97953 NOTE 1 2 Building Resilience, Equity and Opportunity in Myanmar: The Role of Social Protection Framework for the development of social protection systems: Lessons from international experience1 Many countries have used social protection to achieve broader development goals, particularly on poverty reduction and inclusive growth. A wide range of social protection programs allows countries to tackle specific development constraints at national, community, and household levels; provide support to particular population groups; and enhance growth-promoting opportunities. For instance, public works programs and cash transfers are impor- tant and flexible social assistance programs that can be tailored to achieve specific objectives and adjusted to various levels of insti- tutional capacity. They can also be implemented as national and centralized programs or delivered in a more decentralized fashion through community-driven development platforms. 1. This note was prepared by Mariana Infante-Villarroel (World Bank) with inputs from Puja Vasudeva Dutta, Adea Kryeziu, and Ruslan Yemstov (World Bank). Evidence on the impact of social protection programs on poverty and inequality reduction can be found in the World Bank Social Protection Atlas, ASPIRE: http://datatopics.worldbank.org/aspire/. The team is grateful to the Rapid Social Response program and its five donors- the Russian Federation, Sweden, Norway, the United Kingdom and Australia- for funding this assessment. 2 Building Resilience, Equity and Opportunity in Myanmar: The Role of Social Protection Framework for the development of social protection systems: Lessons from international experience 3 1. Overview : What is social protection?2 Social protection is an important component of development processes by directly contributing to inclusive growth and poverty reduction. Social protection systems, policies, and programs help households and communities build Resilience to risks and shocks; contribute to Equity by prevent- ing and alleviating economic and social vulnerabilities; and create Opportunity through building community assets and helping households access services for a better future. Social protection helps reduce poverty and increases social cohesion by ensuring poor and vulnerable groups ben- efit from economic prosperity. Box 1: Resilience, equity, and opportunity Resilience to risks and shocks can be built through social insurance and social assistance programs that minimize the negative impact of economic shocks on individuals and families. Examples of these pro- grams include unemployment and disability insurance, old-age pensions, and scalable public works pro- grams (PWPs). Complementary social protection programs, usually delivered through different sectors (such as health and rural development), are also important for resilience. These include crop and weath- er insurance, health insurance, and community-based support. Equity for the poor and vulnerable can be achieved through social assistance programs such as cash transfer (CTs), food transfers, and welfare services that help protect against destitution, promote equal- ity of opportunity, and address chronic poverty. Social assistance programs protect poor individuals and families from irreversible and catastrophic losses of human capital by helping them access nutrition, health, and education services, even in times of hardship. Social assistance thus helps overcome inter- generational poverty and achieve equality of opportunity by helping families invest in their future and that of their children. Opportunity for all is achieved by promoting human capital in children and adults and helping men and women access more productive employment. Institutions that promote opportunity are often integrat- ed with those supporting resilience and equity. CTs incentivize investments in human capital by promot- ing demand for education and health and by helping address gender inequalities. PWPs provide cash payments to the poor, while increasing infrastructure investments. Source: World Bank (2012a). This note analyzes how social protection systems can be a useful component of development processes, and identifies the contribution of social protection instruments to particular devel- opment objectives that can be relevant for Myanmar. Myanmar can take advantage of the inno- vative ideas, the emerging emphasis on coordinated social protection provision, and the techno- logical solutions that have helped many countries reduce poverty and promote inclusive growth, making full use of the ‘latecomer advantage’ without the costly mistakes other countries have made. Reviewing relevant international experience, such as that of neighboring countries (Indo- nesia, the Philippines) can help Myanmar identify the most appropriate approaches to support its development process. 2. See Annex 1 for definitions of social protection programs. 4 Building Resilience, Equity and Opportunity in Myanmar: The Role of Social Protection 2. The global spread of social protection Social protection programs are a growing element of the development agenda, being present in virtually every country worldwide. Social assistance programs (also known as safety nets) glob- ally cover nearly 1.9 billion beneficiaries, regardless of income level. Countries like Thailand and Tanzania reach more than 70 percent of the population with safety net programs (see Figure 1). Overall, about a third of the poorest 20 percent of the population is covered by social protection programs, with over 80 percent coverage in countries like Ecuador, Mongolia, and Thailand and less than 20 percent in Bolivia, Mozambique, and Tajikistan (Banerji, 2014). Countries like Vietnam have gradually expanded social insurance coverage –from 3.23 million in 1996 to 10.8 million con- tributors in 2013, covering around 20 percent of the labor workforce. Figure 1: Social safety net coverage (% of total population) Source: World Bank Aspire and Inventory of Social Protection Programs in Myanmar. Social protection can be an affordable investment, even for low-income countries (LICs). Devel- oping countries spend an average of 1-1.7 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) on social as- sistance programs such as CTs (see Box 5) and PWPs (see Box 4). Social safety net spending in East and South Asia ranges from 0.6 percent of GDP in Vietnam to 2 percent in India (see Figure 2). There is little difference between upper-middle-income countries and LICs in terms of spending on social assistance, illustrating the affordability of safety nets and the role they play at various stages of development (see Figure 3). Countries tend to increase their level of spending on social insurance programs as they get rich- er. Higher age dependency ratios and expansion of contributory pension scheme coverage as countries get richer are driving these increases. In addition, expanding coverage of insurance-fi- nanced health systems can also increase overall spending on social insurance in high-income countries. Framework for the development of social protection systems: Lessons from international experience 5 Figure 2: Social safety net spending (% of GDP) Source: Andrews (2009); World Bank (2011, 2015); Inventory of Social Protection Programs in Myanmar Several trends can be seen around the use of social protection programs worldwide; the first relates to the clear shift towards more cash-based transfers in social assistance programs. While the number of countries with in-kind social safety net programs– that is, school-feeding and other food-based programs – remains stable, CTs are becoming increasingly popular. Conditional CTs (CCTs) are now present in 64 countries, more than double the 27 in 2008 while unconditional CTs (UCTs) total 130 worldwide (World Bank, 2015a). PWPs are now present in 94 countries (ibid.). Cash has become increasingly popular because of the choice it gives to beneficiaries and the spill- over effects on local economies (benefits go beyond beneficiaries and into local markets). Cash is also easier and cheaper to deliver in most contexts. However, cash and food transfers can be equally effective to support beneficiaries when programs are adequately designed; in some cases, cash has been more effective in enhancing food consumption, while food has seemed to increase household caloric intake (Gentilini, 2014). Figure 3: Social safety net spending against level of income Source: World Bank (2014a). 