm National SocialAssistance Programme. Posted at: http://rural.nic.in/book00-01/ch-7.pdf

Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India. “National Social Assistance Programme:Introduction”. Posted at: http://rural.nic.in/nsap.htm

Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development, The Transitional Government of the IslamicRepublic of Afghanistan. From Humanitarian Assistance to Social Protection. Paper Prepared forthe Afghanistan Support Group Oslo Meeting. 17-18 December 2002


The Nation, 18 November 2008. “Social Protection Plans Fail to Reduce poverty”www.thenews.com.pk/editorial_detail.asp?id=126057

The Nation, 29 September 2008. “Social Protection Promise”, www.natino.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspape-daily-english-online/Opinions/Colums/29-Sep-2008/Social-protection-promise

National Planning Commission, Government of Pakistan. Social Protection Strategy for Pakistan:May 2006

National Social Assistance Programme, India. Posted at: http://rural.nic.in/book00-01/ch-7.pdf

OPSCEN Note, The global food and financial crisis, January 2009, UNICEF, NY

Programmes for Child Development, http://www.kar.nic.in/dwcd/chidev.pdf

Rajan, S. I. “Chronic Poverty Among the Indian Elderly” in Aasha Kapur Mehta and AndrewShepherd, Chronic Poverty and Development Policy in India, p.189

Rajan, S.I. [2001] Social Assistance for Poor Elderly: How effective? Economic and PoliticalWeekly XXXVI (8): 613-617

Report of the UNICEF Regional Policy Makers’ Symposium on Social Protection in South Asia,Dhaka April 2008. Kathmandu: UNICEF ROSA, http://www.unicef.org/rosa/ROSA_UNICEF_Regional_Policy_Makers_Symposium.pdf

Saith, Ashwani, “Towards Universalizing Socio-economic Security: Strategy elements of a PolicyFramework.” Indian Journal of Human Development. Vol. 2 Number 1. January 2009

Social Protection Index for Committed Poverty Reduction Volume 9. India Country Report – FinalNovember 2007. Halcrow China, www.adb.org

Social Safety Nets in Bangladesh: An assessment, Bangladesh Development Series – Paper No. 9.The World Bank Office, Dhaka, January 2006. Available online at www.worldbank.org.bd/bds

South Asia Partnership Project: http://www.sappk.org/tawana.htm

Sri Lanka Government Budget Speech, available at www.treasury.gov.lk

Tahir, P. Draft Social Protection Strategy for Pakistan. Presentation at the Workshop on SocialProtection in South Asia. 17-19 May 2006

UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, World Economic and Social Survey 2008:Overcoming economic insecurity. United Nations, New York 2008

UNICEF, Child-Sensitive Social Protection. An interagency draft. New York, July 2008

UNICEF Afghanistan Country Office, 2009. Annual Report 2008. Kabul: UNICEF

UNICEF Global Policy Division and the New School for Graduate Research, 2006. “Social ProtectionInitiatives for Children, Women, and Families: An analysis of recent experiences”. , New York:UNICEF Global Policy Division and the New School for Graduate Research


UNICEF Nepal Country Office, 2009. Annual Report 2008. Kathmandu: UNICEF

UNICEF Regional Office for South Asia, 2009. A matter of magnitude. The impact of the economiccrisis on women and children in South Asia. Kathmandu: UNICEF ROSA

UNICEF ROSA, Stylized Facts about Child Poverty and Disparities in South Asia and Some PolicyImplications: A discussion note. Kathmandu, April 2009

US Social Security Administration (SSA), Office of Retirement and Disability Policy. Social SecurityPrograms Throughout the World: Asia and the Pacific, 2008.

Vodopivec, M. et al. “Sri Lanka: Strengthening Social Protection”, the World Bank (2006)

World Bank, 1999. Social Risk Management: Intellectual underpinnings of the social protectionstrategy. Washington, DC

“World Bank provides further support to Afghanistan’s national rural access program.” Press release13 December 2007. www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900sid/LSGZ-79VDL2?OpenDocumenWorldBank Human Development Unit, South Asia Region, “Social Protection in Pakistan”, October 18,2007

World Bank, Pension at a Glance, Asia and the Pacific Edtion, 2008

World Bank, Project Information Document, concept note. “Project title: Public works programs inIndia” (October 2008)

World Bank, Dhaka Office, 2006. “Social Safety Nets in Bangladesh: An assessment”. BangladeshDevelopment Series – Paper No. 9. Available online at www.worldbank.org.bd/bds.

World Bank Press Release No: 2009/344/SAR. http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/PROJECTS/0

World Food Programme Nepal, http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900sid/MCOT-7LLE5J?OpenDocument

Websiteshttp://www.bristol.ac.uk/poverty/child%20poverty.htmlhttp://www.iief.com/6annualpresentations/Chewang7.pdf.

http://www.cseindia.org/programme/nrml/update_may-june08.htm#CAG

http://www.dwcd.kar.nic.in/dwcd_english/prg_child.html#icds Department of Women and ChildDevelopment. And: http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:TnaBmtjz-ucJ:www.un.int/india/2007/ind1402.pdf+India:+Integrated+Child+Development+Service+Schemes+%25+of+GDP&hl=it&ct=clnk&cd=1(Gov statement at UNGA session 12/12/2007)

www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=166701

www.newsonnorthest.blogspot.com/2008/10/nrega-transforming-rural-india.html;southasia.oneworld.net.fromthegrassroots/women-augmenting-family-income-creating-community-assets


www.scribd.com/doc/2176739)/Two-Years-of-NREGA)

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTDECINEQ/Resources/SamurdhiJune042003.pdfhttp://www.adb.org/Documents/Books/Social-Protection/default.asphttp://socialjustice.nic.in/social/children.htm#p1, http://www.unodc.org/pdf/india/publications/inventory_of_Schemes_and_Programmes/06_section4.pdf

http://wcd.puducherry.gov.in/EighttoTenth_Eng.htmhome.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/liaison_offices/wfp190321.pdf

http://www.southasianmedia.net/cnn.cfm?id=579279&category=Social%20Sectors&Country=MALDIVES; MIADHU news. http://www.miadhu.com.mv/news.php?id=10012; and Minivan News http://www.minivannews.com/news_detail.php?id=6519

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/progdesc/ssptw/2006-2007/asia/bangladesh.html

www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2006/05/01/000160016_20060501163658/Original/348180MV0Socia1white0cover01PUBLIC1.doc

United Nations Children’s FundRegional Office for South AsiaP. O. Box 5815Lekhnath MargKathmandu, Nepal

Telephone: 977-1-4417082Facsmile 977-1-4418466 / 4419479www.unicef.org/rosa