JOMO KENYATTA UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC STUDIES

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN DEVELOPMENT STUDIES

HSD 3111: POLITICS HUMAN SECURITY AND DEVELOPMENT

INSTRUCTOR: Dr. Oscar M. Otele, PhD

SEMINAR PRESENTATION PAPER

STUDENTS:
ANN MUKAMI KAMAU
REGISTRATION NUMBER: HDC322-C004-1564/2022

KHADIJA JUMA
REGISTRATION NO: HDC322-C009-1160/217

PASCALIA WASOI
REGISTRATION NO: HDC322-C004-0817/2023

QUESTION: USING ILLUSTRATIONS, CRITICALLY EXAMINE THE CENTRALITY

OF SOCIAL POLICY INTERVENTIONS IN ETHNICALLY- DIVIDED SOCIETIES
(MULTI-NATIONAL SOCIETIES)

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 3
WHY DO YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY POLICY INTERVENTIONS ............ 3
UNDERSTANDING ETHNICALLY DIVIDED SOCIETIES .................................................................... 3
APPROACHES TO SOCIAL PROTECTION POLICIES ........................................................................... 4
SOCIAL POLICY INTERVENTIONS IN ETHNICALLY DIVIDED SOCIETIES ................................... 4
LINKAGE OF SOCIAL SECURITY TO DEVELOPMENT: Illustrations Of Social Intervention Policies
– Multinational Societies .............................................................................................................................. 6
A. GLOBAL CONTEXT – Focus on Developed countries................................................................... 6
B. AFRICA ............................................................................................................................................ 7
EAST AFRICA ....................................................................................................................................... 11
C. TANZANIA .................................................................................................................................... 11
D. UGANDA ....................................................................................................................................... 11
E. KENYA ........................................................................................................................................... 12
CONSTRAINTS TO SOCIAL SECURITY POLICIES IN BOTH DEVELOPED AND DEVELOPED
SOCIETIES................................................................................................................................................. 14
A. ECONOMIC Constraints ................................................................................................................ 14
B. Political Constraints ........................................................................................................................ 16
C. Administrative Constraints ............................................................................................................. 18
THE CENTRALITY OF SOCIAL PROTECTION POLICIES – LINKAGE TO DEVELOPMENT ....... 19
CRITIQUE OF SOCIAL POLICY INTERVENTIONS IN ETHNICALLY DIVIDED SOCIETIES........ 20
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................... 21
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 22

2
INTRODUCTION

Social security is an essential component of development. It is a system of programs, policies, and

institutions that provide economic, social, and health protection to individuals and families against
various risks and vulnerabilities. Social security systems are critical for poverty reduction, income
redistribution, and economic growth, as they help to reduce inequality and promote inclusive
development. Social intervention policies are designed to deliver social benefits and develop
human capital of specific target groups (referred to as beneficiaries). Social interventions can be
any of the following: social welfare, safety net, and social protection. While each of these has its
own definition and unique characteristics, they are sometimes interchanged unknowingly. Social
interventions include but are not restricted to- poverty alleviation, access to public healthcare,
maternal/ neonatal child-care, access to financial services, access insurance, pension, job creation,
technical and vocational skills development, and refugee protection growth. They can be
implemented and/or funded by public or private sector entities or international and local
development organizations and they are mostly targeted at vulnerable citizens.

WHY DO YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY POLICY

INTERVENTIONS

The objectives of any social policy intervention is socio-economic development— to raise the
standard of living and earning capacity of vulnerable citizen ns while establishing a “social floor”
that protects all members of society. These programs also help in mitigating some of the socio-
economic issues plaguing a developing nation, such as unemployment/underemployment,
illiteracy, maternal and child mortality, malnutrition, financial exclusion, poverty, etc. Social
protection is an important factor of sustainable nation-building therefore, it is important that all
stakeholders are aware of their impact

UNDERSTANDING ETHNICALLY DIVIDED SOCIETIES

Ethnically divided societies are complex and dynamic, characterized by the presence of multiple
ethnic groups with different cultures, languages, and identities living in the same geographical
location. The relationships between these groups can be characterized by cooperation, competition,
or conflict, depending on the historical, political, and social context. In some cases, the differences
between ethnic groups may be based on religion, race, or social class, which can further exacerbate
tensions.

3
In many ethnically divided societies, there is a dominant ethnic group that holds political power
and controls economic resources. This can lead to marginalization and discrimination of minority
groups, which can in turn lead to tensions and conflicts. For example, in South Africa, the apartheid
system institutionalized racial segregation, with the white minority controlling political power and
economic resources, while the black majority was marginalized and discriminated against.