6 Building Resilience, Equity and Opportunity in Myanmar: The Role of Social Protection The second trend illustrates the spread of social pensions as a way to expand coverage to the elderly not covered by contributory pensions. After decades of stagnant coverage in contribu- tion-based pension schemes, social pensions are increasingly used as a way to address a ‘coverage gap’ that leaves the informal sector particularly vulnerable (Palacios, 2014). Thus, many rapidly ageing countries with high poverty incidence and high informality are increasingly exploring the use of non-contributory social pensions. Social pensions can be introduced to cover a large pro- portion of the older population (such as in China, Korea, and Thailand) or play a complementary role to contributory systems through poverty-targeted social pensions (as in Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam). Social pensions typically cover 2 percent of the population and cost about 0.4 percent of GDP; by contrast, CCTs cost on average 0.3 percent and typically cover 16 percent. Therefore, there is an important incentive for policy-makers to consider choices between an UCT for the elderly and integrating social pensions with other household transfers. This is par- ticularly relevant in contexts of co-residency (when the elderly live with other family members) (Grosh, 2014). A third trend relates to how social protection programs are increasingly focusing on poor and vulnerable urban populations, given the rapid and often chaotic urbanization processes of de- veloping countries. As urbanization unfolds, poverty tends to ‘urbanize’: for instance, while over 1990-2008 global poverty rates were halved in both urban and rural areas, the number of poor people decreased in rural areas only (from 1.4 billion to 896 million); in urban areas, the number of poor people has remained stable at about 285 million over the past quarter-century. While coverage of social insurance programs (old-age and disability pensions and unemployment and health insurance) tends to be higher in urban centers, social assistance programs are more widely present in rural areas (Gentilini, 2014). Mexico has expanded its, initially rural, CCT program (for- merly Oportunidades, now Prospera) to urban areas in the past decade. China’s UCT, Dibao, reach- es over 20 million in urban areas. Both programs have evolved to link beneficiaries with job op- portunities; China’s program has adjusted to serve incoming poor rural migrants. PWPs have also been adapted to urban settings to support income security (see, e.g., Peru’s A Trabajar Urbano and Argentina’s Trabajar) (Subbarao et al., 2013). A fourth trend relates to the way countries are making social protection systems more respon- sive to the mobile and dynamic nature of workers in many labor markets. This relates to rural– urban migration, as discussed previously, but also to the nature of changing patterns in employ- ment within countries (e.g. workers moving from formal employment to self-employment or from the public to the private sector) and across countries (international migration). For instance, pen- sions systems need to make benefits as portable as possible between different schemes, although ideally schemes should converge to decrease incentives not to contribute (in the case of contribu- tory pensions) or to constrain labor mobility. China is currently working on making its pensions schemes more flexible, given constraints in the portability of benefits between provinces and be- tween urban and rural areas, which decreases the incentive for employers to hire migrants (World Bank and Development Research Center of the
State Council, 2013). Lastly, increasing synergies between area-based poverty reduction programs and social assis- tance programs is proving effective to enhance the effectiveness of both approaches in achiev- ing poverty reduction. Poverty reduction strategies in several countries identify area-based pro- grams along household-based social protection programs as necessary instruments to reach the poor. In practice, however, both approaches have been implemented separately, as institutional mandates often belong to different ministries. China has attempted to integrate social protection Framework for the development of social protection systems: Lessons from international experience 7 Box 2: China’s area-based poverty reduction programs First established in 1986, China’s official poverty alleviation programs emphasize increasing the pro- ductive capacity of the rural poor through regionally targeted investment programs. The State Coun- cil’s Leading Group for Poverty Reduction and Development was established to provide coherence to the large number of poverty reduction initiatives and, in particular, to expedite economic develop- ment in poor areas. The government designated poor counties as the basic unit for poverty targeting. For the officially designated ‘poor’ counties, the central government created special funds to support a subsidized loan program, a food for work program, and poor-area development budgetary grants. At the local level, most poor provinces, prefectures, and counties established Leading Group offices, and local governments were required to provide counterpart funds. However, a stagnant rural economy prompted the government to revamp its poverty reduction ap- proach. In 1994, it introduced the 8-7 Poverty Reduction Plan, aspiring to lift the majority of the re- maining 80 million poor above the government’s poverty line during the seven-year period 1994- 2000. It aimed, among other things, to assist poor households with productive activities; provide most townships with road access, electricity, and drinking water; accomplish universal primary educa- tion and basic preventive and curative health care; and graduate better-off counties from the list of nationally designated poor counties. In implementing the 8-7 Plan, the government refined its selec- tion of ‘poor’ counties and emphasized the responsibility of local government leaders for the effec- tiveness of poverty reduction work in their jurisdiction. The 8-7 Plan maintained the three channels of interventions launched in 1986: subsidized loans program, food for work, and budgetary grants. Empirical analysis indicates the 8-7 Plan had a positive impact on designated poor counties. The al- location of poverty funds across the officially designated poor counties was correlated with poverty incidence – that is, poorer counties received more funding. Poverty reduction accelerated over the 8-7 Plan period, particularly during 1994-1996. Using the official poverty line, the number of rural poor declined from 80 million to 32 million between 1993 and 2000, or at an annual rate of about 12 percent. Learning from the experience of the 8-7 Plan, the Chinese government launched a New Century Rural Poverty Alleviation Plan for 2001-2010. One of the main changes was a shift from county to village targeting, given the concentration of poor households in villages rather than broader counties, al- though key focus counties still remained in western provinces. A total of about 148,000 poor villages both within and outside the key poor counties were designated to receive poverty assistance. The new plan also emphasizes human capital and social development in poor localities more and pro- motes participatory poverty reduction approaches. Despite impressive results in poverty reduction, an evaluation of these programs suggests they do not comprehensively address the problem of rural poverty. For instance, they do not cover nearly half the rural poor who do not live in designated poor villages. And, within designated poor villages, a careful impact evaluation further suggests program effects on income and consumption growth for the poor have been weak. From this perspective, the government’s new rural poverty strategy points the way to greater convergence of social assistance, social services, and anti-poverty programs over time, such as prioritizing Dibaobeneficiaries (household-level transfer) and near-poor households in training un- der area-based anti-poverty programs. Source: World Bank and Development Research Center of the State Council (2013). programs in area-based development programs since 1986 (see Box 2). Countries like Indonesia have pioneered a more integrated approach, by making both community-driven development (CDD) programs (such as PNPM Mandiri and Generasi) and household-based programs (e.g. PKH) follow centrally defined objectives of poverty reduction, with discretion on how to achieve this 8 Building Resilience, Equity and Opportunity in Myanmar: The Role of Social Protection locally in the case of PNPM Generasi. This has unleashed synergies at local level that promote more focalized and locally relevant solutions to social protection provision. 3. What can social protection do to support a country’s development process? Social protection contributes to growth and poverty reduction at the national, community, and household levels (see Figure 4). At the national level, social protection can make growth-enhanc- ing reforms more politically feasible; help create the necessary conditions for social cohesion, peace, and stability after conflict or crises; and build national systems that help identify beneficia- ries and provide timely support in times of crises. At the community level, social protection pro- grams contribute to building productive assets and community resilience and stimulate the local economy (spill-over effects). At the household level, social protection helps households build re- silience and avoid negative coping mechanisms, promote equity by building and protecting human capital through investments in health and education, and create opportunity by promoting invest- ments in productive activities. Figure 4: Contribution of social protection to productivity, growth, and poverty reduction Source: Adapted by authors from Alderman and Yemtsov (2013). Framework for the development of social protection systems: Lessons from international experience 9 3.1 At the national level Countries that have invested in building social protection systems have seen significant reduc- tions in poverty and inequality, translating into inclusive growth. Brazil and Mexico have been pioneers in the articulation and expansion of social protection systems to support their develop- ment processes. Brazil’s Bolsa Família CCT program contributed to halving extreme poverty (from 9.7 to 4.3 percent) and reducing inequality (15 