Indonesia’s social protection system: the relevance of informal social protection to strengthen adaptation to climate change

ABSTRACT

Social protection is praised as a multipurpose instrument to protect the most vulnerable people and ensure socioeconomic development. Recently, this approach has also been recognized by climate scientists. Over the past few decades, Indonesia, a highly exposed and vulnerable country facing climate change, has increased its efforts to protect all marginalized and vulnerable groups. However, the high uncertainty of social and economic impacts triggered by climate and environmental change increases pressure on the social protection system, leading to a rising need for deeper and broader coverage, especially among the most vulnerable people. This paper argues that vulnerable groups have built their own systems to be socially protected, which we refer to as informal social protection (ISP). Given that there is little reference to these particular structures in the literature on social protection, this study aims to explore their relevance and potential challenges. Jakarta, a highly urbanized and vulnerable city, was used as a case study. The city is simultaneously challenged by the increasingly adverse impacts of climate change. Gaps in formal social protection (FSP) will be analysed using qualitative and quantitative data to assess how and to what extent the most vulnerable groups are protected and whether ISP structures can fill the identified gaps. The results show that ISP can function as a solution to protect marginalized and vulnerable groups; however, more information is needed to ensure security considering long-term developments and increased future uncertainties.

HIGHLIGHTS OF THIS STUDY

1. FSP coverage in Indonesia still has gaps due to unregistered target groups, such as the missing middle population and informal sector workers.

2. The uncertainty of the social and economic impacts caused by climate change increases pressure on the social protection system, leading to a greater need for broader coverage.

3. ISP provides vulnerable groups with flexibility, local specificity, mutual benefits and reciprocity, collective decision-making, social cohesion, and trust.

4. ISP involves community-based adaptation and support from NGOs to enhance ISP and make it more adaptive.

5. ISP supports vulnerable groups affected by the unintended consequences of adaptation measures implemented by the government.

KEYWORDS:

• Informal social protection
• climate change adaptation
• Jakarta
• Indonesia

1. Introduction

Social protection is acknowledged as one of the key pillars for ensuring development by securing livelihoods and strengthening capacities (UNISDR 2015; IPCC, 2018; Djalante 2019). In the context of globally changing environmental conditions that challenge sustainable socioeconomic development, social protection is a promising multipurpose tool, primarily aimed at protecting and empowering poor and marginalized groups. Especially in coastal urban areas in Southeast Asia, recurring and increasingly extreme natural hazards, coupled with the challenges of urbanization, contribute to steadily rising levels of vulnerability and risk (Rustiadi et al. 2015; UN-Habitat 2016; IPCC 2018). Urban poor people are disproportionately affected by this trend, as they are the most exposed to these risks yet have the least capacity to cope with and adapt to them (Hallegatte et al. 2017). Following the guidance of renowned international accords and frameworks, such as the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, Sustainable Development Goals, the New Urban Agenda and Paris Agreement, governments worldwide have intensified efforts to enhance resilience to adverse events through the development and implementation of adaptation and mitigation strategies (UNFCCC Secretariat 2017). Social protection is an integrated strategy proposed as a promising multipurpose instrument to secure livelihoods and enhance capacities (UNISDR 2015; IPCC 2018; Djalante 2019; Costella et al. 2023).

Indonesia exemplifies this trend due to its geographical location, which exposes the country to various hazards that are increasing in frequency and severity amid climate change (Kusumastuti et al. 2014; Djalante and Garschagen 2017). The country’s coastal cities, including the capital city of Jakarta, are highly exposed to coastal hazards such as coastal flooding due to storms and sea level rise, with subsidence reinforcing such problems (Abidin et al. 2015; Budiyono et al. 2015). The case of Jakarta illustrates how cities grapple with urbanization challenges, such as escalating population density, mounting pressure on physical and social infrastructure, informal settlements and poverty, all of which strain the city’s development. Moreover, Indonesia’s demographic shift towards an ageing population could potentially increase the proportion of vulnerable groups (Hastuti et al. 2020). The Asian Financial Crisis (AFC) exacerbated poverty issues in Indonesia, worsening these challenges (Suryahadi et al. 2012).

Since 2014, the Government of Indonesia (GoI) has made significant progress in developing its social protection system, particularly through the expansion of universal health coverage (Mboi 2015). The National Health Insurance coverage has increased from 130 million to 220 million beneficiaries, and social insurance schemes, including coverage for work-related accidents and death benefits, are now accessible to both salaried and nonsalaried workers (Holmemo et al. 2020). However, there is still room for improvement, particularly in enhancing data collection systems of targeted group (Prasetyo et al. 2023). Informal settlers and other marginalized populations, who constitute a significant portion of the population, often remain excluded from these schemes, creating a “missing middle” where individuals are at risk of falling into poverty (OECD 2019).

Vulnerable groups in Jakarta are increasingly exposed to changing social, economic and environmental conditions (Nasution et al. 2022). Comprehensive and inclusive adaptation, mitigation, and social protection schemes are crucial for these vulnerable groups. Local protection and adaptation approaches, such as informal social protection (ISP), play a vital role in supporting them (Mumtaz 2022). This study highlights the significance of ISP structures in helping vulnerable groups cope with the impacts of climate change, exposing a gap in current knowledge where social protection literature and policies predominantly focus on formal social protection (FSP) implemented by governments, such as social insurance and assistance schemes (Midgley 2022). ISP overlooks potential opportunities and risks posed by local informal structures, particularly for urban inhabitants living and working informally (Holzmann and Jorgensen 2000). This gap is especially pertinent given future demographic, socioeconomic and environmental changes, including ageing, economic downturns and heightened natural hazard risks. This study uses Indonesia as a case study to outline the existing gap between FSP and ISP, with Jakarta serving as a focal point for addressing these discrepancies, especially through an analysis of ISP.

To address the aforementioned gaps, this study aims to investigate the following questions:

1. To what extent do FSP programmes protect vulnerable populations in Indonesia?

2. What types of ISP support adaptation to climate change impacts among vulnerable populations in Jakarta?

3. How effectively could ISP support vulnerable communities facing the impacts of climate change?

4. What challenges exist in considering ISP as an effective measure for responding to the impacts of climate change?

This article is structured as follows. Section 1 explains the rationale and aims of this study, and section 2 provides a literature review to highlight the current gap in social protection research. Section 3 outlines the context of the study in Indonesia and Jakarta. This is followed by a brief overview of the methods and data used (Section 4). Section 5 presents the findings of FSP initiatives implemented by national and provincial governments alongside an exploration of ISP practices in Jakarta. Section 6 examines the role of ISP in facilitating adaptation to climate change impacts among vulnerable groups. The study concludes by summarizing its findings, identifying limitations and proposing avenues for future research.