APPROACHES TO SOCIAL PROTECTION POLICIES

1. Provision: Policy Efforts in this approach will focus on social assistance covering a broad range
of actions including cash transfers, food aid, affordable health charges, child protection services,
and responses to life-threatening emergencies to enhance coping mechanisms of vulnerable
groups.

2. Prevention: Efforts in this approach will focus on strengthening social security and health
insurance schemes through unemployment, healthcare, sickness, maternity, and other relevant
benefits and pensions, as well as services to support communities and other subsidized risk-
mitigation mechanisms to prevent deprivation or destitution.

3. Promotion: Efforts in this approach will seek to strengthen interventions aimed at enhancing
livelihoods and productivity, such as conditional cash transfers, public works programs, food for
work, and school feeding programs in order to reduce households’ susceptibility to social risks.
Micro and area-based schemes such as community-driven development initiatives will be part of
this approach.

4. Transformation: Efforts in this approach will continue to support the formulation of policies
and the enactment of laws and regulations including the development of evidence-based programs
on social protection, the statutory minimum wage, maternity benefits, inheritance rights, anti-
discrimination legislation, anti-stigma campaigns, anti-corruption legislation, policies on fee-free
education, and regulations on safe classroom environments (to avoid exclusion of vulnerable
children and girls).

SOCIAL POLICY INTERVENTIONS IN ETHNICALLY DIVIDED SOCIETIES

Social policy interventions are actions taken by the government or other institutions to address
social problems and improve the welfare of citizens. In ethnically divided societies, social policy
interventions can be used to address the challenges faced by minority groups, promote social

4
cohesion, and prevent conflict. There are several types of social policy interventions that can be
used in ethnically divided societies, including affirmative action policies, social welfare programs,
education policies, and human rights policies.

A). Affirmative Action Policies

Affirmative action policies are policies that are designed to promote equality of opportunity and
reduce discrimination against minority groups. These policies can take various forms, including
quotas, set-asides, and preferential treatment in hiring and education. Affirmative action policies
have been used in many countries to address the challenges faced by minority groups, particularly
in the areas of education and employment.

B). Social Welfare Programs

Social welfare programs are policies that are designed to provide support and assistance to
individuals and families who are in need. These programs can take various forms, including cash
transfers, food assistance, housing subsidies, and healthcare programs. Social welfare programs
can be used to address the challenges faced by marginalized and disadvantaged groups in ethnically
divided societies.

For example, in Brazil, the Bolsa Familia program provides cash transfers to poor families, with a
particular emphasis on families headed by women. The program has been successful in reducing
poverty and inequality, particularly among marginalized groups such as Afro-Brazilians and
indigenous people. Similarly, in South Africa, the government has implemented social welfare
programs to address the challenges faced by poor and marginalized communities, particularly in
the areas of healthcare, education, and housing.

C). Education Policies

Education policies are policies that are designed to promote access to education and improve the
quality of education provided. In ethnically divided societies, education policies can be used to
promote social cohesion and reduce inequality by ensuring that all groups have equal access to
education and educational opportunities.

5
D). Human Rights Policies

Human rights policies are policies that are designed to promote and protect the rights of all
individuals, regardless of their ethnicity or other identity factors. Human rights policies can be
used in ethnically divided societies to promote social justice, prevent discrimination, and protect
minority rights.

LINKAGE OF SOCIAL SECURITY TO DEVELOPMENT: Illustrations Of Social

Intervention Policies – Multinational Societies

A. GLOBAL CONTEXT – Focus on Developed countries.

Social security in developed countries typically combines three different elements—social

assistance designed to relieve poverty, social insurance concerned with the provision of security
and the spreading of income over the life cycle, and categorical transfers directed at redistribution
between specific groups. Today, social protection expenditure per capita is highest in Europe,
where countries with the highest standards of living such as Norway and Switzerland spend over
25% of their annual revenue on several social programs.

The USA’s child benefit program, which facilitates access to education which, in turn, helps break
the intergenerational poverty cycle.

Free access to health care in England help families remain above the poverty line by relieving them
of the financial burden of medical care.

In Canada, the government has implemented policies to protect the rights of Indigenous people,
including policies to address historical injustices, promote self-determination, and protect cultural
heritage. Social programs have also found great success in the developing world.

In India, the government has implemented policies to provide free and compulsory education to
all children up to the age of 14. This policy has been particularly beneficial for marginalized
groups, such as Dalits and tribal communities, who have historically had limited access to
education. Similarly, in South Africa, the government has implemented policies to promote equal
access to education for all groups, including policies to address historical inequalities in education
and promote multilingual education.

