Social Protection for Social Justice
Conference Report
The Centre for Social Protection hosted a conference titled ‘Social Protection for Social Justice’ at the
Institute of Development Studies (IDS) in Brighton, 13-15 April 2011. Financial support was provided
by Concern Worldwide and UNICEF, as well as IDS. For logistical reasons, participation was limited to
100 delegates, who came from over 20 countries: in Africa (Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, Rwanda,
Sierra Leone, South Africa, Zambia, Zimbabwe), Asia (Bangladesh, India, the Philippines, Thailand),
Australia, Europe (Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Switzerland), South America (Colombia, Peru),
the United States and UK. Participants included academics from research institutes and universities;
officials from the governments of Finland, India, Ireland and Rwanda; as well as practitioners from
agencies including ActionAid, Concern Worldwide, DFID, EC, GUFFP, HelpAge, ICHRP, ILO, Save the
Children UK, UNDP, UNICEF, UNRISD and the World Bank (see Annex 2: Conference Participants).
The conference aimed to explore future directions for social protection that go beyond safety nets
and risk management, to address broader concerns with redistributive equity and social injustice. 55
papers were presented. Side events included the launch of two books – ‘Social Protection for Africa’s
Children’ and ‘Migration and Social Protection’ – and the 2010 European Report on Development:
‘Social Protection for Inclusive Development’ (see Annex 3: Conference Programme).
This report explains the rationale for the conference, introduces the four organising themes of the
conference, summarises key findings from the presentations and issues raised under each theme,
and identifies conclusions that emerged from plenary discussions.
Conference Rationale
Social protection has successfully established itself as a core function of development policy in
recent years, but in many respects it remains firmly rooted in its origins in social safety nets and
humanitarian relief, where assistance was provided on a ‘discretionary’ rather than an ‘entitlement’
basis, usually for a limited time period, often in the form of food, and recipients were pejoratively
labelled as ‘aid beneficiaries’. Social protection has moved beyond this in some respects: quasiwelfare programmes such as social pension schemes provide regular ongoing transfers; cash
transfers have displaced or complemented food aid in emergency and non-emergency contexts;
‘beneficiaries’ are now ‘recipients’, ‘participants’ or even ‘clients’.
Nonetheless, the Centre for Social Protection believes that social protection initiatives remain
insufficiently focused on achieving social justice outcomes, both in terms of their objectives and in
their implementation. The primary objective of most social protection interventions is to protect
minimum subsistence levels in low-income households, and the ‘triple F’ crisis (food, fuel and
finance) underlined the importance of social transfers in assisting affected people to survive
livelihood shocks and preserve their assets. But social protection should not only help poor and
vulnerable people to manage risk in the short-term, it should also tackle the sources of vulnerability
in the long term. Since many sources of risk and vulnerability are social and political, this implies
understanding the socio-political context and engaging with the holders of power and the drivers of
inequality, to achieve socially equitable outcomes. There is also much analytical work to be done on
how social protection mechanisms are reconfiguring social policy, constructing new social contracts
between governments and citizens, and challenging the political discourse in countries throughout
Africa, Asia and Latin America.
Page 1 of 19
Despite rapid advances in social protection thinking and practice in recent years, much work remains
to be done, at both the conceptual and operational levels. In particular, the linkages between social
protection and social justice are neither fully elaborated nor fully internalised by policy-makers, even
those who are sympathetic to ‘rights-based approaches’. At the level of implementation, too few
social protection interventions are designed and delivered in ways that truly respect and empower
programme participants. Given this context, the conference was organised around four themes.
Conference Themes
Theme 1. Constructing democratic governance: social protection and new social contracts
The political ramifications of the social protection agenda are inadequately understood. What is
the nature of the social contract between government and social protection claimants? Has
social protection provided mechanisms for civil society mobilisation and citizen empowerment,
or does it serve as a residual safety net that buys off social unrest?
Theme 2. Social protection and transformation of social and economic drivers of vulnerability
How can social protection move beyond immediate ‘vulnerability management’ towards
sustainable ‘vulnerability reduction’? How can social protection address the underlying,
structural, social and political drivers of poverty, vulnerability and inequality? How can social
protection avoid stigma and ‘dependency’, and build resilience and autonomy?
Theme 3. Social protection and sustainable adaptation to climate and environmental change
Recent conceptual innovations, such as ‘adaptive social protection’, have sketched out the
linkages between social protection and environmental concerns. How can social protection be
better integrated with climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction and related concepts,
to achieve socially just outcomes that are also environmentally sustainable?
Theme 4. Social protection, inequality and redistributive justice
Big claims are often made for the potential of social protection, notably cash transfers, to reduce
income poverty and inequality between rich and poor. How robust is the evidence base for these
claims? Which forms of social protection, in which contexts, are most effective at reducing
socioeconomic inequalities and contributing to redistributive justice?
Conference Findings
Opening panel
In a paper presented by Thandika Mkandawire, Jimí Adésìná critiqued the ‘social protection
paradigm’ as the ‘social’ side of neoliberalism – a narrow agenda dominated by conditional and
unconditional cash transfers, that originated in safety net responses to structural adjustment
programmes in the 1980s. Most social protection interventions target the poor or ‘ultra-poor’,
their success is demonstrated through ‘randomised control trial’ impact evaluations, and they
are disconnected from broader social policy. In Africa, five sets of actors are driving the ‘social
protection paradigm: international financial institutions (e.g. the World Bank), bilateral donors,
NGOs (often single-issue advocates), consultants, and lower-level bureaucracies in developing
countries (higher levels of government are not interested). Adésìná argued for a ‘transformative
social policy’ that will reflect a wider vision of society and will fulfil multiple roles, including
production, redistribution, protection, reproduction, social cohesion and nation-building, all
underpinned by principles of equality and social solidarity.
Page 2 of 19
Richard Morgan explained that UNICEF’s approach to social protection is driven by the notion of
reducing both social and economic vulnerabilities, not merely managing the manifestations of
vulnerability with social assistance programmes. Discrimination and exclusion lead to economic
and material vulnerability which can only be sustainably tackled by addressing power and social
relations. This is what a transformative approach to social protection implies, and it resonates
with UNICEF’s renewed focus on equity. Stephen Devereux then explained the rationale for this
conference. The ambition is to shift the social protection paradigm away from ‘economic’
protection to genuine ‘social’ protection and empowerment. Despite its phenomenal success
since its adoption by donor agencies in the 1990s, social protection is at risk of dropping down
the development agenda, now that donor countries are facing financial pressures and political
shifts to the right. The challenges are to integrate social protection into broader domestic social
policies, and to operationalise the social justice aspects of ‘transformative social protection’.