2. Review of the current gap in social protection for climate change adaptation

The field of disaster risk science increasingly recognizes social protection as a strategy to reduce vulnerability and enhance adaptive capacities for CCA (Rana et al. 2022). Both adaptation to climate change and social protection have gained prominence as critical policy themes in recent years, particularly due to the growing impact of climate change on vulnerable groups (Otto et al. 2017; Gasior et al. 2024). These two policy sectors are interconnected, as social protection measures can enhance community resilience against climate change effects (Tenzing 2020; Sengupta and Costella 2023). In urban settings, social protection assists individuals and households in managing income and livelihood risks while promoting social objectives, such as poverty reduction, equity, inclusion and social justice (Costella et al. 2023). Furthermore, integrating basic social assistance with tailored interventions supports adaptation efforts, including livelihood adjustments and incentives for resilient housing practices (Aleksandrova 2019).

The concept of adaptive social protection (ASP), an emerging topic in policy and research, addresses the role of social protection in adapting to climate change (Bowen et al. 2020). ASP aims to enhance the well-being and resilience of at-risk populations by combining Disaster Risk Management, CCA and Social Protection approaches (Drolet 2014; Sett et al. 2022). These approaches provide beneficiaries with resources to engage in climate-resilient livelihoods and strengthen their coping and adaptive capacities (World Bank 2020). Moreover, adaptation measures and strategies can help vulnerable populations manage the impacts of climate change and other livelihood challenges, thereby reinforcing social protection initiatives (Barrientos and Hulme 2008). Addressing this gap is crucial for ensuring inclusivity and equity in climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts (Tenzing 2020).

However, integrating social protection into climate-resilient programmes presents challenges, particularly for larger neglected, impoverished segments and among the most vulnerable groups (Mumtaz and Whiteford 2021). Beyond the formal provision of social protection by authorities, known as FSP, communities are not formally recognized as target groups, including informal settlers and middle-income groups with precarious incomes. These groups often rely on informal networks, such as immediate families, religious organizations and NGOs, for social protection, which is described as ISP (Mumtaz 2022). The ISP can take various forms: first, it can develop organically through bottom-up processes at the community level, reflecting local values and norms; second, it can be initiated by external institutions, such as NGOs, CSOs or community associations (Mumtaz 2022). These forms differ significantly in size, organizational structure and level of institutionalization.

Similar to the structures of FSP and ISP enhance individuals’ capacity to cope with various shocks and pressures, including those caused by climate change (Mumtaz 2022; Bowen et al. 2020). The survival of vulnerable groups often depends on these mechanisms, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where institutional social safety nets may be inadequate or nonexistent. Informal social safety nets, while sometimes well-placed to support navigating the complex and prolonged impacts of climate change, also have drawbacks. Research on the role of ISP in aiding vulnerable populations to adapt to climate change remains limited. Recognizing the local potential of vulnerable groups and bolstering it to address gaps left by FSP is a crucial aspect of ISP’s function. However, according to Mumtaz (2022), ISP does not necessarily address the limitations of FSP, as each system has its own strengths and weaknesses. Understanding the strengths and limitations of both systems is vital for crafting comprehensive strategies to support vulnerable populations in adapting to climate change.

The differences between ISP and FSP systems do not necessarily complement each other. Intermediary institutions such as NGOs play a crucial role in bridging this gap (Mohanty 2012). NGOs and CSOs are essential for mobilizing resources, advocating policy changes and ensuring community participation in FSP initiatives. By working closely with local communities, these organizations can offer valuable insights and feedback to enhance the effectiveness of FSP programmes. Moreover, their expertise in grassroots development enables them to address the specific needs and challenges faced by marginalized populations, thereby promoting more inclusive and sustainable solutions for food security.

3. Case study context

Indonesia is one of the most vulnerable countries in Asia due to natural and climate-related hazards, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. As the world’s largest archipelago situated in the Pacific Ring of Fire, Indonesia faces numerous natural hazards and is often termed a “supermarket of disasters”, with at least 13 types of natural and climate-related hazards documented (Djalante and Garschagen 2017). Its extensive coastline makes it particularly susceptible to coastal hazards, which have escalated in frequency and intensity as a result of climate change (Yusuf and Francisco 2009).

Jakarta, the capital of Indonesia, was selected as a case study because it exemplifies the social protection challenges in the Southeast Asian context, considering both environmental and societal aspects. Jakarta, situated as a low-lying coastal city, faces high exposure to increasing natural hazards and the impacts of climate change, presenting a multidimensional vulnerability profile. Located on the northern coast of Java Island, Jakarta’s elevation of only seven metres above sea level makes it highly vulnerable. The city is home to nearly 12 million people, with a population density of 15,900 per km² (BPS 2020a). Approximately 18% of the population lives along the coastline facing the Java North Sea, placing them at significant risk from tidal floods and sea-level rise. At the city level, about 50% of the population is estimated to be vulnerable to flooding (BPS-DKI Jakarta 2018). According to the 2021 Village Potency Census (PODES), 109 out of Jakarta’s 267 urban wards (Kelurahan, the smallest administrative area in Indonesia) were affected by floods during 2020–2021 (BPS-DKI Jakarta 2021). Urbanization continues to increase exposure, particularly in vulnerable areas (Firman et al. 2011; Garschagen et al. 2018), exacerbated by land subsidence that further heightens flood risk (Tagaki et al. 2016). The urban poor are particularly vulnerable to disasters such as flooding, as they often reside in the most exposed areas while having limited means to cope with and adapt to these risks. These dynamic characteristics pose significant challenges for Indonesia’s social protection systems.

Vulnerable and marginalized groups include registered and unregistered low-income families, the missing middle population and informal settlers and workers. Therefore, accurately assessing the number of informally employed individuals is challenging, resulting in varying estimates across sources. According to Indonesia’s National Labour Force Survey (Survei Angkatan Kerja Nasional – SAKERNAS), Statistics Indonesia estimated it to be 59.45% in 2022, equivalent to 77.99 million workers (BPS 2023b). This aligns closely with Rothenberg et al. (2016) estimate of 61–70% of the total Indonesian workforce being in the informal sector. In reality, the proportion of informal employees is likely higher, depending on specific circumstances. For example, the estimate of informal workers in Jakarta in 2022 is lower than the national average at 38.26%. However, this figure is based only on permanent residents of Jakarta and may exclude those living in informal settlements.