percent drop) between 2003 and 2013 (Fiszbein et al., 2011; Wetzel, 2013). Mexico’s Oportunidades CCT program reduced incidence of poverty in rural areas by 8 percent (see Box 5).3 Social pensions have also contributed to decreasing poverty. For instance,they have reduced the poverty head count in Thailand by 30.2 percent and in Chile by 11.6 percent.4 In rural Brazil and South Africa, social pensions reduce both the rate of poverty and the poverty gap (Dethier et al., 2011). In Brazil, specifically, the old-age poverty rate in the absence of these pensions would be 47.9 percent, as against the actual rate of 3.7 percent.5 Governments have used social protection to embark on growth-enhancing reforms that pro- mote a pro-poor focus on social investments and facilitate economic adjustments.6 The govern- ment of Indonesia is undertaking a shift from spending in universal fuel subsidies to targeted household and community transfers.7 In Jordan, the removal of energy subsidies (starting with a price hike in 2006 and a price adjustment into 2008) was combined with a social risk mitigation package, which included a) compensations through wage increases (i.e. additional month sums for civil servants and military and security personnel); b) an increase in pension amounts; c) an increase in social assistance amounts per beneficiary; and d) improvements in the National Aid Fund to effectively target and cover the poor. Overall, the compensatory measures undertaken in Jordan amount to almost half of the fuel subsidies cost (Yemtsov, 2010). Social protection has contributed to facilitating social stability in many conflict-affected con- texts. Angola, Burundi, Mozambique, and Rwandahave implemented transitional support to de- mobilized ex-combatants while Timor-Leste has used cash payments to support internally dis- placed people (IDPs) and veterans (Andrews and Kryeziu, 2013; UNDP, 2012). Burundi has resorted to PWPs (see Boxes 3 and 4) to underpin reinsertion programs and ensure long-lasting reconcilia- tion in conflict-affected communities. Social protection can help governments redefine the social contract and enhance their relation- ship with citizens around service delivery. In India, the use of social audits under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) allows for greater community participation in program processes and fosters social mobilization –as well as increased trust in government activities – which would not have occurred otherwise (Andrews and Kryeziu, 2013). 3. See Annex 2 for international examples of CTs and see Note on ‘The experience of cash transfers in Myanmar’ for local examples and policy recommendations on the use of CTs in Myanmar. 4. http://datatopics.worldbank.org/aspire/ 5. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/2651/493180PUB0REPL10Box338947B01PUBLIC1. pdf?sequence=1 6. Active labor market programs (skills development programs and job-matching) are also part of the menu of social programs that can support structural reform,although this Note focuses on other areas of social protection policy. 7. Universal fuel subsidies disproportionately benefit the rich who own cars. The fuel subsidy still absorbs around 2.5 percent of GDP but the revised 2014 budget includes a further significant reallocation from fuel subsidies to key development priorities, including to social programs, which will see the fuel subsidy budget drop to 0.6 percent of GDP (World Bank, 2015a). 10 Building Resilience, Equity and Opportunity in Myanmar: The Role of Social Protection Box 3: Burundi’s transition to peace – the 3x6 Approach Burundi went through instability and conflict after its independence, arriving in a new phase in 2000 with the signature of the Arusha Accords. There was an urgent need to rebuild public infrastructure and livelihoods shattered by the conflict and to reintegrate more than 400,000 IDPs, 800,000 refugees (although 500,000 were already living in neighboring countries such as Tanzania and the Democratic Republic of Congo), and 50,000 ex-combatants. Despite the accords, unrest continued and in 2009 the last 11,000 combatants demobilized, adding to the pressure of finding sustainable solutions to peace- building that discouraged once and for all the re-ignition of conflict. The Community Approach for Reintegration (the 3x6 Approach) focuses on vulnerable populations affected by conflict, such as ex-combatants, IDPs, and refugees, in conflict-affected provinces. It pro- motes community participatory planning to reinforce social cohesion, ensuring access to services by vulnerable populations and enhancing productive and diversified sources of income. The program serves as a bridge between emergency support and inclusion (Phase 1) and sustainable development (Phase 3) by supporting inclusion – 1) enrolment and 2) cash payments in a PWP to reconstruct com- munities and generate income; appropriation – building 3) savings and 4) cooperatives by prompting PWP beneficiaries to save a portion of their income in a bank account and establish cooperatives to start productive businesses; and sustainability – promoting 5) investments and 6) expanded markets through linkages with microfinance and market information. The 3x6 Approach has contributed to the establishment of 156 business associations in three prov- inces, supporting 2,604 people, 50 percent of them ex-combatants. Phase 3 is currently under way. Source: UNDP (2012) and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWmVrWeTkXk Social protection can contribute to long-lasting reconciliation by tackling some root causes of conflict such as social exclusion, lack of economic opportunities, and unresolved ethnic griev- ances (Andrews and Kryeziu, 2013). El Salvador’s Temporary Income Assistance Program provided cash assistance and job training to youth and women heads of households who live in areas char- acterized by high levels of social exclusion and high rates of social and gender violence. The pro- gram has helped reduce the occurrence of violence and rebuild the social fabric in the violent or at-risk communities (Andrews and Kryeziu, 2013). The government of Nepal is committed to creat- ing a new inclusive agenda and has introduced more than five CTs to support socially excluded individuals to access services and economic opportunities. These CTs use categorical (caste and ethnicity) and geographical targeting to reach target populations more effectively. For instance, a social pension scheme supports all citizens over 70 years of age; child grants and education schol- arships cover households with vulnerable children (e.g. girls, low-caste children, or those in poor areas); marriage grants support widows and inter-caste marriages; and categorical allowances are given to ‘endangered’ indigenous people (IPs) (GIZ, 2012). Social protection can help people cope better and recover from crisis. The 2008 food, fuel, and financial crises demonstrated the need for social protection systems that can quickly and effec- tively respond to those affected by systemic shocks and crises. For instance Ethiopia's Productive Safety Net Program(PSNP), designed to create a predictable safety net for chronically poor house- holds has proven an effective means of responding to shocks. In 2008, the government scaled up the PSNP through the Risk Financing Mechanism (RFM) and was able to provide additional trans- Framework for the development of social protection systems: Lessons from international experience 11 fers to 4.43 million existing beneficiaries of the PSNP and 1.5 million individuals who had not previously participated but who were negatively affected by the 2008 food prices; the RFM was also used in 2009 to provide additional transfers to 6.4 million PSNP participants (World Bank, 2012b). Based on this experience, the PSNP was scaled up yet again in response to severe droughts in the Horn of Africa in 2011, averting the famine and destitution that unfolded in neighboring countries that did not have a safety net in place. Overall, PSNP systems have helped reduce re- sponse time from eight to two months and reduced the need for emergency response and human losses. Even more basic delivery systems can support countries in times of crises; for instance, Nicaragua expanded its school-feeding program in response to rising food prices, which led to an increase in school retention and attendance (Grosh et al., 2008). Disasters pose immense and sudden challenges to governments’ response and recovery sys- tems; having social protection systems in place can make a crucial positive difference. Coordina- tion between the social protection and disaster risk management (DRM) sectors can help reduce the impact of natural hazards. Ethiopia’s PSNP is linked to DRM systems such as hazard risk map- ping and early warning systems, which has helped with early response and reduced, even avoided, disaster losses. Social protection programs can provide a common platform for pooling DP funds to respond to disaster, as in the case of the PSNP’s RFM, which serves to channel financial commit- ments from donors before any crises occur. In the Philippines, the government used the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program CCT to channel donor funding for emergency response efforts when Cyclone Haiyan hit. 3.2 At the community level Social protection programs support community resilience and economic development through building community infrastructure and promoting connectivity. PWPs in particular not