GLOBAL COOPERATION NEWSLETTERJANUARY 2014
In this issue:Is the Good the Enemy of the Better, or Are Social Protection Floors a Minimalist
Approach? By Michael Cichon
Book review: Achieving social protection for all.
o The Universal Social Safety-Net and the Attack on World Poverty, by
Anthony Clunies-Ross and Mozammel Huq, reviewed by John Langmore



ICSW, IASSW and IFSW meet in Seoul to sign an Agreement on the 2016 Joint
World Conference and to discuss preparations for Melbourne-2014.



Usual resources and links

Featured article:
 Is the Good the Enemy of the Better? Or are Social Protection Floors a Minimalist
Approach?
By Michael Cichon, President of ICSWMichael Cichon is President, International Council on Social Welfare (ICSW) andProfessor of Social Protection, Maastricht Graduate School ofGovernance, United Nations University
This year was very young, a day or so old, when unexpectedly an
old question re-surfaced. I received a friendly email from
Magdalena Sepulveda, UN Special Rapporteur on Extreme
Poverty & Human Rights, and Sara Cook, the Director of theUnited Nations Research Institute for Social Development. The
email explained that “ the United Nations Research Institute forSocial Development (UNRISD) and the UN Special Rapporteur on
Extreme Poverty and Human Rights are in the final stages ofdeveloping an online repository of knowledge and information…[on] …the subject of social protection and human rights, and aset of core principles necessary for effectively linking the two.”
The question they wanted me to respond to was the following:"Does a ‘minimum’ level of social security (as proposed in ILO
Recommendation No. 202) clash with the requirement of an‘adequate’ standard of living (article 11, International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights)?"
The question is important, and I had heard it many times in various forms during the years ofPage 1 of 8

preparation leading up to the landmark ILO Recommendation No. 202, which was adopted in June
2012. Many people - not the two authors of the email, I should add - but many others, expressed
the fear that promoting Floors of Social Protection meant promoting minimum levels of social
protection and hence retreating from the more ambitious objective of guaranteeing adequate social
protection for all. In other words, they were asking: Is the Good not the Enemy of the Better?
As the Global Coalition for Social Protection Floors, consisting of more than 60 NGOs and trade unions,
is just now preparing a common position demanding a Social Protection Goal in the framework of thenext Millennium Development Goals for the period after 2015 and will be seeking support fromgovernments and a wide range of stakeholders during the coming months, it appeared important toclarify the issue and I responded as follows:
The short answer is “no” and can easily be found in R.202. Even more than 18 months after the
global community (184 national delegations consisting of governments, workers and employer
representatives) unanimously adopted Recommendation No. 202 in June 2012, it still seems to be
one of the most misunderstood documents in the almost 100 years of history of global legal standards
on social security. But let us go back to the basics and unpack the argument.
R202. is not a legal island: explicit links between R. 202, the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
Article 11 of the International Covenant states: “The States Parties … recognize the right of everyone
to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing andhousing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will takeappropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right…” In its article 9, the International Covenant
states: “The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to social security,
including social insurance.” The older document, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, statesin its article 22: “Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled torealization, through national effort and international cooperation and in accordance with theorganization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensablefor his dignity and the free development of his personality.” That is followed in article 25 (1) by:”Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself andof his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, andthe right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or otherlack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”
It is obvious that adequate standards of living are not exclusively created by social security, i.e. byincome transfers in cash or in kind. However, reading the above texts in conjunction, it becomes
clear that States parties have to underwrite the right to an adequate standard of living and take anappropriate range of “steps” to ensure the right to an adequate standard of living. One means to doso is obviously social security.
The preamble of ILO recommendation No. 202 – and it is worth noting its correct title:
Recommendation concerning National Floors of Social Protection (Social Protection Floors
Recommendation)” - explicitly links the instrument to articles 22 and 25 of the UDHR and articles 9,
11 and 12 of the ICESCR, in order to exclude any contradiction between the Recommendation andthe older human rights texts.
The actual contents of R. 202: basic guarantees, core principles of social security andextension strategies

