The Politics of Social Protection in Africa Jeremy Seekings (Research Programme on “Legislating and Implementing Welfare Policy Reforms”, University of Cape Town) Namibian Social Protection Conference, Windhoek, July 2015

The study of social protection policy in Africa Originally part of the field of ‘social work’ or ‘social development’ ( e.g. Midgley, Kaseke) Increasingly central to study of ‘development’ (e.g. Mkandawire, Bungura, UNRISD) Prospectively central to the study of the state and citizenship (NB J.Ferguson, Give a Man a Fish, 2015)

Research Programme on “Legislating and Implementing Welfare Policy Reforms” (LIWPR) (University of Cape Town)

1. (How) is Africa different?

The standard story: Africa is a ‘laggard’ in terms of social protection Africa has: the lowest expenditure (in relation to GDP) on either pensions for the elderly or child benefits (ILO, World SP Report 2014). The proportion of unemployed workers receiving unemployment benefits is also lowest in Africa (ibid). 2.8 percent of GDP is spent on ‘social security’, compared to a global average of 5.7 percent (World Bank, The Cash Dividend, 2012). The lowest health ‘coverage’, in terms of the proportion of the population affiliated to public health system or private insurance schemes: 25% in Africa, compared to 61% globally (ILO, 2014)

Where is Africa in the global/comparative analysis of social protection / ‘welfare regimes’? Missing!

Why do most studies treat Africa as a laggard in terms of social protection, rather than distinctive? 1.A narrow understanding of what counts as ‘social protection’, i.e. a narrow range of programmes 2.Ignoring variation within Africa, especially cases with greater social protection coverage (even using a narrow understanding of social protection) 3.Insufficient focus on the distribution of benefits, i.e. “who are the beneficiaries?”

Public education Public health care Income mainten- ance What does the ‘welfare state’ do? And, across much of the global North, public housing

Public education Social assistance Public health care Social insurance What does the ‘welfare state’ do?

Public education Social assistance Public health care Social insurance Public employment programmes Subsidised benefits in kind (e.g. school feeding programmes) Policies to help small farmers become food secure Provident funds etc Emergency food aid Provision for government employees What does social protection do in Africa?

Public education Social assistance Public health care Social insurance Public employment programmes Subsidised benefits in kind Policies to help small farmers Provident funds etc Emergency food aid Provision for government employees Urban and rural poor Formal sector workers Peasants What does social protection do in Africa?

Public education Social assistance Public health care Social insurance Public employment programmes Subsidised benefits in kind Policies to help small farmers become food secure Provident funds etc Emergency food aid Provision for government employees Urban and rural poor: without land or with land but without labour Formal sector workers: with employment now, but what risk of no employment? Peasants: with land, but risk of drought, insufficient credit etc What does social protection do in Africa?

Public education Social assistance Public health care Social insurance Public employment programmes Subsidised benefits in kind Policies to help small farmers become food secure Provident funds etc Emergency food aid Provision for government employees Urban and rural poor Formal sector workers Peasants Latin America in C20 th Africa in most of C20 th Africa in C21st What does social protection do?

Historical development of welfare regimes in Africa Mid C20th (late colonial and early post-colonial): Mostly ‘agrarian’ – Priority = to assist peasant farmers – Drought → emergency relief – Contributory programmes for small numbers of formally-employed workers – Exceptionally (in cases of early deagrarianisation): social assistance programmes (e.g. old-age pensions in RSA, Mauritius) Late C20th / early C21st: shift to pro-poor cash transfers – ↑ deagrarianisation, ↓ kin support, AIDS – (Re)democratisation: competitive elections, stronger civil society – ↑ interest among donors and international agencies in cash transfers to mitigate poverty / achieve MDGs / facilitate development / replace emergency food aid / expand rights – ↑ old-age pensions, child grants, disability grants (for ‘deserving’ poor) esp in Southern Africa – Donor-funded poverty-targeted pilot programmes

Africa and South Asia Higher-spending LatAm & Lower-spending C/E Europe Higher-spending post- Communist Central / East Europe Spend more on social insurance Spend more on social assistance

Africa vs Latin America: Social insurance

Africa vs Latin America: Social assistance

1. (How) is Africa different? Emphasis in mid-C20th on agrarian programmes (for peasant farmers) not social insurance (for workers in formal employment) In exceptional cases: social assistance (for the urban and rural poor) ↑ emergency relief In late C20th and esp C21st: expansion of social assistance (including public employment programmes and cash transfers) But NB: there is considerable variation within Africa. Why?

2. Why is there variation within Africa?

Donors and international organisations The state: Inter- departmental relations Bureaucratic power Champions Elite values and ideology Political parties Electoral competition Public opinion

Ideas and models Economic pressures and constraints Social change Our LIWPR analytic model State capacity (implement- ation)

Variation in Southern Africa

State should intervene very little Cash transfers only for very narrowly-defined groups of deserving poor; workfare for working-age adults; parsimonious benefits/wages Cash transfers / other benefits for wider range of poor people; more generous benefits/wages Coverage of most poor people Coverage of few poor people

Donors supported pilot cash transfer programmes, but government opposed; Govt said: poor people are lazy; state intervention = bad Coverage of most poor people through universal old-age pensions and grants for OVCs, and public employment programmes for working-age adults; but very parsimonious; Therefore reduces ultra-poverty, but not poverty; Requires a strong state

More populist rhetoric, but not much policy reform Inherited programmes, and extended them massively Coverage of most poor people through universal old-age pensions and grants for all children, plus public employment programmes for working-age adults; Benefits = generous; Reduces poverty Requires a strong state

Most donors prefer poverty-targeting, but this excludes many poor people and implementation causes political problems General lessons

Most donors prefer poverty-targeting, but this excludes many poor people and implementation causes political problems Most political elites in Africa are ambivalent about providing too much to too many citizens But this means that poverty persists (and public employment programmes require strong state capacity) General lessons

Most donors prefer poverty-targeting, but this excludes many poor people and implementation causes political problems Most political elites in Africa are ambivalent about providing too much to too many citizens But this means that poverty persists (and public employment programmes require strong state capacity) General lessons Modest benefits (= ‘conservative’) Covers all poor people (= ‘social democratic’) Popular Not difficult to implement No disincentives to work etc

Ideas and models Economic pressures and constraints Social change 2.Why is there variation in Africa? How committed to ending poverty? How accountable? How much capacity to pay grants (easier) or to implement PEPs (more difficult)? State capacity (implement- ation)

Thank you Legislating and Implementing Welfare Policy Reforms (LIWPR) University of Cape Town