1 The Politics of Social Protection in Africa, Isaac Chinyoka
-
Upload
the-impact-initiative -
Category
Government & Nonprofit
-
view
108 -
download
0
Transcript of 1 The Politics of Social Protection in Africa, Isaac Chinyoka
![Page 1: 1 The Politics of Social Protection in Africa, Isaac Chinyoka](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062523/58f145b41a28ab3d298b4643/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
The Politics of Social Protection in Africa: Social Grants for families with Children living in
poverty in South Africa, Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe
Isaac Chinyoka
Lessons from a Decade’s Research on Poverty: Innovation, Engagement & lmpact
16-18 March 2016, Pretoria, SA
![Page 2: 1 The Politics of Social Protection in Africa, Isaac Chinyoka](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062523/58f145b41a28ab3d298b4643/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Outline
1. Existing programmes2. Variation in existing programmes3. Research, Policy debates, engagements and (failed) reforms4. Conclusions
![Page 3: 1 The Politics of Social Protection in Africa, Isaac Chinyoka](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062523/58f145b41a28ab3d298b4643/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
EXISTING SOCIAL GRANTSSouth Africa Namibia Botswana Zimbabwe
Child Support Grant (CSG)
Child Maintenance: single orphans
Orphan care programme (1999) through the STPA
Zimbabwe Harmonised Social Cash Transfer
Foster Care Grant (FCG)
Foster Care: Double orphans
Needy Children programme
Care Dependency Grant (CDG)
Special Maintenance
Needy Students
Vulnerable child grant
Vulnerable Children
Remote Area Dweller programme
![Page 4: 1 The Politics of Social Protection in Africa, Isaac Chinyoka](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062523/58f145b41a28ab3d298b4643/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Targeted on family
‘break-down’
Targeted on poverty
Botswana food basket
SA/Nam Foster Care Grant
Namibia: Child Maintenance Grant
SA State Maintenance Grant
(to 1990s)
SA Child Support Grant
![Page 5: 1 The Politics of Social Protection in Africa, Isaac Chinyoka](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062523/58f145b41a28ab3d298b4643/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Targeted on family
‘break-down’
Targeted on poverty
Botswana food basket
SA/Nam Foster Care Grant
Namibia: Child Maintenance Grant
SA State Maintenance Grant
(to 1990s)
SA Child Support GrantLesotho
Kenya
Programmes for ‘labour-constrained
households’ (Zimbabwe, Malawi,
Zambia)
![Page 6: 1 The Politics of Social Protection in Africa, Isaac Chinyoka](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062523/58f145b41a28ab3d298b4643/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
South Africa
![Page 7: 1 The Politics of Social Protection in Africa, Isaac Chinyoka](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062523/58f145b41a28ab3d298b4643/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
![Page 8: 1 The Politics of Social Protection in Africa, Isaac Chinyoka](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062523/58f145b41a28ab3d298b4643/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
![Page 9: 1 The Politics of Social Protection in Africa, Isaac Chinyoka](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062523/58f145b41a28ab3d298b4643/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Policy debatesCase Debate Evidence By whom Effect
1 Who benefited from SMG?
Distribution of reach of SMG by race in 1996- Whites 15/1000 bens Indians 40/1000 bensColoureds 48/1000bens African Blacks 2/1000 bens
Lund Committee ; CSOs (Black Sash; SA Council of Churches, National Welfare and Social Services Dvt Forum & SA NGO Coalition) TU (COSATU)
SMG abolished CSG introduced (1998)
![Page 10: 1 The Politics of Social Protection in Africa, Isaac Chinyoka](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062523/58f145b41a28ab3d298b4643/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
…Case Debate Evidence By whom Effect
2 Why CSG excluded chn above 7yrs?
• #chn above age 7 left out• increased # chn trying to access
FCG rather than CSG• # hhs with chn not meeting
means-test• Insufficient nutrition• chn’s reduced access to educ• child poverty- ¾ & effectiveness
of grant- 11million chn living on less than R200 (CSG was R160)
• constitutional definition of child• HIV prevalence and impact of
AIDS (high morbidity & mortality rate among women of child bearing age)
• #chn excluded but in absolute poverty
• the cost of means test
CSOs i.e Alliance for Children’s Entitlement to Social Security; Child Welfare Society; Black Sash; Nadel (National Association of Democratic Lawyers); New Women's Movement; CASE(Community Agency for Social Enquiry; Child Health Policy Institute, UCT
Age extension: 7-14 (2003)
![Page 11: 1 The Politics of Social Protection in Africa, Isaac Chinyoka](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062523/58f145b41a28ab3d298b4643/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Case Debate Evidence By whom Effect