6
 B. AFRICA

Social protection lies at the heart of Africa’s development strategy. In the African Union’s Agenda
2063 framework document, “The Africa We Want”, social protection is recognized as both an
economic and a social necessity, capable of promoting inclusive, people-driven, and sustainable
economic growth, eradicating poverty, reducing inequality, and generating resilience to future
shocks. The centrality of social protection in Africa’s development agenda is reflected by a rapid
proliferation of social protection programs across the continent since the global financial crisis.
Social protection is also integral to a number of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs),
including SDG #1 – To end poverty in all its forms everywhere.

According to the most recent population projections by the United Nations, the population of sub-
Saharan Africa will quadruple over the course of the 21st century, increasing from 1 billion in 2016
to almost 4 billion in 2100. How the region manages this population growth will be central to its
long-term prospects. If fertility rates decline significantly, dependency ratios across the region will
follow suit, offering the potential of a large demographic dividend provided that working-age
individuals are productively employed. However, if fertility rates do not decline and if the rapidly
expanding ranks of the working-age population cannot find productive work, intensely political,
economic, social, and environmental pressures will arise. The age structure of the population will
be dominated by a youth bulge for the next 20 or 30 years. However, the proportion of elderly
individuals will start to rise rapidly thereafter.

Africa’s population boom will be accompanied by rapid urbanization, a phenomenon that has the
capacity to promote economic development but which will also require large-scale improvements
to urban infrastructure and services. Urbanization will also change the dynamics of poverty across
African developing Nations from a predominantly rural problem. Nonetheless, urbanization in East
Africa is starting from a very low base: the rural population in a number of countries will still be
larger than the urban population in 2050. These individuals will be at ever-increasing risk from the
effects of climate change, which will affect the region dramatically and in different ways.

Seven major challenges confronting social protection policymakers in African Developing

Countries
1. Solving the last mile problem to reach the poorest of the poor. The poverty rate has fallen
across Africa in the past 25 years but it is proving difficult to reach the extremely poor.

7
 Spending on social assistance will need to increase substantially to reach these groups and
targeting policies will need to prioritize minimizing errors of exclusion over preventing
leakage to the non-poor.
2. Promoting social insurance in a context of high informality. Coverage of social insurance
across Africa is very low, reflecting the fact that only workers in formal employment usually
have access to such arrangements. Social insurance arrangements must adapt to the fact that
the majority of the workforce will remain in the informal sector 50 years from now.
3. Confronting the employment challenge. Social protection interventions need to address the
needs of the working-age population. In East Africa, public works programs are emerging as
an important response to the challenge of providing work but need to operate at a larger scale
without doing harm to the broader labor market.
4. Harnessing a demographic dividend. For the countries of East Africa to harness a
demographic dividend, they will need to ensure fertility rates continue to fall and accelerate
improvements in human and physical capital in order to enhance the future productivity of
the economy.
5. Taking social protection to the cities. As East Africa’s urban populations grow, so too will
the proportion of poor individuals live in cities, and slums in particular. Social assistance
programs, which until now have focused on rural areas, need to adapt to towns and cities.
6. Adapting to climate change. Scalable social protection programs promote resilience to
climate change, allowing individuals not only to respond quickly to climate-related shocks
but also to diversify their livelihoods and “climate-proof” their land and homes in preparation
for such a shock.
7. Increasing financing for social protection. A significant increase in the resources available
for social protection is required if the sector is to meet the challenges identified in this report.
Raising these revenues on a sustainable basis will require considerable effort and careful
consideration of who bears the burden of domestic taxation. Addressing these challenges will
require a systemic approach that promotes coherence between programs, policies, and
institutions and which integrates social protection with other sectoral strategies. The
challenges will also require a greater capacity to design, deliver and monitor social protection
programs, as well as clear communication between governments and social partners,

8
 including organized labor, civil society and business. Although these are long-term
challenges, the policy response should start today

Addressing these challenges will require a systemic approach that promotes coherence between
programs, policies, and institutions and which integrates social protection with other sectoral
strategies. The challenges will also require a greater capacity to design, deliver and monitor social
protection programs, as well as clear communication between governments and social partners,
including organized labor, civil society, and business. Although these are long-term challenges, the
policy response should start today

In Africa, 40 of 48 countries have active social programs and the number is projected to grow.
South Africa’s Child Support Grant helped the nation drop its poverty gap by 28.3%, In South
Africa, the government has implemented policies to protect the rights of minority groups, including
policies to promote language rights and protect the rights of LGBTQ communities.