Opening the discussion, Lawrence Haddad suggested that ‘conventional’ social protection might
well be ‘transformative’, even without being labelled as such. An incrementalist approach that
redistributes cash and assets towards poor people might be more effective at empowering them
and transforming social relations in the long run. Also, a bottom-line indicator of successful
interventions is improvements in nutrition status, and the evidence from many social protection
programmes is positive in this respect, so these achievements should not be discounted. Other
participants noted that the coverage of ‘conventional’ social protection remains limited, so the
immediate priority should be to extend coverage of social assistance and social security, not to
focus attention on the limited ability of these programmes to deliver social justice outcomes. It
is also important to take a longer-term ‘historicised’ view of social protection, and to recognise
that social protection is unlikely to drive social transformation, but needs to respond to larger
ongoing processes of transformation, such as urbanisation, climate change and financial crises.
Theme 1: Governance
Two papers looked at the conceptual and ideological linkages between social protection and social
justice. Sam Hickey defined social justice as the ways in which major social institutions distribute
fundamental rights and duties. While there are many different perspectives on justice, in developing
a social justice approach to social protection the ‘relational’ perspective is the best way forward. But
social protection is not enough to achieve social justice – which is a much broader concept – and
introducing the language of rights and justice to social protection might not be politically useful, as
policymakers are often wary of the fiscal and legal implications of having to meet justiciable claims.
Naila Kabeer noted that social protection has become popular as a response to the current financial
crisis, but only as a reaction to market failure, i.e. within the hegemonic neoliberal paradigm – where
the state plays a minimal role – that has proved to be detrimental to inequality. Although the state is
the only institution obliged to provide social protection, this does not necessarily imply a return to a
state-centric approach. New arguments are needed for a universalist approach – these debates are
ongoing in countries like Brazil, India and South Africa – and for convincing sceptical policy-makers
about the right to social protection (e.g. social protection as an investment in human capital).
One panel considered the role for external actors in constructing social contracts. Charlotte Harland
argued that social protection is intrinsically about the relationship between the state and its citizens.
While support and learning from international agencies is useful, external actors that aim to achieve
social change through ‘transformative social protection’ are implicitly demanding fundamental
changes in local power relationships. The profoundly political nature of this type of intervention is
unacknowledged or avoided in most of the social protection literature.
Page 3 of 19
Esther Schüring and Julie Lawson-McDowall agreed that social protection should be part of a social
contract that governments conclude with their citizens. The case of Zambia is instructive because
international donors have been instrumental in driving the social protection agenda, through pilot
projects that the government has failed to scale up. Explaining this ‘stagnation’ social protection
requires assessing whether the government has failed to adopt ‘correct’ policy recommendations,
whether these recommendations were wrong, or whether progress has been incorrectly evaluated.
This led to a consideration of the role of domestic actors in constructing social contracts through
social protection. Sajjad Hassan spoke about the range of interventions that the Indian government
has recently introduced or upgraded to ‘claims-based’ legislated rights, notably the Integrated Child
Development Scheme (ICDS), the Public Distribution System (PDS), and the Mahatma Gandhi
National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS). Unfortunately, there is a disconnect
between national-level rhetoric and ground-level realities – in practice, these social protection
instruments continue to function as ‘quick fix’ handouts that fail to address the structural causes of
poverty, such as inequality, social exclusion, and ‘elite capture’ by local power structures.
Franklins Sanubi reflected on perceptions of social protection in Nigeria, where the concept is still
seen as foreign and any government social welfare initiative is interpreted either as public altruism
or as cynically motivated to ‘buy’ political support, rather than the democratic evolution of a social
contract that extends economic and social rights to citizens. In such contexts, domestic civil society
must take a proactive role in building political commitment and holding government accountable for
delivering social protection. Rosalinda Ofreneo informed the conference about a participatory civil
society movement in the Philippines called the People‘s Social Protection Agenda (PSPA), an alliance
of domestic non-government stakeholders that is fulfilling a vital advocacy function, calling for
social, gender, and environmental justice and the delivery of social assistance and social security for
all. The discussant for this panel, Katja Bender, suggested that these case studies reveal that the
process of developing a social contract around social protection should be deconstructed into three
stages: negotiating, agreeing, and enforcing the social contract. The key challenges are to design an
effective implementation system, and to identify incentives for local government to deliver.
The next two panels explored the politics of social protection implementation. Deepta Chopra
argued that the MGNREGS in India has limited potential to contribute to establishing social contracts
in India, partly because of confusion about what the MGNREGS actually is – anti-poverty measure,
job creation scheme, rural development programme, social protection scheme, livelihood promotion
scheme, and/or flagship government programme? The discussant, Anna McCord, suggested that the
most important ‘transformative’ element of this programme is not so much the work opportunities
it offers, but the sense of empowerment that derives from the right to demand work. A presentation
by Nidhi Vij showed how the introduction of ‘social audits’ to the MGNREGS has created a platform
for participatory governance of social protection programmes. Social audits give villagers a ‘voice’ to
hold local administrations and programme implementers accountable for delivery, thus empowering
poor people and potentially transforming community-level social relations and political structures.
The final set of papers in this theme focused on actors and agents in social protection delivery.
Savina Tessitore made a strong case for upgrading the status of ‘recipients’ to ‘citizens’ in social
protection programming. This requires the ‘constitutionalisation’ of social rights and the legislation
of social policies, backed up by primary guarantees to design and implement these policies, and
secondary guarantees to monitor, arbitrate, and ensure compliance. Hania Sholkamy commented on
the role of social workers in delivering a conditional cash transfer in Egypt, noting that attention in
the social protection discourse has focused on conceptualisation and design, while implementation
challenges have been neglected. Specifically, the agents who actually deliver social protection have
Page 4 of 19
been almost invisible, but social workers are at the interface of the state and ‘beneficiaries’ of state
policies, and have complex relationships with the policies they are responsible for implementing.
The role of social workers and programme staff is crucial and often under-appreciated, they need
not just training but capacity strengthening to be ‘professionalised’. Finally, Dolf te Lintelo argued
that the role of informal social protection has also been overlooked because of the preoccupation
with states and donor agencies. Instead of seeing the state as a benefactor disbursing social welfare
and social rights, a critical appraisal of the state might lead to the conclusion that informal social
protection is often necessary to protect poor people against insecurities and vulnerabilities that
derive from state actions, or inaction.