3 Why CSG mean test sd be removed?
• Cost of CSG means test to gvt (R165 020 million) & beneficiaries (R25- 8 hrs in 2005)
CI; CSOs Revised means test of CSG
4 Gvt proposed orphan grants & Exclusion of children above 14yrs
• Demographic projections • Chn’s living arrangements• pervasiveness of child poverty• costing options for Informal Kinship Care
Grant; FCG, Court-ordered Kinship Care Grant & Adoption Grant
• Case studies of excluded chn-#chn accessing CSG 7.6 million but many others excluded
• impact of HIV &AIDS on chn’s living arrangements
• number of child head hhs• effectiveness of other grants in reducing
child poverty
SALRC; CI, Black Sash, ACESS,CASE, DSD
Rejection of gvt proposed orphan grantsAge extension to 15 (2008)
![Page 12: 1 The Politics of Social Protection in Africa, Isaac Chinyoka](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062523/58f145b41a28ab3d298b4643/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Case Debate Evidence By whom Effect
5 Exclusion of chn above 15yrs
• Reach of CSG• child poverty irrespective of
orphanhood (pervasiveness)
CI; Black Sash; ACESS
Age extension: 18 (2009)
6 Lack of support for chn 18+ but in school
• Care arrangements (countrywide register -high # of hhs with unemployed older chn caring for younger brothers and sisters
• many chn (750 000) btwn 19-21 in training/school
CI; minister of SD Bathabile Dlamini
Proposal to abolish CSG means test & extend age to 21
![Page 13: 1 The Politics of Social Protection in Africa, Isaac Chinyoka](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062523/58f145b41a28ab3d298b4643/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Cover 17% of all chn
NamibiaChild Welfare Grants
![Page 14: 1 The Politics of Social Protection in Africa, Isaac Chinyoka](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062523/58f145b41a28ab3d298b4643/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
STUDIES
Child Grant Study Tour,
South Africa 2014
Assessment of sustainable funding options for implementation of
universal child grants 2014
![Page 15: 1 The Politics of Social Protection in Africa, Isaac Chinyoka](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062523/58f145b41a28ab3d298b4643/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
CWG Policy debatesCase Debate Evidence By whom Effect
1 Policy limitations of focusing on orphans only
• reach of grants -76 % of estimated orphans 2006
• increasing # orphans bt constitute only 18%
• chn living arrangements-many chn with both parents living in poor families
• high number (4-5) of chn in poor hhs
• population exp multidimensional poverty (39.6 per cent)
• high # chn not qualifying due to eligibility criteria
• chn multiple deprivations
MGECW, NSA supported by UNICEF
Introduction of VCG in 2013 (orphan to poverty targeting)
![Page 16: 1 The Politics of Social Protection in Africa, Isaac Chinyoka](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062523/58f145b41a28ab3d298b4643/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
…Case Debate Evidence By whom Effect
2 Why there was No change in value of grantsN$200 from 2000-2013
• Low impact of grants on child poverty-1% reduction
• increasing # VC, 307,000 chn living in poverty with more than 165,000 in extreme poverty (situation analysis 2010-3),
• Children’s risk of being poor
• child poverty @34% (NHIES 2009/10)
• impact of other grants on child poverty i.e OAP
• incidence of household income dependency on grants
MGECW & NPC supported by UNICEF
Increased grant amounts 200-250 (2013)
![Page 17: 1 The Politics of Social Protection in Africa, Isaac Chinyoka](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062523/58f145b41a28ab3d298b4643/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Case Debate Evidence By whom Effect