only cre- ate jobs for needy workers but also create and maintain small-scale community infrastructure.8 For instance, communities in Ethiopia have benefited from nearly 33,000 km of rural roads built and 167,000 ha of land and 275,000 km of dykes rehabilitated under the PSNP. Well-designed PWPs have the potential to confer significant social gains from the assets created. In Zambia, 37 percent of people in areas covered by PWPs improved their access to markets; the program re- duced distances by connecting previously disconnected road networks (Subbarao et al., 2013). Social protection programs bring not only benefits to direct beneficiaries but also positive spill- over effects to the larger community, further supporting resilience and economic development. In India, MGNREGS proved to have a multiplier effect owing to increased wages from program participation, and an increase in farm productivity (additional output of 2.2 percent; Alderman and Yemtsov, 2013). In Malawi, it was noted that the welfare of non-participating poor households improved through the transfer of cash from households participating in the social transfer pro- gram (as an informal support mechanism). Also in Malawi, the Dowa Emergency Cash Transfer 8. See Annex 3 for international examples of PWPs and see the Note on ‘The experience of public works programs in Myanmar’ for examples and policy recommendations on the use of PWPs in Myanmar. 12 Building Resilience, Equity and Opportunity in Myanmar: The Role of Social Protection program found multiplier impacts from the payments, broadening benefits to the entire commu- nity –resulting in increased sales of small and large traders and more purchases of health and education services (ibid.). Besides peace-building (Box 3), social protection programs support community cohesion by pro- moting the participation of the poor in community decisions. Communities often play a major role in the planning, implementation, and monitoring of PWPs. India’s MGNREGS provides a cen- tral role to local governments in implementation and to communities in planning and monitoring implementation. Ethiopia’s PSNP has brought communities together around the targeting process, promoting community consultation to identify beneficiary households. Argentina’s Jefes program created local councils that gave a voice to the 2,300 participating municipalities in the implemen- tation of a national program, contributing to transparency, accountability, and social inclusion (Subbarao et al., 2013). CDD platforms can become vehicles for social protection implementation. Indonesia's PNPM- Mandiri CDD program was used to provide UCTs to the poorest and most affected households as part of response and recovery efforts after the 2004 tsunami in Aceh and other disaster events between 2005 and 2010 (ADB, n.d.). The CDD program accelerated community recovery with funds spent locally to purchase replacement goods. It also provided employment opportunities by clearing rubble and rebuilding community infrastructure through cash for work programs. In the Philippines, the existing network of implementers of the Pantawid Pamilya CCT program and the existing coordination systems between all levels of government enable quick response in the event of disasters. Box 4 : PWPs– building community resilience through community infrastructure and household food security PWPs, also known as workfare or labor-intensive rural works programs, can serve two objectives: creation of jobs for needy workers and creation and maintenance of small-scale community infrastruc- ture. These programs provide temporary employment at low wages mainly to unskilled workers in ru- ral areas. Such temporary employment during the slack season or during crisis will typically contribute to consumption-smoothing and poverty alleviation. Public works can also be used to promote social cohesion (see Box 2); they are now present in 94 countries. International experience with PWPs includes a diverse range of design features. For instance, India’s MGNREGS) guarantees 100 days of employment each year to all rural households that demand work. Ethiopia’s PSNP emerged after two decades of ad hoc emergency food aid to become a national pro- gram. PSNP uses community identification to reach poor households in need through either employ- ment opportunities to able workers or UCTs to those unable to work. Source: Subbarao et al. (2013). Framework for the development of social protection systems: Lessons from international experience 13 3.3 At the household level Households need social protection provision that responds to the needs different groups have and the various risks households face. One way to understand the needs of various groups is by mapping them along the life cycle. The life cycle approach can illustrate the risks and the programs than can help build resilience, equity, and opportunity for different age groups. For instance, school-feeding and stipends programs support school-age children and PWPs help build resilience to income shocks. Programs such as CTs and school-feeding can be critical at preventing the intergenerational transmission of poverty by ensuring children from poor households have similar access to edu- cation and health services as the non-poor. UCTs in Ecuador and South Africa reduced child labor and increased children’s schooling, health, and nutrition in recipient households (Baird et al., 2010), whereas CCTs in Colombia and Mexico have improved the nutritional status of children in beneficiary households (Fiszbein et al., 2011). In the Philippines, the Pantawid Pamilya CCT has increased enrolment in pre-school by 10.3 percentage points compared to children in districts that did not receive the program; increased primary school enrolment 4.5 percentage points, pushing levels near universal primary school enrolment; increased primary and secondary school atten- dance; reduced severe stunting of young children by 10 percentage points; increased regular health checkups for pregnant mothers and children; and improved the diets of beneficiary families (World Bank, 2014c). In Malawi, girls benefiting from a stipends program stayed in school longer and had a 60 percent lower prevalence of HIV/AIDS than those who were not receiving the trans- Figure 5: Social protection along the life cycle 14 Building Resilience, Equity and Opportunity in Myanmar: The Role of Social Protection fers. Comparisons of six similar school-feeding interventions implemented in five countries (Ban- gladesh, Burkina Faso, India, Kenya, and Uganda) found they deliver similar positive impacts on school attendance, ranging from a 6- to a 20-percentage points increase (IEG, 2011). Social protection programs can support the working-age population to avoid negative coping strategies by ensuring income security during shocks. PWPs can serve as unemployment insur- ance in times of economic downturns and high unemployment. Households benefiting from Ethi- opia’s PSNP for five years increased their food security by 1.05 months in all country’s regions, and increased food and asset security without reducing private transfers or engagement in non-farm activities (Subbarao et al., 2013). Social insurance programs such as health and disability insurance help households manage sudden losses of income and decreased out-of-pocket expenditure when experiencing health shocks (World Bank, 2014b, 2015). The elderly can benefit from social protection programs that address their particular needs. Practically all countries have mandatory pension schemes, at least for civil servants. Most have mandates that cover at least some private sector workers. Integration of civil service and private pension plans reduces administrative costs through economies of scale, renders a more equitable system, allows portability of benefits, and fosters mobility between public and private sectors. In addition, social pensions have been expanding worldwide as a way to support vulnerable older people. In Mexico, non-contributory social pension programs have had a major impact in terms of reducing poverty in old age as well as incidence of extreme poverty, and a positive effect on reduc- ing indigence (Salinas-Rodriguez et al., 2014). Community-based care is also helping older people with their needs beyond income insecurity. The Voluntary Home Care Programme in Sri Lanka enables poorer older people to continue living at home while volunteers provide basic health and nursing services and companionship (HAI, 2005). Box 5 : CTs – flexible designs to alleviate poverty and support human development in different institutional contexts CTs provide assistance in the form of cash or near-cash instruments (vouchers) to poor and vulnerable households to satisfy consumption needs, allow for more risk-taking in productive activities, and invest in human capital development. While the number of countries with in-kind social assistance programs such as school-feeding remains stable, CTs are becoming increasingly popular. CCTs are now present in 64 countries, more than double the 27 in 2008. In the past year, new information has become available for 11 countries with UCTs, totaling 130 worldwide (World Bank, 2015). CTs can be unconditional or conditional, depending on the specific objectives, administrative capacity for monitoring conditions, and supply of education and health services. CCTs are typically designed to promote behavioral change among poor households, by asking them to comply with ‘co-respon- sibilities’ related to accessing health, education, and nutrition services. UCTs are relatively easier to administer. However, CCTs are often more politically justifiable. UCTs or CTs with soft conditions (e.g. encouragement of behavior rather than full enforcement) can be more appropriate in contexts with evolving administrative capacity or with limited availability of services that can constrain compliance with conditions. Sources: Fiszbein et al., (2011), World Bank (2015). Framework for the development of social protection systems: Lessons from international experience 15 Social protection programs can also promote equity by improving the living conditions of par- ticularly vulnerable groups, such as women and people with disability or chronic illnesses, while contributing to poverty reduction. India's self-help groups for people with disabilities had a posi- tive impact in terms of people’s awareness of and access to government services, as well an on income-generating opportunities. PWPs can be specifically designed to reach vulnerable groups that may be disadvantaged in the labor market. For instance, nearly half the employment gener- ated in India’s MGNREGS is for women. Protecting households against shocks through social protection not only eases poverty momen- tarily but also enables growth through productive investments. Social protection programs can help allocate resources to risky but highly remunerative productive activities by allowing poor and near‐poor households to create and protect their assets (Holzmann et al., 2003). For instance,the largest social protection program in Africa, the PSNP in Ethiopia, is using an integrated set of inter- ventions to promote productivity and resilience of rural livelihoods. The PSNP demonstrated that three in five beneficiaries avoided having to sell assets to buy food in times of drought (Devereux et al., 2008). Similarly, Mexico’s Oportunidades (now Prospera) program helped beneficiaries invest 14 per- cent of the transfer amount in assets (mainly farm animals and land for agricultural production). Overall, the investments yielded a 1.9 percent increase in consumption for each peso of transfers received (Alderman and Yemtsov, 2013). Almost a third of the transfer amount provided by the Kalomo Pilot program in Zambia –which targets destitute households and those affected by HIV/ AIDS – was used to purchase small livestock, for farming or for informal enterprise. In Malawi, the social cash transfer is found to increase dramatically the ownership of agricultural assets, espe- cially poultry (by 50 percent). In Brazil, the social pension program –Prêvidencia Rural – leads to high incidence of investment in productive capital (ibid.). In summary, social protection programs contribute to poverty reduction and growth through various channels and instruments. Resilience, equity, and opportunity are built through programs such as CTs, PWPs, social insurance, and welfare programs. Evidence on the impact of social pro- tection is building up fast as evaluations illustrate how these programs can be designed and imple- mented more successfully. Countries like Myanmar can benefit from this wealth of evidence to identify how social protection can support particular needs and groups. 4. How do social protection systems work? In order to respond effectively to the needs of beneficiaries, social protection systems aim to harmonize approaches at three levels: policy, program, and delivery. At policy level, social pro- tection systems should a) allow for overall alignment of social protection provision with high-level development objectives; b) ensure coherent implementation functions across government levels and mandates thus facilitating inter-institutional coordination; and c) mobilize sustainable and predictable resources for provision at all three levels. Social protection strategies, plans, and laws along with strong coordinating institutions facilitate achieving these objectives. More than 53 de- veloping countries have focused social protection strategies, among them Ethiopia, Honduras, 16 Building Resilience, Equity and Opportunity in Myanmar: The Role of Social Protection Jordan, Kenya, Nepal, the Philippines, and Vietnam (Banarji, 2014). At the program level, social protection systems should ensure countries have the instruments needed to respond to social protection needs, and harmonize and improve the design of existing programs or create new ones to fill gaps. The life cycle analysis (see Figure 3) can help government identify the needs and the most appropriate programs to respond to them. At the delivery level, implementation of social protection programs should be carried out in a coordinated (even integrated) and efficient man- ner through delivery sub-systems such as beneficiary identification and registry, transfers (e.g. payments), communication, community mobilization, management, grievance and redress, and monitoring and evaluation. Developing social protection systems is a gradual process that can bring important payoffs to a country’s development agenda. Taking a systems-oriented approach requires having the building blocks in place in a first stage while gradually building the systems to facilitate harmonization in a later one. An important building block of a comprehensive social protection system is a strong policy coordination mechanism that can harmonize several programs through a single lens and budget (e.g. poverty reduction). Another important step is the progressive development and ex- pansion of key government programs that allow the testing of delivery mechanism to latter har- monize implementation. All these may need the involvement of several institutions and require more complex coordination within government rather than introducing several uncoordinated programs supported by development partners. However, a systems approach has the potential to address three persistent gaps: providing adequate coverage of beneficiaries in need of assistance;improving the responsiveness of programs to accommodate those made newly vulner- able because of systemic shocks;and effectively connecting beneficiaries of social protection pro- grams to additional productive opportunities. This can be a gradual process where having pro- grams that become the building blocks becomes the first step, as the Ethiopia and Philippines examples illustrate (Boxes 6 and 7). Framework for the development of social protection systems: Lessons from international experience 17 Box 6: Evolution of programs and delivery systems – the case of Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net Program Although Ethiopia does not yet have a comprehensive and integrated social protection system, it has come a long way in the past decade in terms of strengthening the components of such a system, achieving important results on poverty reduction, food security and resilience-building. Launched in 2005, the PSNP has become the backbone of social protection provision in the country. Embedded in the government’s strategy and policy for food security and eradication of extreme poverty, it repre- sented a pivotal shift from annual emergency food aid appeals to a planned approach to food security and predictable drought risk management. Thanks to economic growth and programs like the PSNP, 2.5 million people have been lifted out of poverty since 2005 and the share of the population below the poverty line fell from 38.7 percent in 2004/05 to 29.6 percent in 2010/11. The PSNP provides long-term support to chronically food-insecure rural households to help them cope with shocks, reduce disaster risk through asset creation and rehabilitation of their natural environ- ment, and build household resilience. It consists of cash-for-work projects to improve environmen- tal assets (60 percent of projects in soil and water conservation); unconditional food/cash transfers for the poorest 10 percent unable to work; an insurance-for-work scheme in a particularly disaster- prone area; a contingency budget to respond to sudden emergency needs; and the Risk Financing Mechanism (RFM), for use when the contingency fund is insufficient. In this context, the PSNP is the most important delivery mechanism for responding to disasters. Its financing mechanisms allow it to scale up to also provide assistance to risk-prone households when necessary. The RFM has ensured financial commitments from donors are put in place before any crises occur. In 2008, in response to increasing food prices and the failure of the belg rains, the government used it to provide additional transfers to 4.43 million existing PSNP beneficiaries and 1.5 million individuals who had not previ- ously participated but who were negatively affected by the crisis. The RFM was again used in 2009 to provide additional transfers to 6.4 million PSNP participants. The PSNP has evolved significantly over the past decade. Phase I (2005-2006, USD70 million) fo- cused on transition from emergency relief to a productive and development-oriented safety net; replaced food with cash as the primary medium of support; providedresources for critical capital, technical assistance, and administrative costs to effectively support public works; and strengthened community involvement through community targeting and local-level participatory planning as core program principles. Phase II (2007-2009, USD175 million, additional financing USD25 million) a) im- proved the efficiency and predictability of transfers; b) strengthened program