Theme 2: Vulnerability
Delivering social protection is particularly challenging in fragile states and situations, but one panel
examined ways in which social protection can potentially contribute to improving state-citizen
relations in such contexts. Much depends on how social protection is designed and delivered. In a
paper that contrasted experiences with cash transfer programmes in Sierra Leone and Kenya, Wale
Osofisan showed that weak institutions and eroded infrastructure led to problems such as elite
capture and undermined trust in public institutions. Conversely, in northern Kenya institutions such
as grievance procedures and rights committees were established that empowered communities to
hold the government accountable. Maricar Garde and Paul Dornan explored the linkages between
social protection programmes and household coping with shocks, drawing on data from Ethiopia.
One debating point that arose was whether evidence that programme participants have higher debt
than comparably poor non-participants is a positive sign that access to credit for consumption
smoothing was enhanced, or a worrying indication of dangerous levels of household indebtedness.
The next panel explored how social protection can address vulnerabilities associated with social and
political marginalisation. Aditi Jha argued that such vulnerabilities can be permanently reduced if
citizens’ agency in the social and political spheres is extended, transforming powerlessness and
resignation into ownership and empowerment. An innovative programme in India empowers
selected community representatives by increasing awareness of their entitlements, and organising
them to take collective action to claim their rights to social protection and improved service delivery.
S. Abdul Thaha considered the vulnerability that derives from ‘identity discrimination’, taking the
case of Muslims in Andhra Pradesh, India. The state government has reserved places for Muslims in
education and employment, which is controversial but has achieved some redistributive equity.
Another source of economic and social vulnerability is disability, which should be a central concern
for social protection but, as Marguerite Schneider demonstrated, is all too often neglected in
interventions such as cash transfers that target ‘households’ and prioritise economic impacts rather
than social objectives. Challenges include defining disability, designing interventions for different
types and severities of disability, and ensuring that social grants and other public services are fully
accessible to people with disabilities.
Gender is a driver of vulnerability that has become so ‘mainstreamed’ in development policy it often
disappears. Nicola Jones and Rebecca Holmes reported on a multi-country study that aimed to
understand why social protection debates and approaches have typically been gender-blind. Analysis
of several case studies revealed that whether programmes are gender-aware depends on the “3 i’s”
of social protection: institutions (e.g. whether political parties believe that gendered interventions
can influence elections); interests (e.g. whether the programme is run from the Ministry of Gender
or the Ministry of Agriculture); and ideas (e.g. whether elites perceive gender inequity as a major
driver of poverty and vulnerability, that requires redress through social protection programmes).
Page 5 of 19
Stephen Devereux presented a case study from South Africa, where women working on commercial
farms are extremely vulnerable to eviction and ‘casualisation’. Having lost their access to social
security through employment contracts, these women depend on social grants, which are unusually
generous in South Africa – but critics argue that they are a social policy response to a failure of
economic policy to generate jobs and job security, and that the structural causes of vulnerability
among women farm workers and other low-paid workers need to be urgently addressed. One strand
running through this set of presentations is whether social protection only provides compensation to
people facing unequal power relationships and social relations, or can it truly empower people to
overcome these sources of inequity and vulnerability?
Moving from women to children, Keetie Roelen interrogated the concept of ‘child-sensitive social
protection’, arguing that a more nuanced approach is needed, that disaggregates ‘children’ by age
and gender, that recognises the multi-dimensional nature of child poverty, that considers not only
children’s current well-being but their future ‘well-becoming’, and that acknowledges that children
do not live in isolation, so that appropriate interventions can be designed for each specific context.
With this in mind, Peter Whiteford presented a case study from Vanuatu, which found that children
face multiple sources of deprivation and vulnerability, some familiar from other contexts and some
specific to small island states. Although child poverty in Vanuatu is relatively low and not heavily
gendered, children face deprivations in dimensions such as immunisation, health, shelter, sanitation
and food – which has implications for the type of social protection that is designed and delivered.
Globally, child mortality rates are falling, but at different rates between rich and poor groups within
countries, according to cross-country evidence presented by Nicola Hypher. Some countries are
achieving equitable progress (pro-poor child mortality reductions) but progress in many others is
equity-neutral (no narrowing of the gap between rich and poor). Equitable progress is associated
with extending access to social services and coverage of certain social protection instruments, such
as conditional cash transfers, social health insurance and targeted cash transfers (e.g. child grants).
Social protection aims to reduce vulnerability, but it can also be the source of new vulnerabilities,
because it creates new social categories: beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. Tessa Hochfeld asked
whether the Child Support Grant in South Africa is associated with social stigma, given that the CSG
is widely (but probably unfairly) associated with welfare dependency and high teenage fertility.
Qualitative research finds that this negative rhetoric is internalised by CSG recipients themselves,
and their neighbours – although women don’t blame themselves for being poor, many feel shame at
being dependent on ‘handouts’ from the state. Next, Ian MacAuslan examined the impact of cash
transfers on social relations, specifically whether these programmes generate resentment of
recipients by non-recipients, because they ignore the reality that targeted individuals or households
are embedded within complex networks of social relations. Negative social impacts can be avoided if
communities participate fully in programme implementation, for instance with community-based
targeting, and evaluations should consider impacts on social relations to improve future design.
The third paper on this panel looked at similar issues on the MGNREGS in India. Despite its many
achievements, Laura Camfield argued that it has limited social transformation potential because it
fails to address inequities at the community level. It offers equality of opportunity but not equality of
outcomes – most benefits accrue to landlords, higher castes, large families, and administering
officials. An evaluation from a wellbeing perspective, which assesses impacts on relational and
subjective dimensions of participants’ wellbeing, concluded that the programme’s beneficial impacts
are offset by its corrosive effects on trust and social relationships.
Urbanisation is another under-appreciated source of vulnerability. An innovative approach to social
protection was introduced for Kenya’s ‘ultra-poor’ living in urban slums, following the post-election
Page 6 of 19
violence of 2008. The programme had three components: a monthly cash transfer to meet basic
needs, skills development and small grants to promote livelihoods, and a social transformation
process to reduce stigma and discrimination within the community. Amina Abdulla reported on an
evaluation of this programme that found not only increased dietary diversity and access to
education and health care, but also positive social changes such as strengthened social networks,
increased self-confidence and greater space for social action and participation. In rural areas, cash
transfer programmes are increasingly seen as vehicles for achieving ‘transformative’ impacts as well
as livelihood protection and promotion. A review by Zenebe Bashaw Uraguchi of evidence from
Bangladesh and Ethiopia concluded that these claims might be overly optimistic. Participants do
receive vital support during periods of stress such as the annual hungry season, but limited budgets
restrict programme coverage and exclude large numbers of vulnerable people. In both countries,
these interventions remain as essentially temporary safety nets with little systematic impact in
terms of enhancing redistributive justice.
