Using existing international social protection statistics

&

indicators to measure and monitor progress towards social protection targets in post-2015 SDGs

Social Protection Systems Approach

Ruslan Yemtsov, Maddalena Honorati (World Bank) Jeromin Capaldo (ILO) 3

February 2015 SPIAC B Meeting UN Headquarters

NEEDS

Needs

GAPS & ISSUES  Social Protection can be Quantified, Monitored and Evaluated Indicators include:  Inventory (statutory) information: what is out there  Input indicators (budgets)  Key performance (output) indicators  Indicators of impact  OWG proposal Under Goal 1 “End poverty in all its forms everywhere”  Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all, including oors, and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable  Statistical note for the issue brief: – Percentage of the population (including if possible information on coverage of migrants) with

access to adequate and predictable cash benefits in case of need

during their whole lifecycle, considering children, people in active age, pregnant women, older persons, and persons with disabilities.

– Percentage of the population protected against the financial costs of ill-health (e.g. through social health insurance or other mechanisms).

Solutions

Needs

NEEDS GAPS & ISSUES 

Dashboard of indicators:

- percentage of older people receiving pension; - percentage of families with children protected against the financial costs of ill-health (e.g. through social health insurance or other mechanisms); - percentage of people with disabilities receiving disability benefits; - percentage of people without employment receiving support; - percentage of poor receiving adequate support; - percentage of the food insecure population assisted through formal social protection programs.

Each of these indicators should be disaggregated by sex, and could also be further disaggregated as far as possible by income, ethnicity and other criteria to track the inclusion of different groups.

Solutions

What is coverage?

NEEDS    Coverage has two dimensions: 1) scope of coverage i.e. the number of SP areas (branches) to which different population groups have access and 2) extent of coverage i.e. the share of persons covered within the target group of different SP programs. We are interested in the extent of coverage, which in turns can be: a) legal (statutory) coverage, i.e. groups covered by statutory schemes for a given social protection function/branch in national legislation b) effective coverage, i.e. the proportion of persons covered within the whole population or target group: i.

protected persons, i.e. the number of persons who have benefits guaranteed but are not necessarily currently receiving them (e.g. in contributory schemes those actually contributing/affiliated); and ii.

actual beneficiaries, i.e. the proportion of the population affected by a certain contingency who actually receive the respective benefit

Why actual coverage?

 Because we can assess the access only by observing those who are currently affected by a contingency and receive/not receive the benefits GAPS & ISSUES Solutions

How to measure coverage?

   Importance of both administrative sources and household surveys data Administrative data  Primary or “traditional” source  Data are (or: should be) regularly collected and published by the institutions administering social security schemes/programs  Information on beneficiaries, benefits and persons covered: indispensable for the administration, monitoring and evaluation of the scheme/program  Not explicitly collected for research purposes and largely unexploited by research  Principal advantages: ideally...

 Complete information on persons protected and actual beneficiaries (break-down by sex and age)  Little additional cost: data are collected for the regular functioning of the scheme/program Disadvantages with regard to coverage measurement  Administrative data usually contain ample information on those groups of the population that are covered but not on those who are NOT covered ; Eligible non-recipients usually are not captured  Do not provide any insights on the causes and effects of non-coverage.  Double counting possible in the case of beneficiaries receiving various benefits  AND in many developing countries, often poor quality and availability of such data in absence of properly managed records and information system  Difficult to capture schemes that are less visible  Fragmentation of sources (multiple schemes and programmes) and lack of coordination at the national level

Definitions of actual coverage: going a step deeper

 The distinction between direct and indirect beneficiaries versus direct beneficiaries is important, because alternative definitions of the beneficiary unit may significantly affect the results. Depending on the type of program and the target group, the direct beneficiary of a safety net program may be an individual, a family, or a household. However, in a broader sense, all household members benefit from the additional resources provided by the program, thus a strong economic rationale exists for assigning benefits to the whole household when assessing the incidence of a program.

   Coverage of direct beneficiaries Coverage of households Coverage of individuals within the households

   

Why coverage is not enough? What is adequacy?

Because what is relevant is “access to adequate and predictable benefits in case of need” Conceptually, program coverage is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for a program to be effective: only if they get the adequate treatment (cash, in-kind goods or services etc.) and have a chance to ameliorate the condition for which the program was initially designed. NEEDS GAPS & ISSUES Solutions National specificity Common Principle: Taken together, cash and in kind benefits should secure protection against poverty, vulnerability and social exclusion and enable a decent standard of living How to operationalize?