governance by enhanc- ing targeting and grievance systems and introducing more transparency in procedures; c) increased the productivity of public works through a systematic focus on community planning using integrated watershed management techniques; d) strengthened monitoring and evaluation systems; and e) de- veloped more efficient financing instruments for risk management to ensure predictable and timely responsesto shocks. This phase also included significant expansion of program coverage. Phase III (2010-2015, USD480 million, additional financing USD370 million) continues to consolidate program performance and maximize long-term impacts on food security by ensuring effective coordination with other critical interventions. Phase III has a) further improved the timeliness and predictability of transfers, through closer performance monitoring and provision of incentives; andb) strengthened public works, particularly focusing on oversight, coordination, monitoring, and accountability. The program’s new phase, PSNP4, will strengthen systems for social protection and DRM, including investments in developing a national registry for social protection interventions and beneficiaries, improved management information systems, and efforts to modernize how payments are made. It will be implemented in 411 districts, reaching up to 10 million food-insecure people per year, and has a total budget of approximately USD3.6 billion from the government and 11 development partners. Source: World Bank (2014d); http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2014/09/30/ethiopia-to-bene- fit-from-world-bank-support-for-social-safety-net 18 Building Resilience, Equity and Opportunity in Myanmar: The Role of Social Protection Box 7: Programs as backbones of social protection systems – CCT and CDD programs in the Philippines After strong economic growth for several years in the past decade, poverty reduction and resilience- building failed to match economic progress in the Philippines. Between 2003 and 2006, when GDP growth averaged 5.4 percent, poverty incidence increased, against a backdrop of high inequality. Unemployment went up after the food, fuel and financial crises, and growth of remittances slowed, leaving more Filipinos vulnerable to income shocks. Moreover, the country had been lagging on some key human development targets. Net enrolment ratio in primary education did not show any prog- ress between 1990 and 2007, and only 75.3 percent of pupils entering Grade 1 made it to Grade 6. Dropout from elementary school was higher for children from poor households. Malnutrition re- mained a major issue and maternal mortality rates stayed high. Vulnerability to natural hazards was evidenced on 8 November 82013 when Typhoon Yolandahit the central Philippines and left behind an unprecedented level of destruction, affecting the people and infrastructure of 44 provinces and 591 municipalities. The government faced serious challenges to delivering social protection to effectively address these vulnerabilities. Spending on social protection was estimated at only 0.4 percent of GDP in 2007, with the social assistance budget at just 0.05 percent of GDP. Lack of policy and institutional coordination on social protection meant several departments undertook uncoordinated programs. Lastly, despite the numerous social assistance programs in place, benefits were minimal owing to the lack of a legiti- mate and functional system to target the poorest households. Assessments of these schemes showed high leakage rates to the non-poor and inadequate coverage of the poor. The government has taken important steps towards strengthening the social protection system in recent years. In February 2008, it launched a pilot CCT program that reached 6,000 households in four pilot municipalities and two cities in the Philippines. The government decided to accelerate and augment the program in response to the crisis, rolling it out to about 376,000 households by March 2009, and announced its intention to expand to up to a million households by the end of 2009, while spending on social assistance reached 0.35 percent of GDP. The Department of Social Welfare and Development envisioned its CCT program becoming the backbone of its social protection framework. And it did. The Pantawid Pamilya Program reached nearly 4 million poor households in 2014 and serves as the backbone of a modern and consolidated social protection system in the Philippines. This became a platform to develop delivery systems that have already proven effective in reaching those in need, responding to disasters, and addressing human development constraints. It served as platform to roll out the National Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction, known as Listahanan. List- hanan improved the targeting of poor households and provides a mechanism for the convergence of various social protection programs, such as the National Health Insurance program. In addition, the government used Pantawid Pamilyang along with the National Community Driven Development Pro- gram (NCDDP; see below) to channel donor funding for emergency response efforts when Typhoon Yolanda hit. The CCT has increased enrolment in preschool by 10.3 percentage points compared with districts that did not receive the program; increased primary school enrolment by 4.5 percentage points, pushing levels near universal primary school enrolment; increased primary and secondary school attendance; reduced severe stunting of young children by 10 percentage points; increased regular health checkups for pregnant mothers and children; and improved the diets of beneficiary families. The government has steadily increased internal budget allocations to the program and had expanded it with strong support from the Departments of Education and Health. The CCT, however, is only one part of the ‘three legs of convergence’ the government is forming to help achieve inclusive growth in the Philippines. The other two are CDD and sustainable liveli- hoods approaches. These three legs are part of the country’s social protection strategy that provides Framework for the development of social protection systems: Lessons from international experience 19 a roadmap to achieve inclusive growth, while the DSWD is working on their operational convergence. Kapitbisig Laban sa Kahirapan – Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social Services (Kalahi- CIDSS) now known as NCDDP is a CDD approach that helps poor communities develop necessary skills and provides them with resources to select, implement, and sustain small-scale community infrastructure projects and social services. So far, Kalahi-CIDSS has financed community sub-projects including basic social services facilities, such as water systems, school buildings, health station, and day care centers; basic access infrastructure, such as access roads and small bridges; environmental and disaster control infrastructure; and community enterprise facilities. As of 30 April 2015, a total of 10,958 sub-project proposals were being reviewed for approval and the program had been rolled out to 554 Yolanda-affected municipalities. The third leg is sustainable livelihoods, which allow people to go beyond immediate solutions by equipping them with the necessary skills and opportunities to improve their lives in the longterm. Source: World Bank (2009, 2012c; 2014c; 2014e; 2015b); http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-re- lease/2010/09/22/philippines-cct-backbone-modern-social-protection-system-dswd-secretary 5. Summary Many countries have used social protection to achieve broader development goals, particularly around poverty reduction and inclusive growth. Many countries have built resilience, equity, and opportunity through social protection policies and programs that address development con- straints at national, community, and household levels. Equitable prosperity, social cohesion after conflicts and crises, enhanced community resilience, and human capital development are part of the outcomes that social protection contributes to a country’s poverty reduction and growth agenda. A broad range of social protection programs allows countries to tackle specific development constraints, provide support to particular population groups, and enhance growth-promoting opportunities. PWPs and CTs are important and flexible social assistance programs that can be tailored to achieve specific objectives and adjusted to various levels of institutional capacity. They can also be implemented as national and centralized programs or delivered in a more decentral- ized fashion through CDD platforms. Building social protection systems can enhance long-lasting development results. Social protec- tion systems help address delivery gaps in a comprehensive and evidence-based way, ensure fi- nancial and institutional sustainability of social protection provision, and build flexible delivery systems that support crises response. Myanmar can benefit from the wealth of evidence on social protection outcomes and lessons from countries with similar challenges and options. Myanmar’s resent policy reforms such as the long-term National Comprehensive Development Plan (NCDP) identify promoting human devel- opment and poverty reduction as strategic objectives; these people-centered objectives can be critically enhanced by social protection provision. Like other low- and middle-income countries, Myanmar can benefit from articulating a gradual expansion of its social