International Council on Social Welfare

ICSW

Global Cooperation Newsletter

October 2016The October edition of the Global Cooperation Newsletter presents afeature article written by professor Kunal Sen on the substance and impactof the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme(NREGA) -- the largest and best resourced social welfare programme inIndia. The author raises several key issues regarding broader development
objectives and the transformative potential of the programme, as well assome lessons from its implementation.
We are also publishing information about the most recent, 8th meeting in
New York of the Social Protection Inter-Agency Cooperation Board, in which
ICSW actively participated.
Finally, the Newsletter profiles the Global Deal initiative unveiled in
September 2016 at UN Headquarters and aimed at enhancing social
dialogue that adapts effectively to changes in the world of work.
Sergei Zelenev, ICSW Executive Director and editor of theNewsletter
continued on page 2

INSIDE

Social Protection Inter-Agency Cooperation
Board meeting

5

The Global Deal initiative is launched82Global Cooperation Newsletter

October 2016

continued from page 1

India’s National Rural Employment
Guarantee Act, Ten Years On:
Lessons from its Implementation
By Kunal Sen
When the National Rural Employment
Guarantee Act (NREGA) was passed in the Lok
Sabha (the lower house of India's bicameral
Parliament) on 23 August 2004, it was seen as
an iconic Act that enshrined the right toemployment in the Indian Constitution. There
was a great deal of expectation about theability of the programme to transform the livesof the rural poor, as well as to transform therelation between the state and the citizen
throughthemannerinwhich
theimplementation
of
the
NREGA
was
decentralised to the gram panchayats (local
self-government organisations in India). Thiskind of public works programme is a popular
instrument in many countries for protecting
the poor against macroeconomic and agroclimatic shocks. The NREGA has received
increasing attention across the world in recent
years
as
an
importantanti-poverty
programme that other countries can emulate.
Ten years on, we can ask whether the Act hasdelivered on those expectations? What have
we learnt about the anti-poverty effects of the
NREGA and its broader transformative
potential? What have the challenges been in
implementing the NREGA, and what are thekey lessons from its implementation?
What is the NREGA?
The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural
Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGA) is
India’s largest and best resourced social
welfare programme (with a budget of 8.91
billion USD or 1.3 per cent of total central
government spending), and the world’s
largest social security intervention (in termsof household coverage over 50 million
households since 2008).

Kunal Sen is Professor of Development
Economics and Policy at the Global
Development
Institute,
UniversityofManchester, UK. He is also Joint Research
Director of the Effective States and Inclusive
Development (ESID) Research Centre,
www.effective-states.org. Professor Sen has
been
conducting
researchontheimplementation challenges of the National
Rapid Employment Guarantee Act with hiscolleagues as part of the research activitiesof the Centre, which he co-directs.
Formulated with the principles of a Rights
Based approach, the NREGA guarantees
100 days of employment to every rural
household that demands work at astipulated minimum wage (with theadditional requirement that one-third of all
NREGA jobs should go to women, and that
there should be no difference in wages paid
to men and women). While the idea of
employment generation programmes in theform of public works programmes has had along history in India, these programmes
have been largely sporadic and top-down.
The NREGA marks two important departuresfrom earlier programmes – firstly, that it isdemand-led, which is its biggest strength asa rights based social protection instrument.
The second unique feature of the
programme is that it is a policy made by an
Act of Parliament, rather than a programmethat can be changed or done away with in

ICSW – International Council on Social Work3
Global Cooperation Newsletter

October 2016case of regime change. This was done toensure long-term sustainability and politicalcommitment towards social protection. An
additional feature of the NREGA is that,while the financing of the programme ismostly from the Central Government andthe design characteristics of the scheme isunder the aegis of the Ministry of Rural
Development (MORD) in the Central
Government, the implementation of theschemeisdecentralised
tolocal
governments (gram panchayats, GPs, inmost part) with the majority of the funds
channeled to GPs.

evidence on the outcomes suggests that
NREGA may have led to the politicalempowerment of the poor and provided
dignified work to them, in a context where theoutside option in the private labour markets
was degrading and poorly paid wage labour,
working for landlords, often in exploitative
situations. The transformative potential of
NREGA in changing citizen-state relations,especially for the dalits and adivasis (two of
India’s poorest and most marginalised socialgroups) and women, the three groups that
NREGA targeted in particular, may be themore important developmental outcome of
NREGA, rather than its poverty-reducing
effect.