Page 2 of 8

R.202 is a short document and yet its actual content and the potential width of its politicalrepercussions seem to remain unknown. The objectives1 of R. 202 are set out in paragraph 1,
providing guidance to members to2:(a) establish and maintain, as applicable, social protection floors as a fundamental elementof national social security systems, and(b)implement social protection floors within strategies for the extension of social security
that progressively ensure higher levels of social security to as many people as possible,
guided by ILO social security standards.
National social protection floors should comprise at least the following four social security guarantees:(a) access to a nationally defined set of goods and services, constituting essential health care,including maternity care, that meets the criteria of availability, accessibility, acceptability andquality,(b) basic income security for children, at least at a nationally defined minimum level, providing
access to nutrition, education, care and any other necessary goods and services;(c) basic income security, at least at a nationally defined minimum level, for persons in active
age who are unable to earn sufficient income, in particular in cases of sickness,
unemployment, maternity and disability; and(d) basic income security, at least at a nationally defined minimum level, for older persons.
The term "guarantees" underlines the fact that the focus is on outcomes in terms of social security
that can be achieved by different types of benefits and different types of schemes, rather than on
concrete means or benefits. But R. 202 clearly formulates a protection objective in article 4 of the
Recommendation: “The guarantees should ensure at a minimum that, over the life cycle, all in needhave access to essential health care and basic income security which together secure effective accessto goods and services defined as necessary at the national level.” That formulation also was a way tobroaden the definition of the floor as a combination of income security provided through cashtransfers and transfers in kind or in the form of access to essential social services, as listed in articles
11 to 13 of the ICESCR and as developed in the Bachelet Advisory Report 3 to the United Nations
Crisis Initiative on the Social Protection Floor established in 2009. The Recommendation also puts
the protection floors into the context of wider social security extension strategies that countries are
required to adopt.
What is often overlooked is the fact that the Recommendation identifies, for the first time, acomprehensive set of principles for national social security systems. The potential consequences ofthe policy guidance provided by R. 202 are much wider and much more concrete than one would
expect at first sight from a five or six page document.
The 18 principles in article 3 of R. 202, which are supposed to govern national social protection
systems, are challenging instructions. Those principles essentially describe the characteristics ofnational social protection systems to be ensured under the primary responsibility of the state andrange from the principle of the universality of protection, the adequacy of protection, the obligation
1

The following paragraphs draw heavily on sections from Cichon, M: The Social Protection Floors
Recommendation: Can a five page document change the course of social history?, International Social Security Review, Vol.
66, 3-4/2013
2

Text of Recommendation No. 202 as published by the ILO: The strategy of the International Labour Organization – Social security for all,Geneva 2012, p. 33
3
Report of the SPF Advisory Group: Social Protection Floor- for a fair and inclusive Globalization, p.9, Geneva 2011

Page 3 of 8

to define benefits in the law, non-discrimination, progressivity of implementation, acknowledging thediversity of methods and approaches, and the need for tripartite participation and public consultation
on benefit levels and conditions, demanding respect for dignity of people covered, efficient complaint
procedures, transparency, and financial, fiscal and economic sustainability. In their entirety theprinciples define rather high performance standards for national social protection systems.
And these performance standards should - in theory at least - require a rethinking of many national
policies. An example for the adequacy principle may suffice to prove the point. Some of the social
security reforms of recent decades, such as the pension reforms in Latin America and in Eastern
Europe during the 1980s and 1990s, might have to be reviewed with respect to the principles ofadequacy and predictability of social security benefits. In defined contribution pension systems, where
benefit levels depend to a considerable extent on the accidental performance of financial markets,
benefits - even after long years of contributions – cannot be guaranteed to be adequate and arecertainly unpredictable, and are thus – given the lack of benefit level guarantees - not compatible
with the core principle of R. 202.
Conclusion
And yet, advocates of R.202 are often confronted with the criticism that it is a minimalist document
clashing with the demands for adequate levels of protection and, implicitly, adequate standards ofliving for all. Nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, the Recommendation provides explicit corecontent of the core obligations4 for the human right to social security, as specified in the human rights
instruments. That content has been missing for many decades. But it is more than that. The Social
Protection Floors Recommendation has a triple function: it defines a floor of minimum guarantees,
sets out a codex of security principles and requires a floor-plan for dynamic national strategies
towards higher levels of protection in the 184 ILO Member States.