Similarly, informal settlements, densely populated areas, continue to present challenges for the Government of Jakarta. Rapid urbanization and population growth have outpaced housing supply (Zhu and Simarmata 2015), leading to the proliferation of buildings and settlements on unsuitable land such as floodplains, riverbanks, and other hazardous locations, increasing exposure and vulnerability (Firman et al. 2011; Garschagen et al. 2018). Living conditions in these settlements are often precarious, leading to their frequent designation as slums. Statistics Indonesia assessed household access to adequate housing through the National Socioeconomic Surveys, measuring criteria such as sufficient living area (at least 7.2 m² of floor area per capita), access to improved drinking water sources, sanitation facilities and durable house materials (roof, floor and wall) (BPS 2023a). As of 2022, it was estimated that 60.66% of households in Indonesia meet these criteria for decent housing. However, in Jakarta, this figure is notably lower at 36.23% (BPS 2023b).

4. Research methodology and data

To address the questions mentioned in the introduction, this paper study employs a mixed-methods approach, integrating qualitative and quantitative as well as primary and secondary data. To assess the coverage of vulnerable groups through FSP, we analysed the current status of FSP and its implemented programmes, particularly those targeting vulnerable populations such as the poor and residents of slum areas highly susceptible to river and tidal floods. To understand the practices of ISP, we examine the programmes and initiatives among the vulnerable communities.

We acknowledge several social protection programmes in Indonesia and numerous schemes implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic (Suryahadi et al. 2021). However, specific key programmes (refer to Annex) are provided for further analysis. Various types of data from different stakeholders are available on different platforms with varying reporting formats. Subsequently, the paper discusses Jakarta’s unique social protection system and compares it with the national level. An overview of Indonesia’s and Jakarta’s FSP systems, particularly focusing on their social assistance component, will help identify their strengths and weaknesses. We then examine the forms of ISP in Jakarta. While some are deeply rooted in Indonesian culture and lack distinct structures, others are exclusive and governed by informal institutions. The strengths and shortcomings of this system are identified and explained.

This study employed a mixed-method approach, integrating qualitative and quantitative methodologies. Secondary data were sourced from regional and national reports published by national authorities and reputable international publishers. Primary data collection involved structured interviews. Table 1 details the data sources and collection methods used.

Table 1. Secondary and primary data collection and data analysis.

Source	Information	Method of data collection	Data Analysis
Secondary data
OECD Report (2019)	Formal social protection: Coverage and number of beneficiaries - Social assistance - Social insurance	Interviews with related stakeholders and official websites of related leading actors (OECD 2019)	Descriptive analysis
Official websites: Ministry of Social Affairs (2020/2021)	Formal social protection: Coverage and number of beneficiaries - Social assistance - Social insurance	Annual reports from each activity	Descriptive analysis
Official website of Statistics Indonesia (BPS)	Formal social protection: Coverage and number of beneficiaries	Exploration of databases managed by Statistics Indonesia. The database employs data from National Socioeconomic Surveys (Survei Sosial Ekonomi Nasional - SUSENAS) and National Labour Force Surveys (Survei Angkatan Kerja Nasional or SAKERNAS)	Descriptive analysis
Primary data
A household survey (n = 451) Category of household: vulnerable to flood and affected by formal adaptation measures	Ownership of formal social protection Informal social protection: type and utilisation - Social assistance - Social insurance	Structured interviews based on a list of questions. Respondents were purposively selected in 2015, located in 4 research sites (kampungs including vertical housing as relocation sites). Those are kampungs affected by formal adaptation measures (coastal dyke, reservoir normalisation and construction of the new ones) and relocation.	Descriptive analysis generated from the household survey
In-depth Interviews with selected households and local leaders, civil society and nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) who work intensively to empower the vulnerable group	Access to social protection (formal and informal) and effectiveness: benefit and challenges Informal social protection provisions Local community empowerment	Interviews in 2015–2017 and updated in 2021	Qualitative content analysis using MaxQDA

Source: Authors.

5. Results and discussions

5.1. Formal social protection for the vulnerable population in Indonesia: current progress

This section examines Indonesia’s FSP system and its coverage of vulnerable populations. The case study of Jakarta illustrates how vulnerable communities access social protection. Indonesian Constitutional Law explicitly guarantees all Indonesians the right to social protection and a decent life, highlighting that every individual, including vulnerable people, should receive social protection. However, the current social protection system faces several challenges in fulfilling this mandate.

The goal of universal coverage for all Indonesians began to take shape in the 1970s initially covering only state employees and being provider-side driven (Widjaja and Simanjuntak 2010). Over time, the system evolved significantly, transitioning into a more long-term and development-oriented approach integrated into the country’s overall development agenda (OECD 2019). Following the financial crisis in 1997/1998, the government swiftly developed and implemented various social security, social assistance and insurance schemes aimed at lifting many people out of poverty. Law No. 40/2004, passed in 2004, established the legal foundation for Indonesia’s Social Protection plans, with an ambitious goal of achieving universal coverage with Social Security. Alongside the Sistem Jaminan Sosial Nasional (National Social Security System), a policy framework for social insurance established in 2004, and the Badan Jaminan Sosial Nasional (BPJS, National Social Security Administering Body), an institutional framework for Social Protection created in 2011, the Social Protection system is supported by stable legal, institutional and political pillars.

Overall, the concept of social protection in Indonesia includes social assistance, social insurance, and integrated social protection (Bappenas 2014), all aimed at enhancing the capacities of people, particularly those from poor and vulnerable groups (ibid.). Many social protection programmes, especially social assistance initiatives, determine beneficiaries based on poverty criteria established by Statistics Indonesia (Badan Pusat Statistik Indonesia or BPS). In 2005, the GoI began developing a unified socioeconomic database (Data Terpadu Kesejahteraan Sosial-DTKS) to identify eligible individuals and families. While the database serves as a beneficial framework for various implementing bodies to identify and support qualified beneficiaries, it also serves as a central information repository for budget planning (Ministry of Social Affairs 2021). To continually enhance the database of social protection beneficiaries, including DTKS, the GoI, through the BPS, recently launched the socioeconomic registration programme (Registrasi Sosial Ekonomi or Regsosek) in 2022 (Indonesia Baik 2022). The Regsosek programme aims to collect socioeconomic data from the entire Indonesian population.

Social assistance, a non-contributory scheme, forms a fundamental pillar of Indonesia’s Social Protection system. Initially, from 1993 to 1997, it primarily served as a poverty reduction programme, targeting individuals and families in remote and underdeveloped areas of Indonesia. Between 1996 and 2003, the emphasis shifted towards community empowerment and improving access to microcredit to enhance family welfare (Bappenas 2014). Over time, various social assistance programmes have undergone numerous changes and reforms, including the transition from physical transfers to e-vouchers and programme integration. However, detailing all historical changes is beyond the scope of this analysis, which focuses solely on the current state of the SP system.

In general, non-contributory social assistance is crucial for the poorest citizens. Many non-contributory programmes provide support through two key approaches: direct cash transfers and in-kind transfers. In the following section, we will provide a brief overview of the formal protection programmes that contribute to CCA; therefore, a comprehensive overview is needed.