Has the NREGA achieved its broader
development objectives?

How
well
has
implemented?

Has the NREGA reduced poverty in India?
What about its other development outcomes?
The evidence on this is not unequivocal – the
NREGA may have contributed to reduced
distress migration from rural areas, forexample, but the effects on rural poverty havebeen weak. Moreover, calculations of the net
benefit of the programme that take into
account the fiscal costs of the programmesuggest that it is not clear whether the large
allocation of public expenditures on the
NREGA can be justified. There may well be
more effective ways to reach the poor (suchas cash transfers). The rationale for the
programme
may
not
be
particularlycompelling, if the main objective of the
programme was to reduce the poverty andvulnerability of the poorest rural households.

A remarkable feature of the NREGA has been
the fact that the scheme has been poorly
implemented, except in a few states. That may
not be surprising, given the large gap thatexists between what the Indian state promises
to do for the poor and what it actual delivers.
While the Act itself stipulates that “at least”
100 days of NREGA work should be provided
to all rural households that demand such
work, only 3 per cent of registered households
in 2013-2014 at the district level haveobtained 100 days of NREGA work. In thesame financial year, the average NREGA days
provided per household has been a mere
thirty-six days. The low uptake of NREGA work
has not been due to a lack of demand in mostpart, but due to systematic rationing of NREGA
work by the gram panchayats.1

The focus in much of the policy discussion on
NREGA’s effectiveness has been on thematerial benefits that NREGA brings to poor
rural households. Yet the original intention of
the Act was also to change the nature of therelationship between the state and the citizen
by making the provision of employment by thestate to those who need it the most a right,
and not an obligation of the state. The

the

NREGA

been

1 Himanshu, Abhiroop Mukhopadhyay and M. R.
Sharan (2014), “The National Rural Employment
Guarantee Scheme in Rajasthan: Rationed funds andtheir allocation across villages”, http://www.effectivestates.org/working-paper-35/

ICSW – International Council on Social Work4
Global Cooperation Newsletter

More worryingly, NREGA implementation has
been particularly weak in the poorer Indianstates. For example, the percentage ofhouseholds that completed 100 days of
NREGA work in four of India’s poorest states,
Assam, Bihar, Jharkhand and Odisha, was only
2, 8, 5 and 6 respectively. In contrast, thepercentage of households that completed 100
days of NREGA work in two of India’s richer
states, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, was
16 and 12 respectively.2
What have been the reasons for the poor
implementation of the NREGA? The lack ofadministrative capacity of the state has
obviously been one important factor – the
NREGA is a complex program to administerand needs significant effort by bureaucrats atthe state and local levels to make it work,
along with prior experience in administeringlarge-scale programmes.3 It is not acoincidence that the states that have had asuccessful record in administering anddelivering other social welfare programmes,
such as Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, were
also
the
more
successful
statesin
implementing
NREGA.
But
political
commitment mattered too, and states withweak administrative capacity, such as
Chhattisgarh,
could
circumventthat
disadvantage to some extent owing to highpolitical commitment on the part of the rulingparty. At the local level, where political parties
or ruling elites in villages saw clear electoral
advantages in implementing NREGA well, they
made sure that NREGA work was delivered tothose who demanded it.4
Lessons
Several lessons come out of the experienceof implementing NREGA over the past
decade, both for India and for other countries
considering ambitious rights-based
universalist social welfare programmes: A rights-based approach enacted throughchanges in the constitution is not enough,as the rights may not get delivered inpractice – it is important to be aware of

October 2016

the challenges of implementation, and to
take proactive steps in anticipation of the
problems that arise in the process of
implementation.
Given the complexity of administering the
NREGA, there should be more emphasis on
strengthening the capacity of state andlocal governments in poorer states, so that
we do not have had the perverse outcomethat NREGA has been least implemented in
the regions where the poor need it the
most.



Political commitment matters in theimplementationoflarge-scaledecentralised social-welfare programmes.
For the success of such programmes, it isimportant to build up multi-stakeholder
coalitions with committed local leaders andcivil-society organisations, and to identify
policy champions right at the outset.

The
decentralised
natureoftheimplementation of NREGA has often
worked to its disadvantage, with clear
examples of “elite capture”, or where thesarpanch (head of village) and local
bureaucrats were simply not interested in
implementing the scheme well. That
implies that there was a trade-off between
the objective of empowering local
governments and the objective of2

Data over 2010-11 to 2012-13.