Theme 3: Climate change
Social protection is increasingly recognised as having a role in building resilience to climate change.
Six conference papers addressed this linkage between social protection and climate change justice.
Paul Siegel presented a ‘no regrets’ approach (meaning it would improve wellbeing whether or not
climate change occurs) that he and Steen Jorgensen call a ‘risk-adjusted social protection floor’,
which focuses on creating resilient, equitable and sustainable economic, social and environmental
systems that are based on the universal provision of human basic needs. This approach draws on the
‘social risk management’ and ‘adaptive social protection’ frameworks, but adds social guarantees
and other rights-based instruments to existing insurance products for disaster risk management.
Mark Davies presented ongoing work on adaptive social protection in South Asia, an approach that
combines key elements of social protection, disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation,
in order to enhance the resilience of livelihoods that are most vulnerable to climate change. Despite
the potential gains from a coordinated or integrated approach, there are many challenges at the
conceptual and policy levels integrate, not least the risk of propping up livelihood systems that are
unsustainable in the long term. Terry Cannon focused on disaster risk reduction in a context of
increasing climate risk, arguing that disasters are socially constructed because vulnerability is
determined by power inequalities (who lives in marginal environments? who is responsible for most
greenhouse emissions?). A rights-based approach to social protection offers a way forward, because
conventional disaster responses are reactive and do not address the political origins of vulnerability.
Moving from conceptual frameworks to policy interventions, Carol Watson discussed mechanisms
for building social protection into adaptive responses to climate change. These should be targeted to
people living in areas facing significant environmental risk, especially farmers and pastoralists.
Mechanisms included: cash transfers to bolster livelihoods; agro-pastoral input subsidies; public
works programmes to enhance environmental infrastructure and the natural resource base; social
insurance strategies; and micro-insurance against drought and production failure. A case study of
adaptive social protection in Rwanda was presented by Paul Siegel, a country that is implementing
an integrated adaptive social protection approach. Public works projects prioritise land conservation,
hillside terracing, water resource management and reforestation. A proposed community-based
multi-hazard early warning system would trigger rapid responses, such as flexible scaling up of public
works and cash transfers when economic and environmental conditions deteriorate.
Finally, Rachel Godfrey Wood asked whether social cash transfers have a role to play in climate
change adaptation, recognising that cash transfers are the dominant social protection instrument,
with a substantial evidence base of positive impacts. Godfrey Wood concluded that cash transfers
can build adaptive capacity, by meeting basic needs and reducing immediate vulnerability, financing
Page 7 of 19
costs of responding to climate shocks, reducing pressures to adopt damaging ‘coping strategies’ that
raise future vulnerability, allowing improved risk management and investment in adaptive capacity,
and even facilitating mobility and transition into alternative livelihoods.
Theme 4: Inequality
Reductions in inequality are central to the achievement of social justice, and social protection has a
direct role to play, as a redistributive mechanism. Kate Carroll pointed out that even where poverty
reduction is occurring, inequalities are often increasing because of the dominance of market-led
policies. Achieving social justice and inequality reductions through social protection require other
policies to be in place, such as accessible and good quality education and health services. Rightsbased integrated National Development Strategies are needed, based on redistribution of wealth,
self-reliant growth, ecological justice, and women’s rights through recognition of the care economy.
Gabriele Köhler demonstrated that many countries in South Asia do, in fact, reflect transformative
approaches to social protection in their development policies. Examples include the girls’ education
grant in Bangladesh, the social pension in Nepal, the Benazir income support programme in Pakistan,
and the Mahatma Ghandi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme in India. Many of these
programmes are rights- or claims-based, and some have ‘affirmative’ elements to redress social
inequities faced by Dalit, Muslim, or tribal communities. On the other hand, these schemes typically
do not consider the underlying causes of exclusion. Social protection takes too narrow a focus –
national and international economic and social policies to address inequities seem to have receded.
Dipankar Datta presented a specific case study from India: the role of civil societies in strengthening
social assistance schemes in Orissa. Good governance – “the mechanisms, processes and institutions
through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their legal rights, meet their
obligations and hold the government responsible, accountable and transparent” – is essential if
social assistance schemes such as the Public Distribution Scheme and MGNREGS are accessed by the
poorest and truly benefit them. Civil society has mobilised to reduce corruption and elite capture of
these programmes and improve their delivery, for instance by cellphone- and web-based tracking of
the MGNREGS and PDS, creative use of community media, and promoting Right to Information hubs.
A major challenge is how to scale up this model from individual communities to national coverage.
The discussion on this panel suggested that ‘social protection plus’ is needed to upgrade social
protection from social assistance to claims-based rights – this is the ‘transformative’ element. There
is an urgent need to link social protection explicitly to social rights, such as paid maternity leave for
women. But this is potentially confrontational and raises the question of who should be campaigning
for the right to social protection – donors and international NGOs? domestic civil society? citizens?
It was noted that countries like Brazil and India have adopted a more ‘political’ approach to social
protection than countries where donors are driving the social protection agenda, where calls for a
rights-based approach to social protection and citizen mobilisation around social justice are muted.
Staying in Asia, Indra Tiwari intriguingly characterised social protection as “a quadripartite indistinct/
sluggish nexus of international propaganda, slothful state, moribund family, and right-prone
individual”, and argued that the family system remains the core institution that is responsible for the
well-being of individuals. The proliferation of social rights and social protection programmes – which
are too limited to provide economic sufficiency and social dignity – targets individuals and ignores
the role of families and communities, but when these informal institutions are too poor to provide
adequate protection, more complementary support is needed from the government. Ellen Ehmke
adopted a ‘welfare regimes’ perspective to explain the trajectory of social protection in India, which
also considers the constellation of state, market, community and households in producing social
welfare. Path dependency is important in India, where contemporary policies have been shaped by
experiences in the pre-colonial, colonial and independence periods. Despite the egalitarian
Page 8 of 19
provisions made in the Indian constitution, the welfare regime continues to emphasise differences
between various groups within the Indian population, and remains fundamentally inegalitarian.