5.1.1. Social assistance programmes (noncontributory)

5.1.1.1. In-kind transfers

Indonesia’s food assistance programmes, RASTRA (Beras untuk rakyat sejahtera; rice for the prosperous population) and BPNT (Bantuan pangan nontunai; noncash food assistance), are crucial in-kind transfer schemes. RASTRA has subsidized rice since the AFC, covering 64% of eligible households (Timmer et al. 2016; OECD 2019). BPNT provides a safety net for the poor and the vulnerable, covering 27% of all households. In 2018, the government allocated 0.18% of Indonesia’s GDP, covering 15.6 million poor households. Most social assistance programmes provide conditional or unconditional direct cash transfers, targeting specific beneficiary groups, such as women, children, elderly people, disabled people, indigenous people and migrants. The BLT, established in 2005, is used temporarily during times of need, covering the same poor and vulnerable people as RASTRA.

5.1.1.2. Cash transfers for specific support

The Indonesian government offers various programmes to support the poorest families, including the conditional cash-transfer programme PKH (Program Keluarga Harapan or Family Hope Programme), which provides up to nine years of support. This programme accounts for 0.08% of Indonesia’s GDP and aims to assist close to 15% of households by 2020. Educational support programmes, such as the Indonesian Smart Programme, School Operational Support and scholarships for university students from low-income families, also provide assistance. Additionally, the government provides special programmes for post-disaster management, including housing infrastructure, and allocates an annual contingency budget for disaster response.

5.1.1.3 Targeted beneficiary groups

Programmes in Indonesia aim to protect vulnerable groups such as women, people with disabilities, street children, migrant workers and the abandoned elderly. However, these programmes have limited coverage due to their outreach constraints. For instance, the Saving and Loans for Women (Simpan Pinjam untuk Perempuan or SPP) microfinance scheme provides savings and loans to poor women, but its coverage remains low. Social Assistance for the Elderly is integrated into the PKH programme, but only 10% of the elderly population is covered. Similarly, social assistance is available for people with severe disabilities. The administrative processes for determining eligibility for social assistance can be challenging, and the reported coverage may not accurately reflect the true number of vulnerable individuals.

5.1.2. Social insurance programmes (contributory)

Indonesia’s social insurance system was expanded to include all citizens through five schemes: National Health Protection (Jaminan Kesehatan Nasional or JKN), compensation for work injuries, survivor benefits, old age savings with disability benefits and elderly pensions. The government also provides a non-contributory pillar, the JKN-PBI (Penerima Bantuan Iuran or PBI), for the poor. However, budget constraints in 2019 led to increased fees for lower tariffs, which posed a threat to middle-income groups. Additionally, informal workers who do not qualify as poor by government standards may face out-of-pocket fees, potentially limiting the expansion of JKN coverage.

Despite significant improvements in health insurance coverage in Indonesia over recent decades, other types of social insurance, such as work-related accident insurance (Jaminan Kecelakaan Kerja or JKK) and life insurance, remain limited. For instance, only 1.7 million out of 63 million workers are covered by work-related accident insurance (BPJS Ketenagakerjaan 2017). This low coverage is primarily due to the exclusion of informal workers, who constitute approximately 59.45% of the entire Indonesian workforce (BPS 2023a). Additionally, factors such as low awareness of insurance benefits and the financial constraints of many workers, preventing them from paying premiums, contribute to the low uptake of insurance, including pension coverage (Madya and Nurwahyuni 2019; Harfina et al. 2020). After retirement, less than 10% of the current working population is covered by a contributory pension scheme (OECD 2019), leaving many reliant on social networks and social assistance programmes like ASLUT and PKH. This issue is exacerbated by the fact that a significant portion of the elderly population, estimated at 36%, falls into the category of poor or vulnerable (Holmemo et al. 2020), highlighting the inadequate coverage of formal pension schemes for this demographic group.

Overall, these programmes are implemented on a national scale and are also available in the province of Jakarta. Indonesia’s decentralized government system grants local governments the authority to implement their own programmes and manage their respective budgets, provided they align with national social protection and development plans. Local governments are tasked with expanding social protection coverage, particularly among vulnerable and marginalized groups, and ensuring the sustainability of these programmes. Jakarta, as the capital city, holds a special status in this regard. The governor has broader authority to implement programmes at the municipal level. Unlike other cities where mayors are elected by the people, Jakarta’s city mayors are appointed by the governor. This unique governance structure allows for tailored adjustments of national programmes to fit Jakarta’s specific local context. The following section will highlight two adaptations of national programmes to Jakarta’s unique circumstances.

5.1.2.1 Health insurance

A report from Statistics Indonesia indicates that 70,740,309 Indonesians, comprising 26.6% of the population, lack health insurance (BPS 2022b). This data is derived from SUSENAS 2022, which includes various types of health insurance, such as BPJS contributory and non-contributory, the Population Health Protection Programme (Jaminan Kesehatan Masyarakat or JAMKESMAS), private insurance and employer insurance. In DKI Jakarta Province, 8.06% of the population lacks health insurance. Despite the JKN scheme, which aims to cover all poor people, local governments are compelled to implement their own local schemes due to gaps in coverage.

As of 2021, 86.90% of the population was covered by JKN (BPJS Kesehatan 2022). Consequently, the GoI mandates that local governments provide a similar local scheme based on their budgets to cover their residents. In Jakarta, for instance, the local government tailored JAMKESMAS to the region’s needs by developing and implementing the Jakarta Health Card (Kartu Jakarta Sehat or KJS) to achieve universal coverage by 2014. Recently, KJS has been integrated into JKN, resulting in an increased number of beneficiaries while offering similar benefits. Approximately 52.30% of the population received contributory health insurance paid by the Government of Jakarta in 2020 (BPS 2020b).

5.1.2.2 Education

In 2012, Jakarta introduced the Jakarta Smart Card (Kartu Jakarta Pintar or KJP), which provides educational support similar to the Indonesian Smart Card (Kartu Indonesia Pintar or KIP), but exclusively for Jakarta citizens. The KJP uses student and teacher data to identify potential recipients, with larger target groups and higher budgets compared to KIP. The KJP offers IDR 210,000 per month in addition to covering tuition fees, whereas KIP provides IDR 225,000 per semester.

