Social Protection Challenges in Sub-Saharan Africa: ‘Rethinking Regimes and Commitments’

Abstract

In recent years, social protection has attracted great attention, especially in low-income countries (LICs). Prior to the 1990s, social protection in many LICs was perceived as a luxury that only rich countries could afford. This article discusses the status of and approaches to social protection in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) using examples from selected countries in the region. The article first outlines the key concepts employed in social protection and then presents data on various social development indicators for SSA to highlight the challenges that SSA face. Data presented draw attention to the irony around social protection in SSA, particularly that it is countries with high levels of poverty, vulnerability and deprivation, which have no basic social protection. While acknowledging the emerging diverse social protection initiatives in SSA as positive developments towards addressing poverty and vulnerability, the article argues that expanding social protection in the region still remains constrained by lack of political commitment and by policies that try to replicate social welfare regimes of developed countries.

Keywords:

• social protection
• sub-Saharan Africa
• vulnerability
• challenges
• poverty

Notes

In this article social protection is used in a broad sense to include social insurance or social security, employment- based regulations as well as non-contributory social assistance (UNRISD 2010). Unless specified, the term is used in an inclusive manner.

The World Bank classifies countries according to the level of income. HICs are countries with a gross national income (GNI) per capita of more than US$11,456 in 2010. Middle-income countries (MICs) are those with a GNI per capita above US$1,135–US$11,456; while LICs are countries with GNP per capita of US$1,135 or less. The majority of countries in sub-Saharan Africa fall within the LIC category, with only a few countries, such as Mauritius, Gabon, Botswana, Seychelles, Equatorial Guinea, South Africa, Namibia and Swaziland falling in the MIC category (see World Bank 2010).

The base year used for calculating the Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) dollar (which is used in setting the international poverty line) is 2005, estimated from the 2005 International Comparison Programme (ICP) round of price surveys. Based on the 2005 ICP, the new international poverty line has been set at US$1.25 and not US$1.08, as was the case before (for a detailed discussion see Ravallion, Chen and Sangraula (2009); and Chen and Ravallion (2008).

At the regional level, efforts to come up with social protection policy only started at the Ouagadougou Summit on ‘Employment and Poverty Alleviation’, of African Union's Heads of States and Governments in 2004, which recommended formulating social protection policy guidelines at the continental level. An important follow-up meeting was held in the Zambian town of Livingstone in March 2006, resulting in a document called the ‘Social Protection: A Transformation Agenda – the Livingstone Call to Action’. Follow-up meetings have been held in Kigali (2008), Yaounda (2010), and Cape Town (2010).

The concept of mitigation features prominently in the Social Risk Management (SRM) framework and it is often seen as a short-term intervention, responding to the urgent needs resulting from natural disasters such as floods. The World Bank introduced SRM as a framework for analysing social protection (Holzmann and Jorgensen 1999:6–7), though it has been pointed out that SRM limits the concept of social protection to the ‘social’, when risks encompass the economic and political spheres as well.

At the ‘Livingstone Call for Action’ summit, 13 eastern and southern African countries pledged to formulate costed national plans and implement them within two to three years. It remains to be seen how much seriousness is attached to these pledges. So far, not much has been done in any of the 13 countries in terms of implementing the ‘Livingstone Call to Action’.

A general appraisal of official data sets used by various international development agencies can be found in Srinivasan (1994). Further, the ILO data sets on employment/unemployment acknowledge the challenge of not just the quality of data, but also concepts, definitions and measurement of employment and unemployment, especially in developing countries (see Dewan and Peek 2007).

The ILO uses the ‘official’ or ‘narrow’ definition of unemployment, which excludes unemployed people who have given up the search for employment (ILO 2011b). The broad definition of unemployment includes discouraged unemployed job seekers, and using this measure often results in high unemployment rates (see Kingdon and Knight 2006).

Under the ISSA, ‘social security’ is defined as ‘programs established by statute that insure individual against interruption or loss of earning power and for certain special expenditures arising from marriage, birth or death’ (ISSA/SSA 2005, 2007, 2009). When this definition is applied to the African context, it only constitutes a minor set of programmes covering a small section of the population.

Nino-Zarazua et al (2010) have identified two models of social protection in SSA: the ‘Southern Africa Model’ characterised by programmes funded from public revenue (tax) and the ‘Middle Africa Model’ characterised by programmes overwhelmingly funded by donor agencies.

Three of these countries (Egypt, Algeria and Tunisia) are not part of SSA, but they are reported under the ISSA Africa Survey.

‘Means-tested’ refers to the programmes that have set eligibility criteria based an the applicant's means, assets or income, while a universal programme includes everyone who qualifies regardless of their level of income, asset or means. Means-tests apply to non-contributory social assistance programmes.