3 Why there was no legal framework providing for child grants
• Hh income inequality• high child poverty, social
exclusion & deprivation
MGECW supported by UNICEF; LAC
Passing of Children Bill Dec 2014
4 Why means-tested VC grants?
• Increasing child poverty• simulated impact of
universal child grant- NAMOD
• # eligible VC but not benefiting
• tour to South Africa• available funding options:
child levy from mining, tourism, airport tax, financial transactions, VAT & income solidarity tax
MGECW supported by UNICEF, ILO
Proposal for universal child grants
![Page 18: 1 The Politics of Social Protection in Africa, Isaac Chinyoka](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062523/58f145b41a28ab3d298b4643/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Botswana
![Page 19: 1 The Politics of Social Protection in Africa, Isaac Chinyoka](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062523/58f145b41a28ab3d298b4643/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
STUDIES
![Page 20: 1 The Politics of Social Protection in Africa, Isaac Chinyoka](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062523/58f145b41a28ab3d298b4643/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
policy debatesCase Debate Evidence By whom Effect1 Why
targeting orphans only?
• Poverty rate 47% -1993/4• HIV prevalence rate-35.6% 1996• #AIDS orphans (12% in 2000)• impact of HIV&AIDS on children’s living
arrangements( poor socio-economic situation of orphans)
MLG-DSW, MoH; USAID
Introduction of food basket 1999 STPA
2 How to address absolute poverty & what is the incentive for fostering?
• orphans 44,327 in 2010• Low coverage & effectiveness of current
progs (34% orphans hhs receive gvt support; 15% no assistance-2006)
• #OVC in poor (extended ) families without social support
• few social workers (2008)• increasing #of female hhs with OVC• # CHHs• poor educational & health outcomes• prevalence of vulnerable children (31 in
2006 & 36,183 in 2010); child labour (9% 2008)
MLG-DSW World Bank; UNICEF
Proposals for Family Support grant, Child Support Grant & Foster Care Grant
![Page 21: 1 The Politics of Social Protection in Africa, Isaac Chinyoka](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062523/58f145b41a28ab3d298b4643/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
2010-5Zimbabwe
![Page 22: 1 The Politics of Social Protection in Africa, Isaac Chinyoka](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062523/58f145b41a28ab3d298b4643/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Report on the
test run of the
Zimbabwe
Harmonized
Social Cash
Transfer
Programme in
Ward 15
Goromonzi
District
P
roce
ss a
nd re
sults
of b
asel
ine
surv
ey o
f lab
our c
onst
rain
ed,
extr
emel
y po
or h
ouse
hold
s in
Goro
mon
zi, W
ard
5 N
ov 2
010
![Page 23: 1 The Politics of Social Protection in Africa, Isaac Chinyoka](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062523/58f145b41a28ab3d298b4643/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
![Page 24: 1 The Politics of Social Protection in Africa, Isaac Chinyoka](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062523/58f145b41a28ab3d298b4643/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Policy debatesCase Debate Evidence By whom Effect
1 Need for cash transfers program (before 2011)
• High Child mortality• poor child nutritional status
(35% stunted)• early marriage32%• orphan prevalence 25%;
prevalence of vulnerable children 37%
• chn living arrangements -26% not living with parents
• Low external support to OVCs 20%
• low school enrolment & attendance by OVCs -16% not attending school
DSS;UNICEF Gvt agreed to pilot ZHSCT
![Page 25: 1 The Politics of Social Protection in Africa, Isaac Chinyoka](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062523/58f145b41a28ab3d298b4643/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Case Debate Evidence By whom Effect
2 Why target mostly poor & labour constrained hhs?
• increasing # of AIDS orphans • # chn in poor & labour
constrained hhs 81%; • high hh poverty: 250 000 hhs
with 700 000 chn living in absolute poverty
• many PLhhs cared for many orphans;
• limited gvt funding for social protection for chn
DSS; UNICEF
Targeting of poor &labour constrained hhs only
3 Why strict means test?
• pervasiveness of hh poverty; • costing prog expansion
scenarios-affordability
DSS; UNICEF
10% targeted
![Page 26: 1 The Politics of Social Protection in Africa, Isaac Chinyoka](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062523/58f145b41a28ab3d298b4643/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Final thoughts
1. evidence matters …. supported a familialist policy in Botswana & Zimbabwe, a poverty-targeted one in South Africa, and a mix in Namibia … BUT 2. not always the caseo legitimacy of evidence- where is it coming from?o Cultural vs rights considerationso pressure -civil society/globalo political will and commitmento elite attitudes towards social grantso the role of elections o Affordability
POWER & LIMITS OF EVIDENCE in POLICY REFORMS