protection system to a) reduce poverty, promote equity, and help build social and political cohesion at national level; b) stimulate local labor markets and create productive assets to build resilience at community level; 20 Building Resilience, Equity and Opportunity in Myanmar: The Role of Social Protection and c) increase access to services, human capital, resilience to shocks, and productivity at house- hold level. Myanmar can avoid mistakes other countries have made and that have prompted years of fragmented and ineffective social protection provision elsewhere, by a) building a comprehen- sive system with a focus on pro-poor investments right from the start through sustainably expand- ing social assistance; b) exploring complementarities between area-based poverty reduction pro- grams and social assistance programs; and c) reforming social security provision to enable the development of a dynamic labor market. References ADB (Asian Development Bank) (n.d.) ‘The Indonesian Program Nasional Pemberdayaan Masyara- kat Mandiri: Lessons for the Philippine Disaster Risk Management’. Supplementary Document 7. Manila: ADB. Alderman, H. and Yemtsov, R. (2013) ‘Productive Role of Safety Nets’. Social Protection Discussion Paper 1203. Background Paper for the World Bank 2012-2022 Social Protection and Labor Strate- gy. Washington, DC: World Bank. Andrews, C. (2009) ‘Levels and Patterns of Safety Net Spending in Developing and Transition Coun- tries’. Safety Nets Primer 30, January. Washington, DC: World Bank. Andrews, C. and Kryeziu, A. (2013) ‘Public Works and the Jobs Agenda: Pathways for Social Cohe- sion?’ Background Paper for the World Development Report 2013. Washington, DC: World Bank. Baird, S., McIntosh, C., and Ozler, B. (2010) ‘Cash or Condition? Evidence form a Cash Transfer Ex- periment’. Policy Research Working Paper 5259. Washington, DC: World Bank. Banerji, A. (2014) ‘Designing and Delivering Social Protection and Labor Systems’. Social Protection and Labor South-South Learning Forum 2014, Rio de Janeiro, 17-21 March. Devereux, S., Sabates-Wheeler, R., Slater, R., Tefera, M., Brown, T., and Tesholme, A. (2008) ‘Ethio- pia’s Productive Safety Net Programme (PSNP): 2008 Assessment Report’. Brighton: IDS. Dethier, J.-J., Pestieau, P., and Ali, R. (2011) ‘The Impact of a Minimum Pension on Old Age Poverty and Its Budgetary Cost. Evidence from Latin America’. Revista de Economía del Rosario14(2): 37- 65. Fiszbein, A., Schady, N. et al. (2011) ‘Conditional Cash Transfers: Reducing Past and Present Pov- erty’. Washington, DC: World Bank. Gentilini, U. (2014)‘Safety Nets in Urban Areas: Emerging Issues, Evidence and Practices’. Washing- ton, DC: World Bank. GIZ (German Agency for International Cooperation) (2012) ‘Social Protection and Its Contribution to Social Cohesion and State-Building’. Bonn: GIZ. Framework for the development of social protection systems: Lessons from international experience 21 Grosh, M. (2014) ‘Social Pensions for the Elderly or Social Assistance for Poor Households?’ World Bank Core Pensions Course, Washington, DC, 3 March. Grosh, M., el Ninno, C., Tesliuc, E., and Ouerghi, A. (2008) ‘For Protection and Promotion. The De- sign and Implementation of Effective Safety Nets’. Washington, DC: World Bank. HAI (HelpAge International, 2005) Ageways: Practical Issues in Ageing and Development, Issue 66, December. Holzmann, R., Sherburne-Benz, L., and Tesliuc, E. (2003) ‘Social Risk Management: The World Bank’s Approach to Social Protection in a Globalizing World’. Washington, DC: World Bank, Social Protection Department. IEG (Independent Evaluation Group) (2011) ‘Social Safety Nets: An Evaluation of World Bank Sup- port, 2000–2010’. Washington, DC: IEG. Palacios, R. (2014) ‘Social Pensions: A Pensions System Perspective’. World Bank Core Pensions Course, Washington, DC, 4 March. Salinas-Rodríguez, A., Manrique-Espinoza, B., Moreno-Tamayo, K., Torres-Pereda, P., de la Cruz- Góngora, V., Ángeles-Tagliaferro, G., and Téllez-Rojo Solís, M.M. (2014)‘The Non-Contributory So- cial Pension Program 70 y más in Mexico’. Impact Evaluation Report 5. New Delhi: 3ie. Sen, S. (forthcoming) ‘Social Assistance Consolidation in Chile’. Draft for discussion only, 27 April. Subbarao, K., del Ninno, C., Andrews, C., and Rodríguez-Alas, C. (2013) ‘Public Works as a Safety Net: Design, Evidence and Implementation’.Washington, DC: World Bank. UNDP (UN Development Programme)(2012) ‘Réintégration socio‐économique des rapatriés du camp de Mtabila’. Document de Programme. Bujumbura: UNDP. Velarde, R. and Fernandez, L. (2011) ‘Welfare and Distributional Impacts of the Pantawid Pamily- ang Pilipino Program 2011’. Social Protection Note 11. Washington, DC: World Bank. Wetzel, D. (2013) ‘Bolsa Família: Brazil’s Quiet Revolution’. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank (2009) ‘Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Loan in the Amount of US$405.0 Million to the Republic of the Philippines for a Social Welfare and Development Reform Project’. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank (2011) ‘Social Protection for a Changing India: Volume II’. New Delhi: World Bank. World Bank (2012a) ‘Social Protection Strategy 2012-2022’ Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank (2012b) ‘Affordability and Financing of Social Protection Systems’. Africa Social Protec- tion Policy Brief. Washington, DC: World Bank. 22 Building Resilience, Equity and Opportunity in Myanmar: The Role of Social Protection World Bank (2012c) ‘Project Paper on a Proposed Additional Financing in the Amount of US$100.0 Million to the Republic of the Philippines for a Social Welfare and Development Reform Project’. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank (2014a) ‘Liberia: Can Employment Opportunities Help Build Peace? From Evidence to Policy, Skills and Jobs’. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank (2014b) ‘Going Universal: How 24 Countries Are Implementing Universal Health Cov- erage from the Bottom Up’. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank (2014c) ‘Philippines: Are Cash Transfer Programs Effective? ’From Evidence to Policy, Social Protection’. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank (2014d) ‘Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Credit in the Amount of SDR 391.9 Million (USD 600 Million Equivalent) to the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia for a Productive Safety Nets Project 4’. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank (2014e) ‘Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Loan in the Amount of US$489.0 Million to the Republic of the Philippines for a Kalahi-CIDSS National Community-Driven Develop- ment Project’. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank (2015a) ‘The State of Social Safety Nets’. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank (2015b) ‘Philippines National Community Driven Development Program’. Implemen- tation Status and Completion Report. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank and Development Research Center of the
State Council (2013) ‘China 2030: Building a Modern, Harmonious, and Creative Society’. Washington, DC: World Bank. Yemtsov, R. (2010) ‘Development Effective Reform Strategies: Safety Nets to Protect Poor and Vul- nerable Groups from the Negative Impacts of Reform’. Increasing the Momentum of Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform Conference, Geneva, 14-15 October. Framework for the development of social protection systems: Lessons from international experience 23 Annex 1: Definitions of social protection programs and glossary9 Benefit: Transfer in cash or inkind (i.e. food, medical services, etc.) provided to an individual or household on the basis of an entitlement or need. Benefits can be periodical (given on a regular basis, such as old-age pensions given every month) or not (such as lump sum).10 Beneficiary: Individual or household receiving benefits at a specific point in time or during a pe- riod of time.11 Cash transfer programs: Programs that transfer cash to eligible people or households. Common variants include child allowances, social pensions, needs-based transfers, and conditional cash transfers. Chronic poverty: Poverty that endures year after year, usually as a result of long-term structural factors faced by the household, such as low assets or location in a poor area remote from thriving markets and services. Conditional cash transfers: Provide money to poor families contingent on them making invest- ments in human capital, such as keeping their children in school or taking them to health centers on a regular basis. Food insecurity: Lack of access to enough food for an active, healthy life. Chronic food insecurity refers to the persistence of this situation over time, even in the absence of shocks. In-kind benefit: Non-cash benefit in the form of a voucher, commodity, or service. In-kind food transfers: Provide additional resources to households by making food available when they need it most in the form of food rations, supplementary and school-feeding programs, or emergency food distribution. Public works programs (or workfare): Programs where income support for the poor in exchange for work is given in the form of wages in either cash (cashforwork programs) or food (foodforwork programs) effort. These programs typically provide short-term employment at low wages for un- skilled and semi-skilled workers on labor-intensive projects such as road construction and mainte- nance, irrigation infrastructure, reforestation, and soil conservation. Generally seen as a means of providing income support to the poor in critical times rather than as a way of getting the unem- ployed back into the labor market. 