3Chopra, D. (2015), Political commitment inIndia’s social policy implementation: Shaping theperformance of MGNREGA, http://www.effectivestates.org/working-paper-50/
4Roy, I. (2015), Class politics and social
protection:the implementation of India’s
MGNREGA, http://www.effectivestates.org/working-paper-46/ and Dey, S.
and K. Sen (2016), “Is Partisan Alignment
Electorally Rewarding? Evidence from Village
Council Elections in India”,
http://www.effective-states.org/workingpaper-63/

ICSW – International Council on Social Work

5
Global Cooperation Newsletter

October 2016providing social protection to the poor,
which was not fully realised by the
advocates of the NREGA, who wanted thescheme to be primarily implemented by
local governments rather than by stateand central governments. To guard against“elite capture”, it is necessary to have both
top down and bottom up mechanisms ofaccountability and to have more robust
mechanisms to capture demand for NREGA
work on the part of the rural poor.
The opinions expressed in the article are thoseof the author and may not necessarily reflect
the position of the ICSW Management
Committee.

Social Protection Inter-Agency
Cooperation Board meeting in
New York.

The 8th meeting of the Social Protection InterAgency Cooperation Board took place on 22
September 2016 in New York. The meeting
was attended by 47 participants from 22
internationalorganizations,bilateral
institutions and international NGOs, including
the International Council on Social Welfare—amember of the Board since its inception. The
agenda of the meeting included: delivering on
the Sustainable Development Goals; thesocialprotection
andhumanitariandevelopment
nexus;
social-protection
assessment tools and knowledge-sharing.
1. Delivering on the SDGs:
Partnershipon
Universal
Protection

GlobalSocialParticipants agreed that SPIAC-B, as theglobal issues-based coalition on social
protection, should continue to take the lead inframing, monitoring and implementing its
different aspects in the context of the new2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
The widely-recognized relevance and political
momentum for social protection worldwide
provides a unique opportunity to enhance
policy coherence, cooperation and thecoordination of social protection actions at the
global, regional and national levels. SDG
Target 1.3 calls for universal social protection(“implement nationally appropriate social
protection systems and measures for all,including floors, and by 2030 achieve
substantial coverage of the poor and thevulnerable”). A clear mandate has been given
to the international community on theextension of the coverage of social protection
systems, including social protection floors. At
ththat 8SPIAC-B meeting several topics ofjoint response were discussed: the launch of
the Global Partnership on Universal Social
Protection (see September 2016 issue of the
Global Cooperation Newsletter), cooperationof the UN agencies on SPF at the country level,
the inter-agency social-protection assessment
tools, capacity-building and knowledgesharing(including
thesocial-protection
gateway).
Global Partnership for Universal Social
Protection (USP)
The new “Global Partnership for Universal
Social Protection” was launched on 21
September during the UN General Assembly,ththe day before the 8
SPIAC-B

ICSW – International Council on Social Work6
Global Cooperation Newsletter
meeting(see
event
website:http://www.socialprotection.org/gimi/gess/NewYork.action?id=3 ).
The new Partnership, supported by the ILO
and the World Bank, brings together
dedicated development partners such as theAfricanUnion,FAO,
theEuropeanCommission, IDB, OECD, UNICEF, along with
Belgian, Finnish, French and German
technical cooperation agencies; several
NGOs have been also actively involved . The
launch showcased evidence from 23 lowand middle-income countries that haveachieved
universal
socialprotection
schemes. The objective of the partnership isto increase the number of countries thatprovide universal social protection and tosupport countries to design and implement
universal and sustainable social protection
systems. That will include joint support tocountries on: (i) Social protection policies,
programs and administration systems, (ii)
Costing the extension of schemes andexpanding fiscal space for universal social
protection, (iii) Addressing bottlenecks inthe delivery of social protection benefits, and(iv) Integrating principles of universal social
protection into their national development
strategies. The Partnership will be formalized
and an action plan prepared; drafts will beshared with members of the Partnership assoon as possible. Membership requires
contributing to the Partnership with either
funding or in-kind contributions, such as
producing more country case studies
documenting universal social protection into
their national development strategies. The
Partnership will be formalized and an action
plan prepared; drafts will be shared withmembers of the Partnership as soon as
possible. Membership requires contributing
to the Partnership with either funding or inkind contributions, such as producing morecountry case studies documenting universal
social protection in developing countries.