David Fryer critiqued the claims made for cash transfers as a ‘revolution’ in development policy,
arguing that grants are a relatively cheap and easy elite-driven response to two pressures created by
capitalism – fiscal constraints and rising poverty. The only policy changes that have genuine
transformative potential are those that increase the agency of subordinate classes. In countries like
South Africa, where rising levels of social spending marks a shift from ‘hard’ neoliberalism towards a
‘developmental state’, the state’s role remains passive and residual – poverty is mitigated through
social grants, but intervening in the market to ensure high levels of employment is eschewed, and
workers’ rights are inadequately protected. This is the problem with liberal democracies – poverty is
mitigated at best. In social democracies, ensuring full employment is written into the social contract.
The next panel explored challenges in ensuring access to social protection and social rights. Andrew
Fischer raised the unfashionable topic of population growth, arguing that, with global population
reaching nine billion by mid-century, employment and equity-focused development strategies must
be prioritised, and social protection must be scaled up to universal provision. Demographic trends
must be factored into these policy debates – the ageing population in the global North versus the
youthful population in the global South, urbanisation and de-agrarianisation in the global South, and
so on. Rachel Sabates-Wheeler discussed another demographic process – migration – and the
challenges that migrants face in accessing social protection from either their home or destination
communities. More often than not, social protection is not ‘portable’. Even when formal entitlement
rules are established, low-income and low-status migrants often have to negotiate with employers,
administrators and others to claim their entitlements.
Finally, Wendy Nefdt presented a case study of the role of civil society in extending access to the
right to health in South Africa. A group of civil society organisations and academics formed a
Learning Network to build social capital and develop materials such as information pamphlets and
toolkits for dissemination, with the objective of supporting the realisation of the right to health and
social justice. The discussant for this panel, Carly Nyst, discussed a human rights approach to poverty
reduction through social protection. For social protection to be transformative, basic human rights
principles are needed, including: equality and non-discrimination (extending access to migrants,
reducing inaccessibility due to distance, application costs, language barriers, lack of information, lack
of ID cards, gender discrimination, etc); universalism (to save financial and social costs of targeting
and minimise risks of exclusion); unconditionality (because conditions are patronising to the poor);
transparency; accountability; adequacy; and active participation by beneficiaries and civil society.
Three papers examined the economic impacts of cash transfers and their links to economic and
social empowerment. Michael Sansour discussed a programme in Palestine that promotes economic
empowerment through micro-enterprise grants. The programme’s success in terms of income
generation, asset accumulation and social capital formation was attributed to its participatory
approach at the design and implementation stages. However, in this context the risk of conflict is
high, and sustainable livelihoods and social transformation can only be achieved if the sources of
conflict are addressed and resolved. Jessica de los Rios talked about a conditional cash transfer
programme in Peru that recently introduced a savings component, targeting women participants.
The rationale is that mobilising savings is a first step to formal financial inclusion, at lower risk than
microcredit, and that access to savings facilities can smooth consumption, protect assets, and
enhance women’s autonomy and empowerment, thus reducing social and economic inequalities.
Cormac Staunton presented evidence on the multiplier effects of cash transfers and food aid in
Zimbabwe, which found that well targeted cash transfers can boost local economies and reduce
inequality between programme districts and wealthier districts. However, within communities cash
Page 9 of 19
transfers can exacerbate inequality, because they are less likely to be shared with poor neighbours
than is food aid.
The final parallel session considered how social justice is being addressed in global poverty reduction
and social protection agendas. Wouter van Ginneken built a case for a human rights approach to the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The MDGs are relevant to this issue not only because social
protection can contribute towards achieving these goals but because they represent a ‘claim’ by the
poor on the global community to meet humanity’s basic needs – in effect, the first step towards a
global social contract. The challenge for the MDGS beyond 2015 is to formulate core human rights
indicators, that would form a basis for national and international contracts that can hold states
accountable. Michael Cichon then presented the ‘Social Protection Floor’, a UN-led initiative that
aims to ensure access to a core set of essential services (e.g. health, education, water and sanitation)
and social transfers (in cash or in kind) to ensure minimum income and livelihood security for all.
Analysis confirms that establishing the Social Protection Floor is affordable (about 1% of global GDP)
and would eradicate extreme poverty as well as realising several MDGs. The challenge is to support
individual countries in closing crucial protection gaps, by prioritising the allocation of scarce public
resources to maximise the reduction of poverty and insecurity.
Finally, Philippe Marcadent argued that the four strategic objectives of the Decent Work Agenda –
creating jobs, guaranteeing rights at work, extending social protection and promoting social dialogue
– are key elements of a social justice approach to social security. Social protection is not only about
social assistance to ‘vulnerable groups’, it also covers social security for all workers, where the
challenge is to extend social insurance to informal economy workers such as domestic workers and
the self-employed. The discussant for this panel, Marcus Kaltenborn, remarked that the MDGs, the
Social Protection Floor and the Decent Work Agenda all important components in the progressive
development of international law, but that judicial and political frameworks are needed to interpret
these rights and give them legal content.
Closing reflections
The closing panel – Sarah Cook, Thandika Mkandawire, Andy Norton, Rachel Sabates-Wheeler,
Timo Voipio and Jenn Yablonski – noted key issues that had struck them during the conference,
and drew attention to other issues that were inadequately addressed. One area in need of
attention is conceptual clarity around key terms like social justice, social policy – even social
protection itself, which has evolved since its inception. More systematic thought should also be
given to linkages between labour market policies and social protection. Also, inequality needs to
be addressed not just through social transfers but through redistribution of productive assets.
Notions of citizenship are critical not only in defining eligibility but in establishing the social
contract. This raised a counter-point, that the preoccupation with the state as duty-bearer for
delivering social protection overlooks the role of informal providers, and the positive or negative
relationship between formal and informal social protection remains inadequately understood.
In his concluding remarks, Thandika Mkandawire drew attention to three ‘surprising silences’ in
the social protection discourse – on ideologies, social movements, and taxation. On ideologies,
abstract political philosophies have actually been translated into manifestoes of political parties,
and that there is convincing evidence from Europe that social democracies perform better on a
number of outcomes. The much-praised successes in social protection in Latin America are coming
mainly from the new generation of central leftist regimes, but analysis of these programmes rarely
discusses the ideologies of these governments – nor of governments in Africa, which are also driven
by ideologies that are translated into policy agendas.