 Book review: Achieving social protection for all
Anthony Clunies-Ross and Mozammel Huq, 2014, The Universal Social Safety-Net and the Attack on
World Poverty: Pressing need, manageable cost, practical possibilities, favourable spillovers,
Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon
The idea of expecting countries to establish social protection schemes so as tocomprehensively increase disposable incomes above severe poverty levels sounds utopian. The notion
may well seem like a naïve bright idea thought up by day-dreamers.
Even a moment’s thought suggests immense difficulties. Wouldn’t the cost be enormous?
Could poor countries afford such costs, or would this be just another drain on funds provided by thedonors? How could payments be targeted to the severely impoverished? Wouldn’t fraud in the
disbursement of aid be a major problem? Is lifting disposable incomes above a minimum equivalentof $US 1.25 a day really sufficient to eliminate severe poverty? Might not the availability of a universal
social protection schemes interfere with incentives to work?
Anthony Clunies-Ross and Mozammel Huq carefully discuss each of these potential
impediments and show that attempts are already being made to address them all in some countries.
A particularly striking feature of this book is the detailed description, examination and assessment ofcontemporary programmes. The authors accurately conclude that:4

As described in language very similar to the Recommendation by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights, Thirty-ninth session, 5-23 November 2007, General comment No. 19
The right to social security (art. 9), section 5. Paragraph 59
Page 4 of 8

"What was scarcely considered a serious project as little as 20 years ago is now– quietly and almost unnoticed among the affluent segment of the earth’s people– becoming a matter of practical policy and politics." (p. 173)
The book is logically structured and lucidly and succinctly argued. It begins with the case fora “safety-net”, understood by the authors as a floor below which everyone’s disposable income will
not be allowed to fall. Setting such a floor for the people of a country has to be the responsibility ofthat country’s government, though civil society, other governments, multilateral institutions andfoundations may also make important contributions. That involves moving beyond relying only on
economic growth as the recipe for poverty reduction to acknowledging that re-distributional policies
directed at increasing incomes of the poor are also a necessary complement.
The authors regard a floor for disposable income as a requirement for eliminating extreme
poverty, but acknowledge that an adequate system of social protection must also include the merit
goods of education and health services and other public goods.
The establishment of such a floor is also a principle of collaborative human life:"If we believe that our common status as human persons implies an acceptance of
responsibility for each other’s material welfare – and that this demands at least someminimum provision for everyone of access to food and a few comparable necessities –then our responsibility, insofar as it may be capable of fulfilment, extends to providing,country by country but universally, a social safety-net." (p. 7)
The net direct and indirect benefits of guaranteeing a minimum cash income are clearly
described. For example, increasing access to food is vital not only for survival but also for children’s
healthy growth, which is a necessity for their capacity, as adults, to contribute to society as well as
to live fulfilled lives.
Another feature of the book is the sophisticated calculation of the total annual poverty gap, theamount required to bring all those below the poverty line up to it. That is done for each country andthe result totalled to show the global cost of eliminating severe poverty. The total came to $81.5
billion in 2005, which is a surprisingly low figure, less than two thirds of current official development
assistance from OECD governments. It would have represented about 0.2 per cent of world grossincome in 2005. Much of that expenditure is already being made by the developing countries
themselves. The purpose of the calculations is to show that the cost of a global commitment to auniversal social safety-net would clearly involve manageable cost.
The difficulties of implementing the schemes may be greater than those of raising the revenue
to pay for them. The administrative complexities include: identifying the people to be paid; setting
the amounts to be paid to them; and managing the transfers. Several mechanisms are being tried.