October 2016
UN-wideprotection

coordinationonsocialThe Social Protection Floor Initiative (SPFI) was conceived in 2009 by the UN Chief
Executives Board as one of nine joint crisis
initiatives to protect the world’s population
against the worst of the potential fallout ofvolatile global financial markets. Systemwide cooperation on social protection has
been growing.
In his address to the members of the Board,
the Executive Director of ICSW put forward
the idea to support the elaboration o f a UN
resolution on social protection systems,
including floors (at the forthcoming sessionof the Commission for Social Development).
The adoption of a dedicated UN resolution onsocial protection would be most important infocusing attention to some key issues
pertinent to universal social protection,
including floors, and its multiple benefits forsociety, thus reinforcing the impact of ILO
Recommendation No. 202. Such a dedicatedUN resolution would serve as a testimony tothe high-level political commitment toadvance social protection at all levels. At thesame time, the UN-negotiated resolution
would
addressadifferent
political
constituency, also entailing a system-wideconsistent monitoring of the agreed
conclusions. It can only enhance thesignificance of the Recommendation No.202.
The workings of UN High-level Political
Forum in July of 2017 with a focus on Goal 1
should also be monitored for points toadvance USP/SPF agenda politically as partof SDG implementation. The next (2017)“Report on the World Social Situation"(RWSS) will be on social protection. That
report is prepared on a biennial basis by theDivision for Social Policy and Developmentof the Department of Economic and Social
Affairs (DESA). Over the years, the Report

ICSW – International Council on Social Work7
Global Cooperation Newsletter

October 2016

has served as a background document for the
discussion and policy analysis of socioeconomic matters at the intergovernmental
level.
Monitoring frameworks
In order to follow-up, monitor and review the
implementation of the 2030 Agenda, aframework of indicators has been developed.
The indicator to follow-up on target 1.3
includes “Percentage of the population
covered by social protection floors/systems,
disaggregated by sex, and distinguishingchildren, the unemployed, old-age persons,
personswith
disabilities,
pregnant
women/newborns, work injury victims, thepoor and the vulnerable”.
There are two global databases that allow themonitoring of target 1.3 (to measure (i)effective social-protection coverage of all andby specific categories of the population, (ii)social protection coverage of the poor, and(iii) social protection coverage by different
program types): The ILO Social Security
Inquiry (SSI): based mainly on theadministrative records of the Ministries ofLabour and/or Welfare, Ministries of FinanceandSocialSecurity
Institutions,andcomplemented by the data from labour force
surveys. The WB/ASPIRE database: based onhousehold survey data on social and economic
conditions. The participants indicated that
donors should be encouraged to provide
budget support so as to improve t h ecompilation of reliable and consistentstatistics for both databases at the country
level. At the same time it is important to keep
data monitoring on the SPIAC-B agenda.
2. Social Protection and HumanitarianDevelopment nexus
Following the request of t h e latest SPIAC-B
meeting, a joint statement w a s prepared bya drafting team for the World Humanitarian

Summit (WHS) “How linking social protection
and humanitarian action can bridge thedevelopment-humanitarian
divide”.
Tostrengthen the development-humanitarian
linkages, the statement focused on thefurther expansion and strengthening of social
protection systems s o a s to continue toaddress chronic vulnerabilities and scale up
the utilization of social protection as a meansof responding to shocks and protracted crises.
The statement was well received, and several
SPIAC-B members represented at the WHS
referred to the SPIAC-B statement in theiragency statements.
Cash-transfer programmes affect actors inboth the humanitarian and the social
protection community. All participants agreed
that there is an increasing potential anddemand to actively bridge t h e t w o worlds,
to work closer together in developing andimplementing mechanisms. A World Bank
Study “The other side of the coin: thecomparative evidence of cash and in-kindtransfers
inhumanitariansituations”
examined what works and how it works, withevidence from countries responding well toshocks. A proposal was made by UNICEF toorganize an internal conference to discuss ingreater depth social protection in ahumanitarian context. Inorder to move
forward, it is important to collect evidence on
what works.
3.
Inter-Agency
SocialProtection
Assessment
Tools
and
knowledgesharing
The World Bank and the ILO gave an updateofthe Inter-Agency
SocialProtection
1

