Paper short abstract:

'Government-owned and government-driven' has come a key principle for social protection, with implications for how governments, donors and NGOs work. This paper assesses the rationale for and effectiveness of the approach to social protection in fragile and conflict-affected countries.

Paper long abstract:

In the last decade there has been a strong push towards ensuring that social protection policies and programmes in low income countries are owned and driven by national governments rather than external international actors. This approach is mirrored in the New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States, in which development partners have committed to supporting nationally-owned and led development plans.

This paper explores the 'government-owned, government-driven' agenda in social protection from the perspective of fragile and conflict-affected countries where social protection policies are frequently underpinned by additional and deeply political objectives such as statebuilding, stabilisation and enhancing state legitimacy, and where social protection can be a key component of political settlements.

Drawing on evidence from recent research, including a two-wave longitudinal perceptions survey in five conflict-affected countries, this paper assesses how far the delivery of social protection influences people's perceptions of governance, how far it can provide a peace or statebuilding dividend, and how these preoccupations influence programme, targeting and implementation choices.

Overall, the paper finds that the relationship between social protection and people's perceptions of government is far less linear than is assumed in government and donor policies, and that there are good reasons to be cautious about moving too quickly to a government-owned, government-driven social protection system in conflict-affected and post-conflict countries.