5.1.3. Discussion: gaps and limitations of the formal social protection system in Indonesia to protect the vulnerable population

Based on our analysis, social protection in Indonesia includes a wide range of contributory and non-contributory schemes, which have expanded significantly in breadth and size over recent decades. However, accurately quantifying the coverage and effectiveness of these programmes is complex. Many individuals benefit from multiple FSP programmes simultaneously, making precise quantification challenging. Furthermore, assessing the quality of these programmes, their actual impact on reducing vulnerability and their coverage of the most marginalized populations poses risks. Official statistics suggest that a majority of the population, including vulnerable groups, are covered by some form of social protection – whether contributory or non-contributory. However, these figures should be interpreted with caution for several reasons. First, they are based on registered citizens, excluding a substantial number of informal residents and those categorized as the missing middle. Second, these statistics do not account for overlapping beneficiaries across multiple programmes. Through extensive research and expert interviews, this study has identified four primary challenges confronting Indonesia’s SP system.

First, there is discontinuity in programmes due to varying interests and priorities among politicians and/or changes in government, affecting the sustainability and quality of programmes. Moreover, maintaining continuous programmes is crucial for policymakers and stakeholders to address the gradual impact of climate change and to effectively evaluate programmes targeting vulnerable populations.

Second, the identification of beneficiaries primarily relies on the DKTS, which does not include informal inhabitants and workers. Consequently, many of the most vulnerable and marginal groups are unable to access FSP benefits. Moreover, even among those listed, the eligibility criteria for FSP programmes are narrowly defined, causing many individuals and families (such as those without children, the unemployed, those just above the poverty line who are at high risk of falling back into poverty, migrant workers and informal settlers) to fall through the cracks. At the national level, Statistics Indonesia estimated that 9.54% of the population were classified as poor in 2022, amounting to 26.16 million people (BPS 2022a).

Third, accessing social protection programmes often involves navigating bureaucratic hurdles that are particularly challenging for the most vulnerable inhabitants. Compounding this issue is nepotism, which influences the distribution of benefits from community-based social protection programmes, perpetuating social bias and inequitable access. In Jakarta, local authorities have taken steps to adjust the distribution of social assistance, aiming to promote fairness among residents of informal settlements. Local leaders aggregate social assistance from the government and redistribute it to targeted families. However, this distribution may only reach needy groups in certain cases.

Fourth, enhancing financial capacities at the national level is crucial for achieving universal social protection, requiring local governments to supplement budgets. Consequently, wealthier provinces typically achieve higher coverage rates than poorer ones, exacerbating inequalities. Jakarta serves as a case study, where the city’s resources enable more robust programme support compared to national-level social protection schemes, extending to more beneficiaries. However, as noted in the second point, Jakarta’s programmes are limited to holders of Jakarta identity cards, excluding those without such documentation.

Last, despite constrained budgets in poorer provinces, coverage rates have risen, albeit at the expense of diminishing support quality, as cash transfers or in-kind assistance are spread across more individuals or households. These challenges explain why the GoI has not yet achieved its objective of providing comprehensive social protection to the entire population, particularly vulnerable groups.

5.1.4. Interim conclusion – formal social protection in Jakarta

In Jakarta, our HH survey reveals that despite initial successes, FSP still fails to cover all vulnerable populations (see Table 2). Over 50% of respondents without identity cards and/or working in informal sectors lack access to FSP programmes. Less than half of the respondents are covered by FSPs. This under coverage persists largely due to narrowly defined eligibility criteria, posing challenges for many poor and vulnerable individuals seeking social protection. Our study found that some respondents lacked Jakarta citizen cards, a prerequisite for accessing social protection from local authorities. Alongside concerns about eligibility and significant bureaucratic hurdles hindering the expansion of FSP, increased spending is crucial to achieving comprehensive and equitable coverage, with contributions from beneficiaries (OECD 2019).

Table 2. Formal social protection among the vulnerable groups (n = 451).

No	FSP Programme	Percentage
1	Cash transfer (BLT)	23,7
2	Rice subsidies (RASTRA)	33,9
3	Health Insurance (KJS)	32,2
4	Education (JKP)	20,0
5	JAMKESMAS	17,3
6	BPJS	22,8

Source: Authors based on the Household Survey in 2015.

While asset-focused social protection measures have been favoured by the GoI until recently, they alone cannot provide comprehensive protection. However, expanding FSP continuously may not always be desirable due to inherent risks: for example, asset transfers can stabilize existing social structures and create dependency among the poor and vulnerable, potentially reinforcing structural vulnerabilities. Instead of solely broadening the scope of protective and preventive measures in FSP, there is a growing recognition of the need for transformative social protection measures. These approaches can foster empowerment, social justice and equal opportunities across social, economic, educational and cultural rights (Sabates-Wheeler and Devereux 2007).

5.2. Informal social protection in Jakarta

The following subsection explores the development pathways of ISP structures, using DKI Jakarta Province as a case study to highlight their relevance and provide deeper insights. Empirical evidence analysed in this study identifies Indonesia as a prime example of a collectivist culture where mutual support is deeply ingrained in the national identity. Strong social networks and informal institutions serve as widespread safety nets across the country, shaped by respective social norms. This phenomenon is similarly observed in Jakarta, where individuals with limited access to FSP often leverage this collectivist culture, including traditions, social norms and informal institutions, to establish their own protection systems (see Table 3). In the subsequent section, we outline the key informal network structures and institutions to illustrate this dynamic.

Table 3. Type of informal social protection at the neighbourhood level.

Activities/arrangement	Type of Benefit
	Financial (economy)	Social (including health)	Housing
Arisan	Yes	Yes	Yes
Pengajian (reading the Qur‘an)	No	Yes	Yes
Kelompok Doa (Christian’s prayer community)	No	Yes	Yes
Paguyuban/ethnic associates	Yes	Yes	Yes
Kelompok Nelayan (fishers communities‘ association)	Yes	Yes	Yes
Paguyuban/Kelompok Rusun	No	Yes	Yes
Jimpitan	Yes	Yes	No

Source: Authors from in-depth interviews with local leaders and selected respondents from the HouseholdH Survey.

Among the vulnerable groups in this study, informal housing is characterized by its illegal status on the land or its temporary usage. Administratively designated as blue or green areas, these lands are occupied by informal housing and various activities of the inhabitants. Informal housing in the case study areas exhibits high dynamism in its existence. As urban development progresses in these areas, residents face displacement through eviction or relocation. This study focuses on informal housing in the northern part of Jakarta, impacted by adaptation measures such as dike construction, river dredging and reservoir normalization. Residents were relocated to vertical social housing, although some relocated to other slums due to challenges in accessing formal relocation programmes.

5.2.1. Types of informal social protection

5.2.1.1. Arisan

Arisan is a popular Indonesian Rotating Savings and Credit Association (ROSCA) that facilitates savings and capital sharing among its members (Fessler 2002). This study identified two types of arisans: monetary and goods based. Monetary arisans typically involve mutual agreements with contributions reaching up to 15 million IDR per group, while goods-based arisans include home appliances and kitchen equipment. Membership typically ranges from 15 to 25 people, with flexible roles but commonly including a chairperson, secretary and treasurer. In our study, arisans are organized by women’s groups based on friendships, pooling funds during monthly gatherings. Arisans also enhance members’ capabilities through resource-sharing and training activities. Respondents highlighted that arisans enable reciprocity among members and assist in meeting immediate needs such as education, family ceremonies and home renovations.