Assessment tools (ISPA tools ). In 2 years
there has been made substantive progress
both in development of the tools and in2

country applications. ISPA has encountered
growing demand from countries for those
tools, as they are based on a collaboration
across agencies to help craft a common vision
for social-protection systems. Despite thatICSW – International Council on Social Work8
Global Cooperation Newsletter
success, a funding gap does exist. ISPA willneed extra funding to meet all of therequirements of the work plan agreed by the
Executive Group (tools development andenhancement,
knowledge-sharing
andlearning, quality assurance, communicationand dissemination, and reporting andaccounting). It was agreed that the WorldBank and the ILO will prepare an informatione-mail to be send to all country offices with theobjective to disseminate and use the tools
more at the country level. T h e i nternal
training of country teams on the existing
tools should be organized by all agencies.
SPIAC-B members are invited to disseminate
the tools internally and encourage their staff
to use them in their SP activities. For support
inapplying
ISPA
tools,
contact
info@ispatools.org. The development of new
tools was also suggested (Disabilities, MIS,
Complaints & Appeals, Cash transfers,
Financing, SP Statistics for the implementationof the SDGs).
ISPA is organizing a series of webinars incollaboration with socialprotection.org on
thevarious
tools,
their country
applications and how to use them. SPIAC-B
members were invited to disseminate theannouncements and participate.
1

A set of practical tools that help countries improvetheir social-protection system by analysing its
strengths and weaknesses and offering options forfurther action. The Executive Group includes WB,
ILO, UNICEF, EC, Finland, France and GIZ, whichhave all committed financial resources to ISPA andthey all attend the semi-annual meetings.
2

Approved
tools:CODI(Core
Diagnostic
Instrument - applied in Vietnam, Philippines,
Belize; partially applied in Oman and Myanmar;
planned applications in Cameroon, Tanzania, Cote
D’Ivoire, Gambia); PWP (Public Works Programs applied in Liberia, El Salvador, Tanzania, Senegal;partially applied in Ethiopia, South Africa, Kenya,
Cambodia, India); Payments (Indonesia, Tanzania,
Uganda, Bangladesh, Ukraine); ID (applied in
Morocco and Peru). Tools under development: FSN(Food Security and Nutrition - planned to be piloted
in Cambodia and Paraguay); SPPOT-ABND (Social
Protection Policy Options Tools – Assessment BasedNational Dialogue - planned to be piloted in Togo andNamibia)

October 2016

The Global Deal initiative islaunched in New York.

The Global Deal initiative put forward by theGovernment of Sweden was unveiled by Mr
Stefan Löfven, the Prime Minister of Sweden,at UN Headquarters in New York on 21
September 2016. The initiative was designed
in collaboration with the Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development(OECD)
andtheInternational
LabourOrganisation (ILO). Participating in the launch
were OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría,
ILO Director-General Guy Ryder, Chilean
President Michelle Bachelet, Bangladesh Prime
Minister Sheikh Hasina, World Bank President
Jim Yong Kim, International Trade Union
Confederation
General-Secretary
SharanBurrow, and African business leader Bob
Collymore.
Why the Global Deal initiative?
The aim of the Global Deal is to improve thedialogue between social partners andcountries' governments, so as to improve
employment conditions and productivity.
Effective labour relations and decent work
contribute to greater equality and inclusive
economic development, benefiting workers,
companies and societies (win-win-win).
The background note provides the following
insights: “in too many places around the

ICSW – International Council on Social Work9
Global Cooperation Newsletter

October 2016
world, workers are denied basic human rights,
and some are even persecuted and killed.
Children are still forced to work in the mostinhumane conditions, and migrants are
exploited in horrific ways. Every year, there
are 2.3 million work-related deaths, 310
million non-lethal accidents and 160 million
work related cases of illness. In many
countries, growing inequalities fuel social
unrest and impede sustainable economic
growth. The economic crisis has taken a toll on
labour markets, changing the quality ofexisting jobs. It is estimated that over 600
million new jobs need to be created by 2030
just to keep pace with the growth of the global
working-age population. Conditions also need
to be improved for the 780 million women andmen who are working but not earning enoughto lift themselves and their families out ofpoverty, and the transition from the informal
to the formal economy must facilitated.” (see:http://www.theglobaldeal.com/app/uploads/2
016/09/GlobalDealflyer.pdf)

Poverty reduction,social dialogue

decentwork

andEmployment is seen as a vital link between
economic development and poverty reduction– access to more and better jobs is the key toimproving living conditions and achieving the
SDGs. Women and men must be ensured
equal opportunities in the labour market andequal participation in decision-making. A wellfunctioning social dialogue that adapts
effectively to changes in the world of work,
technological developments and fluctuations
in demand is an important tool for generating
decent work and improved job quality. For
societies, the Global Deal can contribute tosocial cohesion, build trust and inclusion, andreduce the risk of social unrest. The global
sustainability agenda, the 2030 Agenda,
contains a specific goal on decent working
conditions and inclusive growth. The Global
Deal is a contribution to that Goal.

