Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Kate Pruce
(Institute of Development Studies)
Isaac Chinyoka (University of Cape Town)
Nabila Idris (BRAC University)
Hangala Siachiwena (University of Cape Town)
Send message to Convenors
- Formats:
- Papers Mixed
- Stream:
- Global inequalities
- Sessions:
- Tuesday 29 June, -
Time zone: Europe/London
Short Abstract:
Against a backdrop of existing political and financial anxieties, COVID-19 has exacerbated inequalities globally. We invite papers that explore the politics of social protection at the juncture between old and new forces, focusing on design debates, financing challenges, and populist pressures.
Long Abstract:
Despite decades of effort to increase coverage and expenditure on social protection, including cash transfer programmes, over 4 billion people still remain systematically unprotected (ILO, 2017). The COVID-19 pandemic revealed and exacerbated these inequalities, with the poorest and the most vulnerable suffering disproportionately. Although governments responded with unprecedented horizontal and vertical expansions of social protection worldwide, their efforts were mediated by existing political institutions and degree of infrastructural (un)preparedness (Gentilini et al., 2020). In this panel, we will explore the politics of social protection at the juncture between old forces and new pressures in unsettled times.
There has been increased interest in universal basic income, although this remains a controversial policy proposal. Discussions about precarity of employment and income—caused by the pandemic but also the fourth industrial revolution—have gained traction. Debates surrounding universalism vs. targeting, financing challenges, debt restructuring, and democratic pressures from populist forces have also come to the fore.
Against a backdrop of pre-existing political trends, we invite contributions from a range of theoretical perspectives that critically engage with, but need not be limited to, the following questions and topics:
• What are the political opportunities and challenges for social protection created by the pandemic, including implications for universal vs. targeted schemes?
• How are elections and/or regressive political trends, such as populism, influencing social protection agendas and priorities?
• What do the growing financial challenges, including debt defaults and pandemic-linked recession, mean for social protection financing? What role do donors play here?
Accepted papers:
Session 1 Tuesday 29 June, 2021, -Paper short abstract:
I use the developments during the pandemic in Bangladesh to argue that pre-existing political settlements mediate the degree of responsiveness a country's social protection system exhibits when faced with exogenous shocks.
Paper long abstract:
A country regularly beset by devastating natural disasters, Bangladesh is usually lauded for the efficiency of its disaster management and response apparatus. And yet, during the pandemic, the country's social protection system was widely criticised for failing to provide for even the minimal basic needs of the citizens, leading to untold hardship across the board. The most visible face of this hardship was the plight of 4m workers in the country's ready-made garments industry who, in a visceral instantiation of the lives vs. livelihoods debate, were made to return to their workplaces well before lockdown was eased. In this paper, I argue that pre-existing political settlements mediate the degree of responsiveness a country's social protection system exhibits in the face of exogenous shocks, like the pandemic.
The study is based on over sixty in depth qualitative interviews with key stakeholders, weeks of participant observation in key meetings and organisations, as well as analysis of hundreds of internal government documents. First, I find unique ideas that the poor deserve more than the rich means targeting is preferred over universalism in Bangladesh. Second, the relative power of consumers over producers in the rice market means food is preferred over cash transfers. And, third, the machinations of neoliberal global capitalism deliberately and systematically exclude labour from social protection in the country. A combination of these factors created a perfect storm that provides some explanation for the failure of Bangladesh's social protection response to the pandemic.
Paper short abstract:
What are the political consequences of temporarily expanding cash transfers in South Africa? The state prioritises its most politically feasible programmes, but more citizens realise their rights to increased state support. Expanding social assistance has renewed claims for more universal transfers.
Paper long abstract:
The South African state expanded its already substantial social assistance programmes to mitigate the economic fallout of the pandemic. This paper argues that the expansion of social assistance reveals two aspects of the politics of social assistance in light of the pandemic: (1) which forms of social assistance are deemed to be most effective and politically feasible in a crisis, and (2) how citizens’ rights to social assistance affects claims to greater state support. This paper begins by providing a broad overview of the politics of social assistance in South Africa preceding the pandemic before addressing two pertinent questions regarding the expansion of social assistance. First, how and why did the state prioritise some social assistance programmes over others? Institutionalised cash transfer programmes were relatively easily expanded, but other transfers were unpredictable. The state relied on its most effective social assistance programmes, which acted as politically acceptable mechanisms of income redistribution. Second, how has the expansion of cash transfers affected the politics of social assistance? Prior to the pandemic, nearly one third of South Africans received a cash transfer and millions more became eligible in 2020. Despite the temporary expansion, South Africans’ legal right to social assistance has led to renewed claims for more permanent interventions, particularly an unconditional basic income grant. The economic shock of the pandemic and the government’s efforts to ameliorate poverty have revitalised the political discourse of social assistance in South Africa. The politics of social protection is therefore a dynamic and negotiated process.
Paper short abstract:
This paper examines Zambia’s social protection response to COVID-19, arguing that it reflects the political dynamics of the country’s social protection trajectory more broadly. Government policy priorities are shaped by elite interests, with a particular focus on political survival strategies.
Paper long abstract:
Zambia’s social protection response to the COVID-19 pandemic is unfolding against a background of severe financial challenges, a squeezed social sector and limited state capacity. There are also concerns about the upcoming general election in August 2021, which is already beginning to shape policy and spending decisions. Much of Zambia’s policy response has focused on the formal sector, despite the country’s large informal sector, high unemployment rate and food insecurity across urban and rural areas. A COVID-19 emergency cash transfer (ECT) has been the most significant social protection intervention to help the poorest households to cope with the effects of the pandemic. Cash transfers have been extended to include the urban poor and some informal workers, but only temporarily. The ECT has been largely driven and funded by international donors, while the government has increased payments to agricultural subsidies and empowerment funds.
Based on 77 interviews with the key stakeholders from a range of institutional positions as well as documentary analysis, this paper argues that the dynamics of Zambia’s COVID-19 response reflect the politics of social protection more broadly. The prioritisation of powerful constituencies, particularly farmers and young people, as well as claims that the ruling party is using the ECT for election rigging suggest government support of social protection schemes is shaped by elite interests, particularly political survival. On the other hand, the COVID-19 emergency cash transfer is short term and largely donor-funded, with worrying implications for the many Zambians experiencing income vulnerabilities and food insecurity.
Paper long abstract:
Before COVID-19, social protection in Nigeria witnessed a not too significant improvement in terms of provision, expansion, coverage and benefits since the country’s return to democratic governance, a period when policy-makers began paying attention to social protection and its role in poverty reduction. But provision, expansion, coverage and benefits remained very poor, in spite of high levels of economic growth that saw the country’s fiscal space grow and expand exponentially. This expansion in fiscal space did not translate into improvement of social protection. The inherent structures and dynamics of the country’s political economy wielded greatly, enormous influence over social protection; but more importantly was its politics; indicating a challenge of institutionalising progressive general welfare improvements and reconciling the influences of politics and the political economy. However, COVID-19 seems to have compounded this by placing enormous pressure on politics, shrinking the fiscal space and increasing the demand for social protection. This paper examines the impacts, the country’s politics has been having on social protection as well as the influence of COVID-19 on politics and social protection in the country using the framework employed by the Effective State and Inclusive Development Research Centre (ESID) with the aim of providing an in-depth explanations including proffering practicable policy options to improve the current state of social protection in the country. Specifically, it focuses on the influences of politics on social protection at actor, institutional, national, economic and social levels. As well as the paper discusses the impact that social protection is having on politics.