5.2.1.2. Pengajian (reading the Qur’an)

Reading the Qur’an is a voluntary religious activity organized by neighbourhoods and facilitated by nearby mosques, involving both males and females. Membership in these groups is more flexible compared to Arisan, and they actively support needy members, such as those affected by government eviction due to adaptation measures.

5.2.1.3. Kelompok Doa (Christian’s prayer community)

Similar to Quran study groups, prayer groups among Christians also benefit from community support. These groups hold regular meetings accompanied by voluntary fundraising to assist members facing difficulties. The amount of money contributed is adjusted based on each individual’s capacity. Membership in these prayer groups is also flexible and non-binding.

5.2.1.4. Kelompok Nelayan (fisher community associations)

Fishermen’s associations are limited to specific locales and primarily include individuals engaged in fishing either as a primary occupation or as a supplementary one. Membership is exclusive but open to those showing strong commitment. One such association was identified in Muara Angke, northern Jakarta, where traditional fishermen are still active. During the study period, the association played a crucial role in addressing challenges faced by members affected by reclamation activities in their vicinity. It also supported members in seeking compensation for economic losses by providing flexible repayment loans.

5.2.1.5. Paguyuban/Kelompok Rusun

The Flats Residents’ Association was newly formed during the research, following a relocation programme aimed at reducing flood risk. This association aims to coordinate relocated residents to help them settle into their new environment. It was formed voluntarily, and administrators were appointed based on mutual agreement. In-depth interviews revealed that families who lost their jobs and faced challenges adapting to their new locations received support from this association, including job information and shared daily necessities.

5.2.1.6. Jimpitan

Pinch rice collection (beras jimpitan) is another type of ROSCA, alongside the Arisan. Jimpitan is organized by neighbourhood associations and includes almost all residents in those areas, except for families unable to contribute. Some households choose not to join and consequently miss out on the benefits. Jimpitan plays a crucial role in local social protection mechanisms to safeguard community livelihoods (Ajija and Siddiqui 2021). Rice contributions are collected from each household to support those in need or serve as a safety net for the community. While various social protection mechanisms have been attempted in the past, including dana sehat, an informal health fund for communities (Smeru 2012), sustainability challenges led to limited participation (Bappenas 2014). In this study, specific informal health funds were not mentioned, but women’s associations provided essential health services for mothers and babies, including nutritional supplements.

Two types of social systems are generated in the daily lives of Indonesian communities to shape the activities of ISP. These two types of social systems determine access to these various forms of ISP at the community scale. First, mutual assistance, known as gotong royong, an institutionalization of collective activities of communal tasks, represents a widespread and traditional social system through which Indonesians can access support at the local level (Slikkerveer 2019; Lukiyanto and Wijayaningtyas 2020). Second, social networks within the neighbourhood and beyond allow access to ISP through locally embedded, daily practices. For instance, the Arisan and paguyuban are accessed by members through social networks that revolve around kinship and family relations and/or through individuals’ commonalities, such as the same place of origin, religion and economic activities. Accordingly, most communities in Jakarta are structured according to kinship, religion, ethnicity, occupation, gender and other interest groups. The social network mechanism can extend beyond the surrounding neighbourhood to include a mutual interest in maintaining reciprocal interaction.

5.3. The role of informal social protection among vulnerable populations dealing with the impact of climate change

Based on the types of ISP presented above, this section analyses the direct and indirect roles of ISPs in adapting to climate change. First, the direct role concerns building community resilience through the self-organizing capacity to address the realized impacts of climate change, such as extreme floods. ISPs effectively provide financial and social support to mitigate risks, for instance, by collectively protecting the neighbourhood through repairing local dykes, elevating houses and reconstructing damaged homes during extreme floods. This study also revealed that ISP mechanisms play a role in flood early warning systems.

The flood early warning system is based on monitoring water levels in the river basin from upstream to downstream. This monitoring is always carried out, with warnings becoming more intense during the rainy season. Based on in-depth interviews, respondents mentioned that they obtained information from relatives who worked as floodgate guards and who were not part of the formal warning chain. They use their network of “paguyubans” for preparedness and to support neighbours who need assistance.

Second, the indirect role involves responding to the consequences of the adaptation measures implemented by local authorities. We examined formal adaptation measures based on those implemented by local authorities during the research period (2015–2017), namely relocation, dikes and reservoir normalization.

According to interviews with local authorities, social networks play a crucial role in assisting families without access to social housing and facing eviction without any alternative place to live. A relocation programme designed to reduce flood risk prioritizes urban dwellers in informal settlements who possess Jakarta identity cards. However, some respondents without ID cards were able to access social housing instead of being evicted due to support from local associations (paguyuban) and religious group associations. These groups collectively support each other in maintaining the social system established in their new homes. The household survey showed that 66.7% of respondents preferred to stay in the same location with the same social support systems.

Similarly, adaptation measures for dike construction and reservoir projects have resulted in changes in the lives of affected vulnerable groups. They have impacted their livelihoods, especially those who work in the fisheries sector. The percentage of respondents who worked in the fisheries sector before adaptation was approximately 48%, which decreased to 38% during and after construction. Families who lost their jobs and homes also received support from their surrounding neighbourhoods to cope with unexpected conditions.

This study shows that ISPs cannot fully fulfil the four social protection functions needed to support adaptation to climate change: protection, prevention, promotion, and transformation. While ISPs may provide some benefits in terms of protection and prevention, they are less effective in promoting and transforming social protection systems.

5.3.1. Limitations of informal social protection

While ISP structures are well tailored to the local context, evolve in mutual agreement and trust and are unbureaucratic by nature, they also have disadvantages and limitations. This study highlights four of these factors, which are important to consider when assessing the strength of ISP.

First, ISPs provided through networks are exclusive and inflexible. Almost all of the described arrangements, such as Arisan, Penggajian and Paguyuban, consist of members with similar objectives, visions and missions. These networks and groups evolve based on kinship and neighbourhood relations, making them inaccessible to everyone. Often, individuals are born into their networks with limited options for accessing other social networks or groups. The benefits are reserved only for existing members and depend on the strength and size of the network or group. New members may need to wait for another round of activities to join, requiring adjustments to accommodate them.

Second, social networks and their activities are limited by financial means and capacities. The resources available are entirely dependent on the capacity of the members, which in turn influences the scale of support provided, such as financial assistance during times of need.