Page 10 of 19
A second silence of direct relevance to debates on social justice concerns social movements, which
were historically most effective when representing the interests of marginalised or dispossessed
classes. What is now described as ‘civil society’ bears little resemblance to labour movements,
peasant associations, women’s cooperatives and other vehicles for social change. Instead, the
main civil society actors in social protection are NGOs whose primary role is delivery of services
– notions of class solidarity seem to have disappeared from the social policy discourse. The third
silence concerns taxation. As Mkandawire pointed out, “welfare regimes are fiscal regimes”, so any
assertion that comprehensive social protection is affordable because it will ‘only’ cost 3% of GDP is
meaningless unless the question is asked: whose income will cover this 3%? If the rich have to pay it
could amount to 6-8%of their income and they might resist this, but if the poor have to pay it could
be 10-15% of their income and they cannot afford to pay this. Social protection discussions tend to
ignore fiscal policy because donors have negative perceptions of aid-dependent governments –
either social spending is an economic distortion associated with rent-seeking or it’s a clientelistic and
neopatrimonial attempt to buy off political constituencies. The alternative discourse, which sees
social protection as good for social justice, argues for bypassing the state and going ‘straight to the
people’. This might avoid the messiness of politics and maximise ‘grassroots participation’ but it
encourages the view that outside agencies can intervene and skip the elites – a misguided strategy.
Conclusions
Social protection is not only about installing safety nets and contributing to poverty reduction –
important though these are – it also has profound implications for governance and social relations.
The conference addressed the perception that insufficient attention has been paid to the politics of
social protection, and its relationship to social justice. In addition to the points already summarised
above, the following conclusions emerged out of the presentations and discussions.
Firstly, social protection is much more than a service delivery sector. The decisions a society makes
about how and whether to guarantee basic subsistence for all citizens reveals the vision that
society has about itself – is it based on solidarity and interdependence, or individualism and selfreliance? What constitutes a ‘good society’ at a time when neoliberalism prevails and financial
austerity offers governments a convenient excuse to cut back on social spending? These
questions resonate in the UK and mainland Europe as much as they do in the poorest countries.
Secondly, the social protection agenda has implications for the evolving social contract between
governments and citizens. If there is no direct line of accountability between the providers and
beneficiaries of social protection, the potential for mobilising civil society is limited. This issue is
particularly pertinent in countries where poverty and aid dependence mean that international
donor agencies dominate the design and financing of these interventions.
Thirdly, social protection must be delivered in ways that do not stigmatise people. Social protection
programmes need to respect the dignity of claimants and empower them to become active
citizens rather than passive beneficiaries. As noted above, ‘social audits’ in India are innovative
participatory tools that empower marginalised villagers to claim their right to social protection,
and to hold local administrations accountable for their delivery.
Fourthly, social protection should be linked to other dimensions of social policy, such as tackling
discrimination and social exclusion, which are often the root causes of poverty. Eradicating
social injustice can eliminate a need for welfare transfers. For instance, is it better to deny an
HIV-positive person work and compel them to depend on social protection, or to outlaw
discrimination in the labour market based on HIV status, as South Africa has done?
Page 11 of 19
Fifthly, the most progressive social protection interventions are underpinned by legislation, which
transforms a charitable gesture into a justiciable right. In India, the Mahatma Gandhi National
Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) gives every rural household the right to 100 days
of public works employment each year. In Swaziland, where pensions were introduced for all
older citizens in 2005, a delay in payments due to cashflow problems provoked aggrieved
pensioners to lobby their MPs, and parliament was suspended until the issue was resolved.
The conference ended on an optimistic note. Social protection has been the development success
story of the past decade. Not only are social protection programmes extending their coverage to
poor and vulnerable people across the world, they are increasingly becoming claims-based and
justiciable, empowering individuals and communities, and building social contracts between states
and citizens. But it is important going forward to protect the gains made: to extend coverage further
and to stay focused on the primary objective – guaranteeing subsistence when private sources of
subsistence are inadequate – while working to institutionalise projects and programmes so that they
become permanent and irreversible entitlements. Evidence presented at this conference confirmed
that this is a vital first step toward ensuring that social protection becomes a more effective tool for
achieving social justice for all.
Page 12 of 19
Annex 1. Conference Personnel
Conference Directors
Stephen Devereux
Allister McGregor
Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, UK
Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, UK
Advisory Committee
Kate Carroll
Tim Conway
Arjan de Haan
Francie Lund
Thandika Mkandawire
Timo Voipio
Jennifer Yablonski
ActionAid, London, UK
Department for International Development (DFID), UK
Institute of Social Studies, The Hague, The Netherlands
University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa
London School of Economics, London, UK
Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Helsinki, Finland
UNICEF, New York, USA
Conference Administrator
Liz O’Brien
Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, UK
Theme Convenors [all IDS]
Dolf te Lintelo
Deepta Chopra
Keetie Roelen
Christophe Béné
Rachel Sabates-Wheeler
Gabriele Köhler
Theme 1: Governance
Theme 1: Governance
Theme 2: Vulnerability
Theme 3: Climate change
Theme 4: Inequality
Theme 4: Inequality
Conference Communications [all IDS]
Clare Gorman
Hester Phillips
Conference Rapporteurs [all IDS]
Jennifer Constantine