What is taken into account is the welfare state mechanisms of the developed countries, some of which
are too complex and bureaucratic. Second-best approaches include self-targeting through paid workon public projects; and targeting based on nutritional status and demographic status, in particular,children, the elderly, pregnant and lactating women, and people with disabilities – and geographic orcommunity targeting.
Empirical evidence from countries such as Armenia, Brazil, Ethiopia, India and Mexico showsthat anti-work incentives either do not exist, do not matter or can be avoided (p. 61). Incompetence
and/or corruption in administration are more serious potential defects and the book discusses various
means of continually maintaining pressure for efficient and honest management. Among the mostpowerful are publicity and punishment of incompetence and fraud. India is particularly ambitious inPage 5 of 8that regard by introducing a ‘unique identity’ scheme, which will provide each person with a biometricidentity record.
As with any new government outlay, financing such social protection schemes can be done
through reallocation of the expenditure, new taxes, ODA and borrowing. The most desirable isreallocation of funds used for general energy or food subsidies, which are very costly and which, inpractice, subsidize both the rich and the poor because they are unable to target the severely
impoverished. Growth-generated increases in revenue are also likely to be a potential source offunding for schemes introduced over time.
Conditional cash transfers have become a widespread form of safety-net schemes in Latin
America. PROGRESA, later called Oportunidades, in Mexico makes regular cash payments to poorfamilies with children on the condition that the children attend school and are immunized. Bolsa
Familia in Brazil envisions similar provisions. These programmes and others like them in Colombia,
Nicaragua and some other countries have been found to be successful means of increasing foodconsumption and alleviating poverty. There have been positive increases in school attendance andthe prevalence of child labour has fallen. However, they are not comprehensively available to all poor
households.
The Indian approach of making employment guarantees involves paying people enough to keepthem from extreme poverty, provided that they earn the benefit through productive work. The Rural
Employment Guarantee Act of 2005 set up the framework under which applicants must be given up
to 100 days of unskilled manual work paid at no less than the legal minimum wage for agriculturallabourers. Wages are the same for women and men and at least a third of those employed must be
women. Estimates of the cost of the scheme vary between 0.6 and 1.0 per cent of GDP. About a thirdof rural households appear to have received some additional income as a result of the scheme.
Paying for health care using contributory and non-contributory insurance tools so as to avoid
risking destitution through unforeseen medical expenses is also discussed in some detail, and theThai scheme is used as an example of effective practice.
Microfinance is another quite distinct method of reducing poverty by addressing financial
exclusion. Various schemes are described, criticisms of them summarized, and careful evaluations
made. One conclusion is that various NGO microcredit schemes in Bangladesh have contributed to
improving the lives of tens of millions of poor people.
The book makes clear that a fundamental change is under way – ‘as if tectonic plates are
moving’. The UN General Assembly in September 2010 considered social protection to be among
the successful approaches for reducing poverty and stated that ‘promoting universal access tosocial services and providing social protection floors can make an important contribution to
consolidating and achieving further development gains’.
The adoption by the International Labour Conference in July 2012 of Recommendation No.
202 concerning National Floors of Social Protection demonstrates strong international agreement on
the principles of social protection. Clause 4 of the above Recommendation says that ‘Members should,
in accordance with national circumstances, establish as quickly as possible and maintain their social
protection floors comprising basic social security guarantees’.
The way is being led by the largest middle-income countries – China, India, Brazil, Mexico andIndonesia – through the gradual, piecemeal introduction of various types of social protection
schemes. The question is whether smaller, poorer countries and the wealthier countries that could
support them will do so. This book is a major contribution to building such support.
Page 6 of 8