Third, closely related to the previous point, all activities and arrangements established by a social network or group rely heavily on the trust and commitment of its members. This characteristic can become a weakness when, for instance, members drop out of schemes like Arisan or similar pooling initiatives, affecting the continuity and sustainability of these programmes.

Fourth, while incorporating or building on traditional knowledge can be considered an advantage of ISP, it can also pose challenges. Traditional knowledge may not adequately address the dynamic and new challenges posed by climate and environmental changes. There may be gaps in understanding the uncertainty of extreme events and changing patterns that go beyond past experiences. Moreover, their perceptions of the future and long-term risks are often influenced by their beliefs, which can affect their investment and saving plans in response to climate change. Some traditional practices may also prove to be maladaptive. Finally, ISP is deeply embedded in strong social norms and relies heavily on reciprocity, which can limit accessibility, practices and flexibility.

5.3.2. Interim conclusion – informal social protection in Jakarta

At the local level, Indonesia exhibits a highly collectivist culture where risk management differs significantly from the government’s perspective. This behaviour cannot be solely attributed to financial constraints that compel people to adopt alternative means of self-protection against recurring hazards and difficulties. The reliance on social networks such as kinship ties, religious groups, associations and neighbourhood networks as local ISP systems stems from a deep-seated belief in collective efficacy – the notion that individuals are more resilient and empowered when acting as a cohesive group. In the absence of FSP, these traditional structures within Indonesian society offer informal mechanisms for safeguarding against hazards and hardships, providing a sense of security to many poor and vulnerable individuals. These networks operate without the bureaucratic hurdles typically associated with formal systems, and individuals often inherit their place within these social networks, which offer lifelong security and protection. However, these ISP mechanisms have notable limitations and can only offer partial protection. Therefore, they need to be supplemented with FSP measures to achieve comprehensive social protection for all.

5.4. Challenges in considering informal social protection as an effective response to climate change impacts

This section elaborates on the challenges encountered by the ISP in addressing the impact of climate change on vulnerable populations. Although ISPs can help vulnerable groups adapt to local changes, this study demonstrated that the benefits for vulnerable populations are constrained in scope due to resource limitations and a lack of infrastructure. Prolonged weather changes, unpredictable outcomes, and ecological disturbances present long-term and complex challenges. For example, the local organization “Paguyuban” focuses on building community resilience but struggles with substantial financial limitations. Furthermore, an organization’s deficiencies in accountability and transparency diminish its credibility, erode stakeholder trust, and impede its effectiveness in addressing the requirements of vulnerable populations. An organization’s limited resources and oversight can impede its capacity to adequately respond to the needs of vulnerable populations amidst climate change.

Inadequate support can exacerbate vulnerability to the impacts of climate change, leading to increased risks and challenges for marginalized populations. ISP programmes must cater to the specific needs of climate change-vulnerable groups, including ensuring access to clean water, shelter, and healthcare, to improve their resilience and preparedness for future challenges. This can be achieved through targeted interventions such as gender-sensitive disaster preparedness training for women and educational programmes for children that prioritize the unique vulnerabilities and capacities of women and children in the face of climate change. The current types of ISP at the community level have a limited capacity to fulfil inclusivity.

This study highlights that NGOs and CSOs can play a crucial role in bridging this gap at the community level. Partnering with these organizations provides access to a wealth of resources and support, enhancing efforts to mitigate the impacts of climate change on vulnerable populations (see Table 4).

Table 4. Programmes to increase the capacity of vulnerable populations.

Name of organisations	Target groups	Programmes	Duration
NGOs
Wahana Visi (part of the World Vision)	Children	Informal education Scholarship Foster parents	Long-term
	Women	Microfinance Skill training for small-scale businesses	Temporary, project-based
Save the Children	Students (early and middle levels)	Scholarship, particularly in learning facilities	Temporary, project-based
Plan International	Students (all levels)	Disaster preparedness	Project-based
Kausa Resiliensi Indonesia	Youth	Disaster preparedness Community empowerment	Four years onwards (project-based)
Urban Poor Consortium (UPC)	Women	Community empowerment for economic and social benefit	In the long term empowers the communities
Tanoto Foundation	School construction for early childhood education facilities (pendidikan anak usia dini - PAUD) in vertical social housing	School facilities	Long-term
Religious Organisations
Moslem	Quran class Education for early and middle school	School facilities	Long-term

Source: Authors from interviews with related NGOs and local organizations.

5.4.1. The role of NGOs and CSOs in bridging the gap between ISP and FSP

In addition to grassroots ISP mechanisms, there is substantial evidence of ISP schemes initiated and supported by NGOs. While many programmes are short-term, they still provide critical support to enhance local capacities, such as scholarships for students and initiatives for local economic empowerment, aimed at improving the well-being of vulnerable groups. Various external institutions or organizations employ numerous approaches to empower local communities and facilitate ISP for vulnerable groups. The selection of target groups, strategies and measures depends on the organization’s nature and mission. Table 4 presents examples of organizations and their programmes linked to ISP structures.

As illustrated by the examples provided, NGOs and other locally connected organizations play a crucial role in fostering, strengthening and sustaining social structures and local capacities that support social protection, among other functions. However, it is important to note that many of these programmes are project-based, typically lasting from a few months to a couple of years, which inherently limits their duration. For instance, women who receive microfinance to initiate and expand their economic activities may encounter challenges in maintaining their progress due to factors such as limited ongoing support and market fluctuations once project activities conclude.

5.4.2. Discussion: complementary roles of ISP and FSP in climate change adaptation

Our findings on social FSP and ISP are novel for the context of Indonesia but largely align with results from a study on social protection conducted in Pakistan (Mumtaz 2022). Similarities between Pakistan and Indonesia include significant population growth, both countries having over 200 million people and large Muslim populations, making ISP a prominent scheme among vulnerable groups. Mumtaz (2023) outlined three scenarios: first, an adequate or ineffective relationship between ISP and FSP; second, ISP being more effective than FSP; and third, FSP being more effective than ISP. The study demonstrated that integrating FSP and ISP strengthens overall social protection and enhances welfare in Pakistan (Mumtaz 2023). Similarly, our study highlights the role of ISPs in complementing the limited coverage of FSPs. However, ISPs need greater support to effectively address the complexities and uncertainties posed by climate change impacts.

Formal and ISP systems play crucial roles in fostering resilience and aiding individuals and communities in adapting to climate change. Informal systems, like community networks and social capital, offer distinct advantages in supporting adaptation measures. They complement FSP by providing financial aid, social support, labour sharing, and access to resources, especially in contexts where formal protection is limited. While other studies have looked at many of these collectives activities individually and eclecticly, this study illustrates how ISP, particularly among the poor and vulnerable, can mitigate the impacts of climate change and other disruptions, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. A voluntary and robust bottom-up system can effectively supplement existing FSPs, which still face limitations in reaching vulnerable groups. While ISP structures are firmly rooted in social norms, traditions, and informal institutions, enhancing community social capital can further strengthen their effectiveness.