Vikas Dimble
Suprita Jayaram
Nitin Madan
Emmanuel Rukundo
Page 13 of 19
Annex 2. Conference Participants
Amina Abdulla
Omotayo Daud’ Alabi
Catherine Arnold
Katja Bender
Christophe Béné
Saul Butters
Laura Camfield
Terry Cannon
Kate Carroll
Elisa Cavacece
Deepta Chopra
Michael Cichon
Tim Conway
Sarah Cook
Victoria Correa
Dipankar Datta
Mark Davies
Jessica De Los Rios
Chris De Neubourg
Stephen Devereux
Paul Dornan
Ellen Ehmke
Martin Evans
Andrew Fischer
Andrew Fox
David Fryer
Maricar Garde
Justine Gatsinzi
Giorgia Giovannetti
Rachel Godfrey Wood
Duncan Green
Matthew Greenslade
Jessica Hagen-Zanker
Charlotte Harland
Sajjad Hassan
Sam Hickey
Concern Worldwide, Kenya
Concern Worldwide, Sierra Leone
Department for International Development, UK
Institute of Development Research and Development Policy,
Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany
Institute of Development Studies, UK
Institute of Development Studies, UK
DEV, University of East Anglia, UK
Institute of Development Studies, UK
Action Aid, UK
Department of Foreign Affairs, Ireland
Institute of Development Studies, UK
International Labour Office, Switzerland
Department for International Development, UK
United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, Switzerland
Policy Officer for Gender Equality, European Commission, Belgium
Concern Worldwide, India
Institute of Development Studies, UK
Institute of Peruvian Studies, Peru
UNICEF, Italy
Institute of Development Studies, UK
Young Lives, University of Oxford, UK
International Centre for Development and Decent Work, University of
Kassel, Germany
Oxford Institute of Social Policy, UK
Institute of Social Studies, Erasmus University, The Netherlands
Concern Worldwide, Ireland
Rhodes University, South Africa
Save The Children, UK
Government of Rwanda Vision 2020 Umurenge Programme, Rwanda
European University Institute, Robert Schuman Centre, Italy
International Institute for the Environment and Development, UK
Oxfam GB, UK
Department for International Development, UK
Overseas Development Institute, UK
UNICEF, Zambia
Office of Commissioners to the Supreme Court (in the Right to Food
case), India
IDPM, University of Manchester, UK
Page 14 of 19
Tessa Hochfeld
Rebecca Holmes
Nicola Hypher
Carl Jackson
Aditi Jha
Richard Jolly
Nicola Jones
Naila Kabeer
Markus Kaltenborn
Brid Kennedy
Andrew Kettlewell
Charles Knox-Vydmanov
Gabriele Koehler
Nupur Kukrety
Andrea Lampis
Tom Lavers
Julie Lawson-McDowall
Richard Longhurst
Charles Lwanga-Ntale
Ian MacAuslan
Richard Mallett
Philippe Marcadent
Jenn Marshall
Anna McCord
Allister McGregor
Thandika Mkandawire
Richard Morgan
Wendy Nefdt
Tavengwa Nhongo
Andrew Norton
Carly Nyst
Rosalinda Pineda Ofreneo
Wale Osofisan
Chris Pain
Angela Penrose
Nils Riemenschneider
Keetie Roelen
Andrea Rossi
Rachel Sabates-Wheeler
Michael Sansour
Franklins A. Sanubi
University of Johannesburg, South Africa
Overseas Development Institute, UK
Save The Children, UK
Westhill Knowledge Group, UK
independent, India
Institute of Development Studies, UK
Overseas Development Institute, UK
School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, UK
Faculty of Law, Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany
Concern Worldwide, Ireland
Government of Rwanda Vision 2020 Umurenge Programme, Rwanda
HelpAge International, UK
Institute of Development Studies, UK
Oxfam GB, UK
CIDER, Universidad de Los Andes, Colombia
University of Bath, UK
UNICEF, Kenya
Institute of Development Studies, UK
Development Initiatives, Kenya
Oxford Policy Management, UK
Overseas Development Institute, UK
International Labour Office, Switzerland
Department for International Development, UK
Overseas Development Institute, UK
Institute of Development Studies, UK
London School of Economics and Political Affairs, UK
UNICEF, USA
University of Cape Town. South Africa
Africa Platform for Social Protection
Overseas Development Institute, UK
International Council on Human Rights Policy
College of Social Work and Community Development, University of
the Philippines
HelpAge International, UK
Concern Worldwide, Ireland
Grow Up Free From Poverty Coalition, UK
Oxford Policy Management, UK
Institute of Development Studies, UK
UNICEF, India
Institute of Development Studies, UK
British Consulate General, Israel
Delta State University, Nigeria
Page 15 of 19
Amy Schmidt
Marguerite Schneider
Frank Schneider
Esther Schüring
Hania Sholkamy
Paul Siegel
Rachel Slater
Gabrielle Smith
Cormac Staunton
Maria Stavropoulou
Caroline Sweetman
Dolf te Lintelo
Savina Tessitore
Shaik Abdul Thaha
Indra P Tiwari
Carolina Trivelli
Zenebe Bashaw Uraguchi
Wouter van Ginneken
Nidhi Vij
Timo Voipio
Paul Wafer
Carol Watson
Peter Whiteford
Jennifer Yablonski
Nedal Zahran
United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the
Near East, Jordan
Department of Psychology, Stellenbosch University, South Africa
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH,
Germany
Maastricht Graduate School of Governance, The Netherlands
Social Research Center, American University in Cairo, Egypt
World Bank, USA
Overseas Development Institute, UK
Concern Worldwide, Ireland
Concern Worldwide, Ireland
Overseas Development Institute, UK
Oxfam GB, UK
Institute of Development Studies, UK
independent, Italy
Maulana Azad National Urdu University, India
National Institute of Development Administration, Thailand
Institute of Peruvian Studies, Peru
Swiss Foundation for Development and International Cooperation,
Switzerland
independent, France
Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University,
United States
Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Finland
Department for International Development, UK
independent, France
Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Australia
UNICEF, USA
United Nations Development Programme, Palestine
Page 16 of 19
Annex 2. Conference Programme
TIME
ACTIVITY
Presenter
DAY 1: Wednesday 13 April
10:00–11:00
10:00–10:15
10:15–10:30
10:30–10:45
10:45–11:00
11:00–11:30
11:30–13:00
11:30–11:45
11:45–12:00
12:00–12:15
12:15–13:00
13:00–14:00
13:30–14:00
14:00–15:30
14:00–14:15
14:15–14:30
14:30–14:45
14:45–15:30
14:00–14:15
14:15–14:30
14:30–14:45
14:45–15:30
14:00–14:15
14:15–14:30
14:30–14:45
14:45–15:30
15:30–16:00
16:00–17:30
16:00–16:15
16:15–16:30
16:30–16:45
16:45–17:30
16:00–16:15
16:15–16:30
16:30–16:45
16:45–17:30
16:00–16:15
16:15–16:30
16:30–16:45
16:45–17:30
17:30–18:30
PLENARY SESSION 1: Welcome
Opening remarks
Introduction to the Centre for Social Protection
Review of conference programme
Conference logistics & communications
TEA BREAK
PLENARY SESSION 2: Agenda-setting papers
Beyond the social protection paradigm in Africa
Policies and practice for equity and transformation
Why “social protection for social justice”?
