Social Transfers : a southern African perspective Nicholas Freeland

1. Social Transfers:a southern African perspectiveNicholas Freeland 2009 FANRPAN Regional Policy Dialogue Maputo, 31 Aug – 4 Sept 2009

2. What is RHVP? • A regional programme for southern Africa funded by DFID (now UKaid) and AusAID • Phase 1 ran from July-05 to Sept-08; Phase 2 will run to Sept-10 • Seeks to address the prevalence of chronic vulnerability in the SADC region • Promotes a shift from emergency relief (primarily food aid) to long-term, institutionalised social protection 2

3. 3 interlinked components 3

4. Social protection:shifting the development paradigm • Traditional (the poor are the problem): • Focus development on economic growth • Wait for economic growth to reduce poverty • Residual interim safety nets • Donor (expensive) emergency assistance where necessary … IS NOT WORKING (in Africa) • Emerging (the poor are the solution): • Provide comprehensive social protection • Social protection will help to generate economic growth • This will reduce poverty and the cost of social protection • Reduced emergency assistance, freeing donor resources

5. The case for social transfers: multi-dimensional impacts

6. Busting the myths about social transfers • Cash is not wasted on “anti-social behaviour” • Cash transfers do not create laziness and dependency • Cash transfers do not fuel inflation (in functioning markets) • Cash transfers are affordable, even in LICs

7. Virtuous spiral

8. Lesson 1: Not a new concept in Africa • Culture of sharing • Long tradition of informal systems at community & family level • But many informal systems have eroded • Migration • HIV/AIDS • Some have survived, even thrived • Burial Societies • And a few have been revived • Chiefs’ fields initiative, Lesotho

9. Lesson 2: Donor support is not a pre-requisite(and may even be an impediment!) • Political will and commitment are pre-requisites for comprehensive and durable social transfer schemes • Where social protection initiatives are home grown and are driven by national stakeholders, they are much more likely to be adopted and sustained

10. Lesson 3: Evidence, evidence & more evidence(a donor preoccupation?) • More justification: • Poverty reduction no longer seems to be sufficient • Now need to prove broader impacts – economic growth, agricultural productivity, etc • Risk that we are moving away from the core objectives • Could a broader definition be counterproductive? • More evidence: • Double standards - why Africa? • The macro evidence “Catch 22” • In future: evidence through implementation not experimentation

11. Lesson 4: Too many pilots(not enough on-budget Govt programmes) Ownership Provide limited evidence on scaling-up Pilot or experiment? Limited coverage & impact What’s wrong with pilots ? NOT social protection Open to political influence

12. Lesson 5: Favour categorical targeting(esp where >50% of population are poor)

13. Lesson 6: Social protection is affordable(even in LICs) • ILO, Africa (2005) • $18 to all >65 and disabled - 0.3% to 1.0% of GDP • $9 to all <14 - 2.0% to 6.5% of GDP • What is the current spend on chronic poverty and emergency assistance? How effective is it? • Base programmes on affordability not need • Target for exclusion, not for inclusion • Think progressively – have a roadmap • Innovative ways of increasing revenue • Balance cost against benefits – view as an economic as well as social investment • What is the cost of not doing anything?

14. Proportion of vulnerable people protected by the input subsidy

15. www.wahenga.net rhvp@rhvp.org