 Benefit level – Combined across programs (household survey vs. administrative data) – Minimum standards (poverty line) – Consumption /income – International benchmarks

How to measure adequacy?

 Benefit level?

 How to measure it?

 …. Depending on sources (household survey versus administrative data)  Is it enough to divide total expenditure on benefits by the total number of beneficiaries?

NEEDS GAPS & ISSUES Solutions  

SOLUTIONS

Stock taking of current practices and existing data in international organizations but also from countries Think in terms of data to be collected from  administrative sources and associated methods  Household surveys (example of questions available in existing modules, existing surveys) and associated methods  Pension entitlements ?

Other contingencies … could be part of a series of methodological guidelines

NEEDS

Proposal for targets (ILO)

GAPS & ISSUES       Target 1: All older persons receive an adequate pension Indicator: Share of persons above retirement age that benefit from an old-age pension. Coverage data for this target already exists for 175 countries. Currently, 51.5% of those above retirement age benefit from a pension. Target 2: All children receive appropriate support Indicator: Share of families with children that receive support. Currently, 109 countries have a child or family allowance scheme, and cash transfer schemes have grown significantly. While there is not yet a consolidated figure for families with children receiving basic income support, data is widely available to monitor the achievement of this target. Target 3: All mothers receive support Indicator: Share of pregnant or recent mothers who receive maternity benefits. 139 countries have a formal maternity benefit program. Target 4: Those without jobs receive adequate support Indicator: Share of unemployed in active age who receive a regular unemployment benefit. Unemployment indicators are available for 79 of the 85 countries where benefits are available. Globally, 11.7% of unemployed persons receive some form of support.

Target 5: All persons with severe disabilities receive appropriate support Indicator: Share of persons with severe disabilities who receive a regular disability benefit. 171 countries have disability benefit programmes and administrative data is available. Target 6: All workers receive employment injury protection Indicator: Share of those covered against an occupational accident. 172 countries administer employment injury programs. Solutions

NEEDS

Gaps and Issues

GAPS & ISSUES  How to give more prominence vital basic ‘protection’ function.

Poor and vulnerable (households which could comprise

children, older persons, persons with disability and other socially excluded groups) 

need social protection to do what it originally set out to do; to alleviate their economic deprivation and social marginalization.



Therefore target of covering 100% of poor households with at least one social protection measure/scheme/program is in line with the spirit of the GOAL ONE and should be clearly stated.

Solutions

Example: Social protection in old age: pensions

Source: ILO, World Social Protection Report 2014-15

Who is covered? Beneficiaries Proportion of older persons receiving an old age pension

Source: ILO, World Social Protection Report 2014-15

Who is covered? Protected persons: Proportion of working-age population (15-64) covered by pension schemes of all types

Source: ILO, World Social Protection Report 2014-15

ASPIRE DATA SOURCES

1.

Administrative program level data:  Official government reports /website  Directly provided by government official through country dialogue with WB   Published WB country reports Information collected by local consultants from government when official data are not available 2.

Nationally representative household surveys:  LSMS  HH income expenditure/budget surveys  Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICs)  Welfare Monitoring Surveys  Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (SILCs)  LFS

VALIDATION AND QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCESS

PRIMARY DATA WITH KEY INDICATO RS=>PRE LIMINARY RESULTS UNDER STAND COUNT RY’S SP SYSTEM S COMPARE WITH OFFICIAL GOVERNM ENT SOURCES AND REPORTS CONTRAST WITH EXISTING INTERNATI ONAL DATABASE S CROSS TIME CONSISTE NCY CHECKS VALIDATE WITH COUNTRY TEAMS: VALIDATE WITH GOVERNM ENTS:

PROGRAM DOCUMENTATION

ASPIRE CLASSIFICATION OF SPL PROGRAMS

SA LM SI

•Social assistance •Labor Market Programs (active and passive) •Social Insurance (contributory)

MOST OF THE POPULATION IN NEED RECEIVE NO SPL TRANSFERS

11 3 4 25 6 2 12 4 18 10 18 22 42 43 34 29 86 68 49 41 38 30 Sub-Saharan Africa South Asia No transfer East Asia Middle East North Africa Only Social Assistance Latin America Only Social Insurance Easter Europe and Central Asia

GLOBAL COVERAGE OF SOCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE COVERAGE OF POOREST QUINTILE OF POPULATION

Low income Years: 2008 -2012 Lower Middle Income Upper Middle Income High Income

GLOBAL COVERAGE OF POOREST HOUSEHOLDS BY SA TYPES

14% 11% 10% 8% 6% 4% 3% In kind Cash transfer Other Public works Years: 2000--2012 CCT School feeding Social pension

ADEQUACY OF SA BENEFITS

ADEQUACY OF TRANSFERS VARIES BY COUNTRY SOCIAL PENSIONS ARE THE MOST GENEROUS

Bangladesh Nepal Armenia Thailand El Salvador Pakistan Dominican Republic Egypt, Arab Rep.