Enhanced social dialogue is both ”morally rightand economically smart”, providing numerous
benefits and opportunities to society. Social
dialogue is defined by the ILO to include alltypes of negotiation, consultation or simply
the exchange of information between, oramong, representatives of governments,
employers and workers, on issues of common
interest relating to economic and social policy.
Social dialogue takes many different forms. It
can exist as a tripartite process, with thegovernment as an official party to the
dialogue, or it may consist of bipartite
relations
only
betweenlabourandmanagement (or trade unions and employers’organisations), with or without indirectgovernment involvement. Concerted search
for a consensus can be informal or
institutionalised, and often it is a combinationof the two. It can be inter-sectoral, sectoral orat the enterprise level. Social dialogue basedon the freedom of association and the right tocollective bargaining takes into account eachcountry’s cultural, historical, economic andpolitical context. There is no ‘one size fits all’model of social dialogue that can be readily
exported from one country to another.
Adapting social dialogue to the nationalsituation is key to ensuring local ownership of
the process. There is a rich diversity ininstitutional arrangements, legal frameworks
and traditions and practices of social dialogue
throughout the world.
The Global Deal concept does not aim todevelop a new framework or agreement to be
implemented in a uniform manner in all
countries, or to create a new internationalorganisation. Instead, the Global Deal aims todevelop a platform for highlighting the issue ofcooperation between parties and strengthen
existing cooperation structures. The Global
Deal will build on already establishedinitiatives and projects, but will contribute byproviding political direction and impetus tooverall development, and by systematisingand scaling up existing processes.

ICSW – International Council on Social Work

10
Global Cooperation Newsletter
A Declaration of Support forms the basis of the
Global Deal, with which countries, companies,
trade unions and other organisations areinvited to become associated, making realcommitments.
It is envisioned that the Global Deal will entail
the exchange of ideas, joint projects,
solutions, experiences, challenges, lessons
learned and policy advice, promoting concrete
initiatives and voluntary commitments. The
Global Deal Support Unit will facilitate thesharing of experience and peer learning, andprovide a coordinated follow-up structure.
For more information:
http://www.theglobaldeal.com/app/uploads/2
016/09/GlobalDealflyer.pdf

Useful resources and links – thefinds of the month
Diletta Carmi
Implementing
Eco-Social
Policies:
Barriers
andOpportunities—A
Preliminary Comparative Analysis

URISD,
Geneva,September 2016

October 2016
Policy Innovations for Transformative
Change: Implementing the 2030 Agenda
for Sustainable Development
UNRISD, Geneva, 2016

The UNRISD 2016
Flagship Report
helps unpack thecomplexities of the2030 Sustainable
Development
Agenda in a uniqueway: by focusing
on the innovations
and pathways topolicy change, andanalysing which
policies andpractices will lead to social, economic andecological justice. Drawing on numerous policy
innovations from the South, the report goesbeyond buzzwords and brings to thedevelopment community a definition oftransformation that can be used as abenchmark for policy-making toward the 2030
Agenda, intended to “leave no one behind”.
Read moreThis
working
paperpublished by UNRISD
analyses opportunities
for and barriers to theeffective adoption of
eco-social policies innational programmes by
undertaking
acomparative analysis
comparative analysis of case studies in three
countries: Costa Rica, Ecuador and the
Democratic Republic of Congo. The author
looks at the different approaches taken ineach country, analysing the benefits andtrade-offs as well as the factors that led totheir adoption or defeat
Read more

ICSW – International Council on Social Work11
Global Cooperation Newsletter

October 2016

The content of this Global Newsletter may be freely reproduced or cited provided the source isacknowledged. The views do not necessarily represent policies of ICSW.
Newsletter Editor:
Sergei Zelenev, Executive Director
E-mail: szelenev@icsw.org,
Address:
ICSW, 5700 Arlington Ave.,
Bronx, New York, 10471 (US Office)icsw@icsw.org
Website www.icsw.org
If you wish to cease receiving this newsletter, please click 'here' providing your name andemail address

ICSW – International Council on Social Work