Discussion
LUNCH
SIDE EVENT: “Good practice in social protection”
PARALLEL SESSION 1
1.1. Conceptualising social protection for social justice
A social justice approach to social protection
Universalist approaches to social protection
Measuring social justice
Discussion
2.1. Coping and social protection in fragile contexts
Social protection in fragile states in Africa
Social transformation in Sierra Leone
Social protection and coping with shocks in Ethiopia
Discussion
4.3. Ensuring access to social protection and social rights
Demographics and scaling up social protection
Access to social protection for migrants
CSOs and the right to health in South Africa
Discussion
TEA BREAK
PARALLEL SESSION 2
1.2. Constructing social contracts: role of external actors
The rise of social protection in development
Social protection for transformation in Zambia
The politics of social protection in Zambia
Discussion
2.2. Social protection and the politics of marginalisation
Enhancing the status of the marginalised in India
Affirmative action for Muslims in India
Including disability in social protection policy
Discussion
3.1. Climate change, disasters, and social protection
A risk-adjusted social protection floor
Adaptive social protection in South Asian agriculture
Disasters and social protection
Discussion
LAUNCH EVENT: European Report on Development 2010:
“Social Protection for Inclusive Development”
Convening Space
Haddad
Sabates-Wheeler
Devereux / McGregor
O’Brien
Room 121
Convening Space
Adesina (Mkandawire)
Morgan
Devereux
Haddad
Room 120/121
Convening Space
Convening Space
Hickey
Kabeer
Babajanian
McGregor
Room 120
Osofisan
Alabi
Garde
Gupte
Room 221
Fischer
Sabates-Wheeler
Nefdt
Nyst
Room 121
Convening Space
De Haan
Harland
Schüring
Conway
Room 120
Jha
Thaha
Schneider
Datta
Room 221
Siegel
Davies
Cannon
Rossi
Room 120/121
Giovannetti
Page 17 of 19
DAY 2: Thursday 14 April
09:00–09:30
09:30–11:00
09:30–09:45
09:45–10:00
10:00–10:15
10:15–11:00
09:30–09:45
09:45–10:00
10:00–10:15
10:15–11:00
09:30–09:45
09:45–10:00
10:00–10:15
10:15–11:00
11:00–11:30
11:30–13:00
11:30–11:45
11:45–12:00
12:00–12:15
12:15–13:00
11:30–11:45
11:45–12:00
12:00–12:15
12:30–13:00
11:30–11:45
11:45–12:00
12:00–12:15
12:30–13:00
13:00–14:30
13:30–14:30
14:30–15:30
15:30–16:00
16:00–17:30
16:00–16:15
16:15–16:30
16:30–16:45
16:45–17:30
16:00–16:15
16:15–16:30
16:30–16:45
16:45–17:30
16:00–16:15
16:15–16:30
16:30–16:45
16:45–17:30
19:30
PLENARY SESSION 3: Review of Day 1
PARALLEL SESSION 3
4.1. Alternative visions for rights-based social protection
Social protection in national development strategies
Transformative social protection in South Asia
Strengthening social assistance governance in India
Discussion
1.3. Constructing social contracts: role of domestic actors
Activism and the “right to food case” in India
Social protection as residual safety net in Nigeria
Rights-based social protection in Philippines
Discussion
2.3. Gender, social protection and social justice
The politics of gender and social protection
Social protection for single mothers in Malaysia
Social protection for farmwomen in South Africa
Discussion
TEA BREAK
PARALLEL SESSION 4
3.2. Social protection for climate change adaptation
Climate resilience and social protection
Adaptive social protection in Rwanda
Cash transfers and climate change adaptation
Discussion
2.4. Social protection and justice for children
Child-sensitive social protection
Social protection in small island states
Social protection’s role in reducing child mortality
Discussion
4.4. Social protection, inequality and empowerment
Vulnerability and economic empowerment in Palestine
Savings mobilisation on a CCT in Peru
Multiplier effects of social transfers in Zimbabwe
Discussion
LUNCH
LAUNCH EVENT: “Migration and Social Protection”
“Social Protection for Africa’s Children”
PLENARY SESSION 4:
[to be confirmed]
TEA BREAK
PARALLEL SESSION 5
4.2. Framing welfare regimes in social protection
State welfarism and social protection in Asia
Political society in the Indian welfare regime
Neoliberalism and social spending in South Africa
Discussion
2.6. Social protection for vulnerability reduction
Reducing vulnerability in urban slums in Kenya
Social protection and social justice in Ghana
Resource transfers in Bangladesh and Ethiopia
Discussion
1.4. The politics of implementation: MGNREGA in India
MGNREGA and social contracts in India
Social audits on MGNREGA in India
Implementation of MGNREGA in India
Discussion
CONFERENCE DINNER: “Al Fresco”
Convening Space
Convening Space
Carroll
Koehler
Datta
Voipio
Room 120
Hassan
Sanubi
Ofreneo
Bender
Room 221
Jones
Evans
Devereux
Kukrety
Room 121
Convening Space
Watson
Gatsinzi
Godfrey Wood
Lwanga-Ntale
Room 120
Roelen
Whiteford
Hypher
Yablonski
Room 221
Sansour
De Los Rios
Staunton
Smith
Room 120/121
Convening Space
Sabates-Wheeler
Devereux
Convening Space
Room 121
Convening Space
Tiwari
Ehmke
Fryer
Pain
Room 120
Abdulla
Adjei
Uraguchi
Hagen-Zanker
Room 221
Chopra
Vij
Narayan
McCord
Page 18 of 19
DAY 3: Friday 15 April
09:00–09:30
09:30–11:00
09:30–09:45
09:45–10:00
10:00–10:15
10:15–11:00
09:30–09:45
09:45–10:00
10:00–10:15
10:15–11:00
09:30–09:45
09:45–10:00
10:00–10:15
10:15–11:00
11:00–11:30
11:30–13:00
13:00–14:00
PLENARY SESSION 5: Review of Day 2
PARALLEL SESSION 6
4.5. Social justice in global social protection agendas
A human rights-based approach to the MDGs
The Social Protection Floor
Social assistance and the Decent Work Agenda
Discussion
1.5. Actors and agents in social protection delivery
From social protection recipients to citizens
Social workers and cash transfers in Egypt
Informal social protection and the state
Discussion
2.5. Social vulnerabilities and social protection
Social stigma and cash transfers in South Africa
Cash transfers and social relations in Africa
Social tensions on MGNREGA in India
Discussion
TEA BREAK
PLENARY SESSION 6: Closing Reflections
Cook; Mkandawire; Norton; Sabates-Wheeler, Yablonski
LUNCH & DEPARTURE
Convening Space
Convening Space
Van Ginneken
Cichon
Marcadent
Kaltenborn
Room 120
Tessitore
Sholkamy
Te Lintelo
Slater
Room 221
Hochfeld
MacAuslan
Camfield
Knox-Vydmanov
Room 121
Convening Space
Voipio
Room 120/121
Page 19 of 19