FSP programmes are implemented top-down, while ISP operates bottom-up. The distinct approaches of FSPs and ISPs do not necessarily complement each other but play different roles in government-implemented adaptation measures. Table 5 illustrates examples of the co-benefits of various protection schemes. Reflecting on adaptation measures in Jakarta, ISP activities have acted as a buffer during the neighbourhood’s socioeconomic transitions, influenced by initiatives such as the construction of sea dikes, reservoir normalization and relocation. However, these programmes function within kinship networks and offer temporary housing and employment opportunities.

Table 5. Examples of cobenefits between informal and formal social protection schemes.

Adaptation Measures	Roles of formal social protection (FSP)	Roles of Informal Social Protection (ISP)	Complementary of the FSP and ISP for policy design
Relocation	JKN Stimulus Assistance for Housing (Ministry of Public Housing)	Foods Housing Jobs and women empowerment Preschool	Enhancing capacity of vulnerable groups provided by NGOs and CSOs
Dike, reservoir normalisation	Not provided	Immediate funds Community based housing development	NGO assisted vulnerable groups who affected by the adaptation programme to access social housing.
Early Warning System	Not provided	End-to-end information The role of a trusted person in the neighbourhood	The intermediate agent (trusted person) plays important role to deliver official information to the vulnerable groups.

Source: Authors, based on data analysis.

Intermediary institutions like NGOs and CSOs play a crucial role in enhancing the adaptive capacity of vulnerable populations to mitigate future impacts of climate change, especially in areas such as children’s education and women’s empowerment. They serve as vital connectors between FSP and ISP, providing support, resources and expertise to strengthen the adaptive capacities of vulnerable communities. Collaboratively, NGOs and CSOs can develop comprehensive and effective strategies to tackle the challenges posed by climate change, thereby maximizing benefits for the most vulnerable populations.

6. Conclusions and research implications

This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of FSP in safeguarding vulnerable populations, examine the role of ISP and investigate how ISPs support vulnerable groups facing climate change impacts. In addition, we analysed the challenges ISPs face in adapting to climate change. This study contributes to the existing literature by examining the relationship between FSP and ISP. Our findings indicate that FSP in Indonesia has limitations in adequately protecting vulnerable populations from climate change. The formal, state-led social protection initiatives rely on various programmes implemented by different government bodies, primarily offering physical assets through contributory and non-contributory schemes to prevent poverty and vulnerability. Efforts at subnational and city levels are crucial to expanding the coverage and effectiveness of social protection. However, progress is constrained by local budget capacities and priorities in each region and municipality.

The structure of ISP encompasses practices deeply rooted in local culture, facilitating social protection for vulnerable groups, including those in the middle. ISP offers a flexible risk-sharing mechanism based on collective decision-making, mutual benefit, social cohesion and trust, extending beyond the procedures of FSP. ISP presents opportunities to expand the coverage of social protection. However, in light of the long-term impacts of climate change marked by uncertainty and complexity, the role of ISPs could be further enhanced through programmes offered by NGOs and CSOs. These programmes primarily benefit vulnerable groups by improving adaptive capacity through initiatives such as quality education and gender-sensitive programmes.

The traditional social structures discussed here offer benefits that extend beyond financial security. Unlike FSPs, ISP systems rely on mutual support and collective goods rather than individual benefits or protection. However, informal societies also have their limitations. Social networks and informal institutions can be exclusive, meaning not everyone can participate. Memberships often hinge on specific criteria that may discriminate against those who do not meet them. Additionally, various forms of ISP offer varying degrees of support. While some social networks and institutions provide robust social protection, others offer relatively weaker protection.

Therefore, local ISP is unlikely to adequately and sustainably safeguard the vulnerable, whether as a complement to FSPs or as a substitute when the poor and vulnerable cannot access formal structures. Particularly in today’s dynamic environment, characterized by increasing inequality, interconnected hazards, demographic shifts and evolving norms and values that impact societal cohesion, ISP cannot be relied upon as a stable source of social protection (DFAT 2014).

Against this backdrop, this study argues that integrating formal FSPs, which provide physical and financial assets, with ISPs, which offer social and cultural assets, is crucial to establishing a comprehensive social protection framework for safeguarding the most vulnerable from adverse events. While governments and international institutions have primarily focused on expanding the coverage of FSPs, this study contends that both formal and ISP mechanisms are necessary to create a robust foundation for protecting the poor and vulnerable. Accordingly, a new integrated perspective on the social protection system is needed – one that considers the co-benefits and potential challenges of both formal and informal systems. While FSPs often face significant funding deficits, ISPs may be vulnerable to future erosion of social cohesion, impacting their effectiveness.

Considering these two systems in Jakarta, it becomes apparent that each system complements the other in achieving universal social protection for all citizens. However, they currently operate in isolation without acknowledging each other, leading to overlooked overlaps and gaps. Addressing these inconsistencies presents missed opportunities that need to be approached from both sides: enhancing the depth and scope of FSP structures and strengthening ISP mechanisms to fill gaps in the formal system.

Policymakers can leverage ISP structures to broaden coverage for vulnerable groups. However, formalizing these structures may diminish trust, reciprocity and flexibility inherent in informal systems. NGOs play a crucial role in bridging gaps and reinforcing ISP as they are recognized entities by local communities and governments. Their expertise enhances local capacity to strengthen mutual assistance mechanisms during extreme events, complementing state-led programmes. However, the extent to which the ISP remains a strong pillar of the country’s social protection portfolio when social contracts, norms, networks and worldviews change in the face of global cultural changes, demographic changes and globalization.

This study offers valuable insights applicable to countries like India, the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam and South Africa, which contend with economic challenges exacerbated by informality. Community-based initiatives focusing on financial assistance, healthcare and education are recommended to safeguard vulnerable populations. Implementing such programmes has the potential to significantly improve their well-being and enhance their overall security.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Munich Re Foundation for financially supporting the publication of this paper as well as for the organization of ‘World Risk and Adaptation Futures – Social Protection Summer Academy 2020’, which inspired this work. The case study of Jakarta was generated from the fieldwork of the first author, supported by the UNU-EHS. The work of the last author was supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) through the TRANSCEND project (Grant No. 01LN1710A1). We also express our gratitude to all the anonymous reviewers who continuously provided constructive input to our manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

data availability statement

The authors confirm that the secondary data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article [and/or] its supplementary materials. The data is generated from Regional and national reports published by national authorities and reputable international publishers and official websites.