What did we do?
The right to social security is a human right. It is recognised in Article 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Social Protection Floors Recommendation No. 202 (R.202), unanimously adopted by 184 members of the International Labour Conference (ILC) in 2012, provided concrete content to this abstract right. A recent discussion paper by the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung written by researchers from the Maastricht Graduate School of Governance on behalf of a global civil society Coalition for the Social Protection Floor (SPF), presents a new Social Protection Floor Index (SPFI) that aims to monitor the degree of implementation of national SPFs across countries and over time.
Why did we do this?
Never – perhaps since the period of the great depression or the period of economic and social reconstruction after World War II – has there been so much global public support for social protection and more appreciation of its role in national development strategies as well as in the management of economic, social and political crises. It is clear that people cannot be productive and make meaningful contributions to societal and economic development if they are neither healthy, nor well nourished, nor educated, nor have a minimum of income security and have to fight for their bare survival doing menial and exploitative jobs each day of their generally too short lives. We do not really need many more studies to prove that point. There is sufficient evidence that no successful economy has ever developed without a minimum level of social security.
With R.202 the global community has unanimously accepted the commitment to achieve at least a “floor”, a baseline, of social protection for all people. That commitment was reaffirmed by the new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Target No. 1.3 of SDG One states: “Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all, including floors, and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable”. While that target is much less stringent than many in civil society would have wished for, it still recognises the importance of the SPF and social protection for human development. Without a floor of social protection too many people would be without even a minimum of income and health security, that would enable them to live a life in a minimum of decency. The first target of R.202 and SDG One are to improve the lives of the 900 million people that still live in abject poverty and utter insecurity.
What does Recommendation R. 202 say?
As a follow-up to the landmark International Labour Organization (ILO) Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization in 2008, the 100th ILC in 2011 discussed the social protection objective, including “the extension of social security to all”. The ILO received the mandate to develop a recommendation on national floors of social protection, which was adopted as the Social Protection Floors Recommendation No. 202 by the ILC in 2012.
A national SPF should comprise at least four basic social security guarantees that are set out in Articles 4 and 5 of R.202:
- Access to a nationally defined set of goods and services constituting essential health care – including maternity care – that meets the criteria of availability, accessibility, acceptability, and quality;
- basic income security for children at a nationally defined minimum level, which provides access to nutrition, education, care, and any other necessary goods and services;
- basic income security at a nationally defined minimum level for persons in active age who are unable to earn sufficient income, particularly in cases of sickness, unemployment, maternity, and disability;
- and basic income security at a nationally defined minimum level for older persons.
R.202 also urges members to endorse a number of key principles when they put the Recommendation into practice. Among others, this includes the universality of protection, the adequacy and predictability of benefits and non-discrimination.
Why do we need an index for SPF implementation?
Based on the above, the need to implement R. 202 and SDG One is self-evident. What is missing too often in global social policy is the political will to move from cheap and easy promises made at the global stage to concrete and perhaps costly action at the national level. To translate the global promises into social reality in countries, policy and political demands for social justice have to be articulated. Civil society organisations are natural agents of political will. The prerequisite for the formulation of policy demands for social protection is evidence, as to the extent to which the four social security guarantees (health security, income security during childhood, adulthood and old age) are implemented at the national level. R. 202 envisages regular national monitoring of the progress made on the implementation of R. 202. However, it does not provide a tool to do so.
This SPFI has been developed to fill the gap. The SPFI provides an indication of the degree of implementation of national SPFs, allows comparisons across members and, in future, can contribute to monitoring progress of countries over time.
The logic of the SPFI is thereby not to look at attainments that are inherently difficult to agree on and to measure, but to focus on protection gaps. These shortfalls are expressed in terms of a country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The SPFI thus presents a number with a concrete meaning, which is understandable for a wide range of audiences. The index presents figures calculated for all 142 countries for which data were available at the World Bank or Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and indicates the size of the fiscal efforts which would be necessary to close national SPF gaps. These figures can directly be used by civil society to try to shame governments into action.
What does the first round of the SPF index show?
The results for 2012 illustrate that for most countries, closing gaps in order to fulfil R.202 does not require unreasonably large amounts. These do not necessarily have to come from additional government resources; countries can also discuss the reallocation of other social and non-social expenditure to purposes that could yield higher returns in terms of reducing poverty and inequality.
About half (70) of the 142 countries for which data were available would require an allocation of less than 3.5% of their GDP to close their income security and health security gap. About two thirds of that half (46; among them nearly all European countries) would need to allocate an additional 2.0% of their GDP to close their SPF gaps.
12 African countries would require more than 10% of their GDP. This is a clear call for the international community to support the establishment and maintenance of national SPFs in the respective countries and to contribute to the realisation of the right to social security. Read more in the full report below…