9. Definitions come from Grosh et al. (2008) unless otherwise stated. 10. International Labour Organization (ILO) definition from the Assessment-Based National Dialogue terminology. 11. Ibid. 24 Building Resilience, Equity and Opportunity in Myanmar: The Role of Social Protection Safety nets: See ‘social assistance’. School-feeding programs: In-kind food transfers that provide meals or snacks for children at school to encourage their enrolment and improve their nutritional status and ability to pay atten- tion in class. Social assistance: Non-contributory transfer programs targeted in some manner to the poor and those vulnerable to poverty and shocks. Social funds: Multisectoral programs that provide financing (usually grants) for small-scale public investments targeted at meeting the needs of the poor and vulnerable communities and at con- tributing to social capital and development at the local level. Social insurance: The provision of social security benefits financed by contributions that are nor- mally shared between employers and workers with, perhaps, stateparticipation in the form of a supplementary contribution or other subsidy from the general revenue. Types of social insurance include insurance against unemployment, old age (pensions), disability, death of the main pro- vider, and sickness.12 Social pensions: Benefits paid to the elderly from tax-financed (rather than contribution-financed) sources and without regard to past participation in the labor market. Social protection: ‘Policies, legal instruments, programmes, benefits and services for individuals and households that prevent and alleviate economic and social vulnerabilities, promote access to essential services and infrastructure and economic opportunity, and facilitate the ability to better manage and cope with shocks that arise from humanitarian emergencies and/or sudden loss of income.’13 Social protection includes safety nets (social assistance), social insurance, labor market policies, social funds, and social services. Social welfare: The set of services responding to the needs of the most vulnerable groups of the population, aiming at increasing their coping skills and resilience and protecting them from mar- ginalization, while ensuring their access to basic services. Social welfare services are provided generally through professional support, specifically dedicated care and protection services, and referral to other services. Sustainability: The ability of a program to be continued over a long period. Target group (or target population): The intended beneficiaries of program benefits. Targeting: The effort to focus resources among those most in need of them. Targeting can be done geographically (see ‘geographic targeting’), done categorically (see ‘categorical targeting’), based on poverty and vulnerability criteria, or use a combination of various methods. For targeting based on poverty and vulnerability criteria, the most advanced systems use meanstests (see ‘meanstest’) or proxy mean stests. 12. Ibid. 13. There are many definitions of social protection. This one is the one agreed in Myanmar at the Social Protection National Technical Working Group meeting in January 2014. Framework for the development of social protection systems: Lessons from international experience 25 Unconditional transfers: Provide money to poor families without any conditions.14 Universal benefits: Benefits or transfers that are paid to all citizens or inhabitants falling into a specific category of the population (e.g. families with children or people over a certain age).15 Vulnerability: Low ability of households to cope with adverse shocks and/or meet social needs. For instance, vulnerability to poverty is the likelihood a household will pass below the defined ac- ceptable threshold of a given indicator and fall into poverty. 14. Not in Grosh et al.(2008). Included by World Bank team. 15. Global Extension of Social Security definition. 26 Building Resilience, Equity and Opportunity in Myanmar: The Role of Social Protection Annex 2: International examples of CTs Philippines Mexico Bangladesh Cambodia Myanmar Name Pantawid Pamilya Oportunidades Female Secondary Education Sector Stipends Program School Assistance Support Project Program (Scholarship Pro- grams) Objective Reduce poverty Reduce poverty Reduce gender Reduce dropouts Raise human capi- and raise human and raise human differences in during high school tal investment capital investment capital investment education transition Target population Chronically poor Extremely poor Girls at secondary Children who have Orphaned children households with households school level completed Grade 6 in poor households children 0-14 Coverage Poor areas, 1 mil- 5 million house- 1,068,064 girls 4,000 new scholar- 11,000 children lion households holds (25% popula- ships each year, (30% eligible poor tion) 14% of lower sec- households) ondary schools Benefit amount USD 11-32/house- USD 11-69 by USD 5-12/month/ USD 45-60/child/ USD 5-8/child/ hold/month grade and age plus girl plus in-kind year month cash for school benefits suppliers Conditions School attendance, School enrolment, 75% of school days, Enrolment, regular Enrolment, at- visit health clinic, 85% monthly, 45% of class-level attendance, and a tendance, and a antenatal check- health center visits scores passing grade passing grade ups and lectures Impact Increased enrol- Poverty reduction, Every year of Positive, varied - ment in preschool less child labor, program exposure with design choices and primary increase caloric increased female school enrolment; consumption, enrolment rate increased primary investment in pro- by 12 percentage and secondary ductive activities points school attendance; reduced severe stunting of young children; increased regular health checkups for pregnant mothers and children; and improved the diets of beneficiary families Source: Fiszbein et al (2011); World Bank (2014c) Framework for the development of social protection systems: Lessons from international experience 27 Annex 3: International examples of PWPs India Ethiopia Bangladesh Name MGNREGS PSNP Employment Generation for the Poor Objective 100 days of unskilled work Provide employment on rural Short-term employment to per rural household per year infrastructure projects to manual workers on commu- guaranteed on demand chronically insecure nity projects in lean season up to 100 days Timing Year-roun Year-round Seasonal, 4 months Target population All rural households; self- Targeted to chronically food-in Unskilled manual workers; targeted seucre households self-targeted Geographical scope National, started with poorest 50% of districts National, extra allocation for areas poorest areas Number of beneficiaries 54.9 million (2011) 7.6 million (2009) 120,000 (2009) Wage levels Tied to agricultural minimum Below market wage (cash and Below market wage (cash) wage (cash) food) Types of asset Village roads, water/irrigation Road construction and main- Mainly earthworks for activities tenance, small-scale irrigation, agriculture productivity, rural and reforestation communication, disaster protection Impact High potential impact on Positive impact on beneficia- No evaluation yet poverty, actual depends on ries’ well-being implementation Source: Subbaraoet al (2013) 28 Building Resilience, Equity and Opportunity in Myanmar: The Role of Social Protection 'Framework for the development of social protection systems: Lessons from international experience' is the second note in the series Building Resilience, Equity and Opportunity in Myanmar: the Role of Social Protection. All notes are available at www.worldbank.org/myanmar. Myanmar Social Protection Notes Series The note – ‘Building resilience, equity, and opportunity in Myanmar: The role of social protection’ – provides an overview of the technical notes in the series. These include: 1. Risks and vulnerabilities along the lifecycle: Role for social protection in Myanmar 2. Framework for the development of social protection systems: Lessons from international experience 3. Inventory of social protection programs in Myanmar 4. The experience of public works programs in Myanmar: Lessons from a social protection and poverty reduction perspective 5. The experience of cash transfers in Myanmar: Lessons from a social protection and poverty reduction perspective 6. Social protection for disaster risk management: Opportunities for Myanmar 7. Strengthening social security provision in Myanmar 8. Institutional landscape for implementation and financing of social protection programs: Towards effective service delivery in Myanmar 9. Social protection delivery through community-driven development platforms: International experience and key considerations for Myanmar 10. Reaching the poor and vulnerable: Key considerations in designing targeting systems 11. Reaching the poor and vulnerable in Myanmar: Lessons from a social protection and poverty reduction perspective 12. Developing scalable and transparent benefit payment systems in Myanmar World Bank Office Yangon 57 Pyay Road, Corner of Shwe Hinthar Road, 6 1/2 Mile, Hlaing Township, Yangon Republic of the Union of Myanmar. Tel: +95 1 654824 www.worldbank.org/myanmar www.facebook.com/WorldBankMyanmar