It is striking that, yet again, Anthony Clunies-Ross is at the forefront in a drive for equitablechange. He was in the lead in 1963 when he wrote the booklet One Percent, which led the way
towards the UN target for official development assistance. He led preparation of the book Alternative
Strategies for Papua New Guinea. With Ross Garnaut he was one of the first advocates for a resource
rent tax. His leadership in writing the wise, reflective textbook Development Economics published in2009 is another of many examples of his thoughtful initiative in articulating rigorous, imaginative
analysis of unresolved problems and new ideas for approaching them. The Universal Safety-Net will
be another authoritative source of information and ideas for practitioners and scholars seeking more
effective means for eliminating severe poverty.
Professor John Langmore
Melbourne School of Government
University of Melbourne
Vic. Australia 3010
langmore@unimelb.edu.au

ICSW, IASSW and IFSW meet in Seoul to sign the Agreement on 2016 Joint World
Conference and to discuss ongoing preparations for Melbourne-2014.

The three partner organizations—the International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW),
the International Council on Social Welfare ( ICSW), the International Federation of Social Workers(IFSW), and several organizations of the Republic of Korea dealing with social development, social
welfare and social work issues, namely, the Korean Council on Social Welfare (KNCSW), the Korean
Association of Social Workers (KASW), the Korean Council on Social Welfare Education (KCSWE), theSeoul Welfare Foundation (SWF), agreed to hold the 2016 Joint World Conference on Social Work,
Education and Social Development in Seoul, Republic of Korea. It will take place from June 27 to June30, 2016. The Agreement to hold the 2016 Conference was signed in January 2014. The Joint World
Conference is seen by the partners as an opportunity to bring together social work practitioners,
academics, key decision makers and civil society to address issues central to the mission of the threepartner organizations. It was reiterated that the core themes of the Global Agenda adopted by thepartners should be the main themes of the forthcoming conferences. Therefore, the theme for the2016 Seoul Conference is "Promoting the Dignity and Worth of People".
The International Steering Committee created by the partner organizations to help with the
preparations of 2014 Joint World Conference in Melbourne, Australia, also met in Seoul with themembers of the Local Organizing Committee of the 2014 Conference. The discussions covered a
range of issues pertinent to the ongoing preparations for the Melbourne Conference.
Among the substantive issues decided in Seoul was the implementation of the Global Agenda andwork of the Global Agenda Observatory. The first phase of the Observatory (2012-14) entailed ajoint activity organized through and was based on the regional structures of the partners,
facilitated by global and regional Coordinators appointed by each of the partners. The threepartner organizations are now launching the second phase of the Global Agenda Observatory
process. This phase involves the selection of Regional Observatory arrangements to generate
evidence on the implementation of the second priority theme of the Global Agenda, so as toprepare the regional reports, which will form the basis of the 2016 Global Report.
The second Observatory Report will be launched at and form the focus of the 2016 Joint World
Conference in Seoul. It is intended that the report will be published as a supplement toInternational Social Work Journal and be reported widely in the international media.
It was also decided to invite concrete proposals from the interested bodies to host Regional
Observatories. The three partner organizations expressed confidence that the award of the status
of Regional Observatory will bring significant benefits not only to the three global partners but
also to institutions that host Regional Observatories. The Regional Observatories will provide thecore material for the biennial Observatory Report, which will be published by the partners andPage 7 of 8

widely promoted at world conferences and beyond. It is expected that the hosting institutions will
get a higher profile and recognition, enhancing their global reputations through their participationin the Regional Observatory. The document for formal bidding will be available from July 2014.


Useful resources and links

Cash transfer programmes
The ILO has just released a comparative study by Elaine Fultz and John Francis with an analysis
of ways and means to improve the impact of cash transfer programmes on women's poverty
alleviation and economic empowerment. Key findings relate to selected cash transfer programmes
from five countries: Brazil, Chile, India, Mexico and South Africa.
The review addresses two broad questions. First, to what extent are cash transfers alleviating
women’s poverty and improving their access to nutrition, as well as health care and other social
services? And second, what are the impacts of cash transfers on women’s economic empowerment?
The selected cash transfer programmes include Bolsa Família (Brazil); Chile Solidario and Ethical
Family Income (Chile); the Indira Gandhi Matritva Sahyog Yojana (IGMSY), a pilot cash transfer formaternity, and the Indira Gandhi Widow’s Pension Scheme (India); Progresa/Oportunidades(Mexico); and the Old Age Pension and the Child Support Grant (South Africa).
For more details please go to:
http://www.ilo.org/gender/Informationresources/WCMS_233599/lang--en/index.htm
Children with Disabilities
Depending on how disability is defined, it is estimated that as many as 200 million children
experience some form of disability. The report produced by UNICEF: The State of the World’sChildren 2013: Children with Disabilities, focuses on alarming realities of disability. The reportadvocates an approach grounded in respect for the rights, aspirations and potential of all children,
a mix that can reduce the vulnerability of children with disabilities to discrimination, exclusion
and abuse.
For more details please see:www.unicef.org/pacificislands/UNI137485.pdf

The content of this Global Newsletter may be freely reproduced or cited provided the source isacknowledged. Views do not necessarily represent policies of ICSW.
Newsletter Editor: Sergei Zelenev, Executive Director
Address: ICSW, P.O. Box 28957, Plot 4, Berkeley Lane, Off Lugard Avenue,
Entebbe, Uganda
Phone + +1 718 796 7417, +256414321150
E-mail: szelenev@icsw.org, icsw@icsw.org
Website www.icsw.org;
If you wish to cease receiving this newsletter, please click 'here' providing your name and email
address

Page 8 of 8