Average CCT (12) Average CT (26) Colombia Chile Peru Argentina Moldova Average allowances (19) Mexico Ecuador Jordan Average Social Pension (15) Croatia Belarus Romania Albania Brazil Between 2008 -2012 0 5 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 13 15 17 17 20 20 21 22 23 23 24 25 27 29 10 15 20 25 30 34 35 40 44 45 50

COMBINING PERFORMANCE WITH COUNTRY CONTEXT INDICATORS

Coverage as % of total population 19 2 2 1 1 7 4 11 5 3 9 3 Tot Q1 Honduras Contributory old age pension Q5 Tot Q1 Mexico Q5 Non-contributory old age pension Coverage as % of elderly population 34% 8% Honduras 22% 36% Children (0-14) Youth (15-24) Working age (26 59) Elderly (60+) 23,7 53,5 Mexico 10% 42% 29% 19% Children (0-14) Youth (15-24) Working age (26 59) Elderly (60+) Honduras Mexico Non-contributory old age pension

WHERE ARE WE?



Now in the Portal

: Performance indicators based on HH surveys for

112 developing countries

between 1998-2012:     “Performance” indicators (by program category, quintiles of welfare, urban-rural) “Country context” indicators (by gender, age groups, urban-rural) Full documentation of main variables and program classification Include links to IHSN through common survey ID  Ongoing work to harmonize program level administrative data on expenditures and number of beneficiaries for 40 countries (incomplete data on 144 countries)  Data collection ongoing in 14 countries (Africa and Latin America)  ADB and ECLAC

WHAT’S NEXT?



External portal updated twice a year

  January 2015  Consolidated estimates of existing indicators  Indicators updates July 2015  Spending indicators  Indicators updates 

State of Safety Nets 2015 (release June 2015) …STAY TUNED!!!

FIND ASPIRE AT WWW.WORLDBANK.ORG/ASPIRE

Other issues and solutions

   How to define social protection coverage?  How to define/ categorize schemes and benefits? what criteria / categories?

 Some established methods (Eurostat, OECD, ILO, ..) propose some classifications (ex.: SI/SA/LM; statutory / non-statutory, public / private, in kind / in cash, means-tested/non-means tested etc. How to define adequacy of benefits?  Why coverage is not enough?

How to improve social protection data collection through household

surveys?

 No generic and standardized method => issue of comparability    Efforts to develop standard modules of questions on social protection to be included in regular national surveys (ILO generic module, adaptation & application by ADB in several countries). New joint guidelines Module of questions developed as part of ad-hoc surveys. Specific social protection surveys

Bogged down: Categorisation of schemes & benefits

SP Schemes/ programs definition Contributory Statutory Public Private Non contributory Contributory system Non contributory Non statutory Public Private Contributory Non contributory Contributory Non contributory Benefits features

Cash Older persons

 Old age  Survivors*

Family / child

benefit

Active age

 Sickness   Disability/ Invalidity Unemployment  Employment injury   Maternity Survivors*    ALMP Housing * Other social assistance*

In kind Health care

benefit Function?

periodic Lump-sum/ ad hoc periodic Lump-sum/ ad hoc Means-tested Not means tested Means-tested Not means tested Means-tested Not means tested Other criteria  Poverty/livelihood – protection against destitution   Risk management – prevention Promotion Type of benefit Periodicity Means tested or not

Road Map – A few ideas!

NEEDS GAPS & ISSUES Solutions

T i m e l i n e

ROAD MAP

Short run Medium run

 Provide comments/inputs to the OWG proposal on core indicators and targets  Develop case studies on expanding SPL coverage with detailed data stories  Continue work in progress: e.g.

 ….ASPIRE

 ….Inventories of SPL  … Guidelines on core SPL data to be collected through household surveys (possible module of generic questions)    Core standards in defining social protection coverage and benefits (“definition” / “qualification” of data) Increasing country coverage of administrative and survey sources and main categories of data (expenditure, coverage, benefits, impact,) Establishing a baseline for all/most countries for core indicators…

Long run

    … Joint methodological series on … benefit level, coverage, etc. In country capacity building work Annual progress monitoring Periodic statistical meetings/ working group

Thank you!!