Self-help groups formed as part of micro-lending programs and conditional cash transfers have
led to an increase in savings in Ghana and Zambia reporting increases in savings of 11% and 24%,
respectively.

Although is one of Africa’s fastest-growing economies, the poverty rate in Nigeria continues to
rise. Presently, Nigeria has the highest percentage of poor people in the world with; over 43%
living below the poverty line, over 50% of the population being under 18, and over 20% of the
world’s population of illiterate children.

The concept of social intervention is not new to Nigeria. Although most have been small-scale and
short-termed, they have been successful to some extent, based on anecdotal accounts as well as
empirical evidence, and have positively impacted the lives of many Nigerians. Social Interventions
implemented by government entities, international organizations, and the private sector have
attempted to address some of our socioeconomic challenges

Interventions focused on Maternal and New-born Child Health, Social Investment/ Skills Training
and Conditional Cash Transfers (CCT) for Girls' Education have been successfully implemented
within the last decade by international organizations. Education incentives such as free school
meals, school supplies, and fee waivers, increased literacy rates by promoting enrolment, retention

9
and school attendance. These programs were particularly successful in Northern Nigeria where
illiteracy and poverty rates are high.

The Maternal and New-born Child Health Program (MNCH2) reported 1.4 million safe births
which improved infant and maternal mortality rates. Other programs such as Sure-P’s Community
Service Scheme (CSS) had deployed about 119,000 beneficiaries as of July 2013 to work in various
community projects addressing unemployment and providing skills training. The In-Care-of-the-
People (COPE CCT) program which was launched in 2007 across 12 states and reached over
22,000 households. The program incentivized households to ensure that their children attended
school and participated in immunization programs as conditions for receiving the benefits. So far,
the program has been able to keep over 100,000 children in school.

In 2015, the Federal Government took ownership of social intervention delivery across the country.
The Federal Government chose to run a different model a “Portfolio Approach” to social
investment in interventions, as a result, the National Social Investment Office (NSIO) was created
to coordinate social interventions, promote sectoral linkages/synergies with relevant Federal
Government Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs), and ensure buy-in and ownership of
States and LGAs- where actual implementation happens. To date, the Portfolio of programs
coordinated by the NSIO referred to as the National Social Investment Programs (N-SIPs) have
cumulatively directly impacted over 12.9 million beneficiaries and an estimated 44.6 million
beneficiaries indirectly since their inception in 2016. This is a record for any government in
Nigeria. However, the true impact of this investment can only truly be felt if the programs can be
sustained long term as the outcomes detailed in numbers of beneficiaries are the only ones that can
be reviewed today.

10
 EAST AFRICA

C. TANZANIA

In the early 2000s, there was a low elite commitment to social protection in Tanzania. Yet, in 2012,
the government officially launched a countrywide social safety net program and a year later
announced the introduction of an old-age pension.

However, while a general lack of financial resources and capacity both within government and
civil society were compounding factors, a ‘lack of political will [also explains the state’s] failure
to provide adequate social protection to the poor’ (Lerisse et al. 2003; Mchomvu et al. 2002). In
fact, as late as 2009, Tanzania only spent 0.29 per cent of GDP on social safety nets, which was
much less than any of its neighboring countries (World Bank 2015).2 Thus, although fiscal
constraints are considerable, Tanzania still spent substantially less than other countries on a similar
economic level.

Yet, in 2012, the government approved the implementation of the Productive Social Safety Net
(PSSN) program, which is a nationwide conditional cash transfer (CCT) program that targets the
extreme-poor population. The program was estimated to cost US$300 million per year and was
targeted at reaching over 1.2 million households (nearly five million people) by the end of the
initial phase closing in 2017 (the programs extended to 2019).3The launch of the PSSN was the
outcome of a process of policy innovation and experimentation. The push for social protection,
specifically CCTs, has been driven by multilateral institutions (World Bank) in collaboration with
domestic policy-making and -implementing institutions, specifically TASAF (Tanzania Social
Action Fund). These institutions have been resourceful and strategic in their approach to promoting
their favored policy solution to social protection through workshops and evidence-based reporting.

D. UGANDA

Uganda is host to 1.4m refugees. Refugee settlements are often in semi-arid and agriculturally
marginal areas. Refugees increase pressure on natural, social, and economic resources meaning
the impact of climate change is likely to be exacerbated. ¾of refugees are unemployed, 60% of
refugees in West Nile are living in poverty (UNICEF,2019) Many households are unable to make
sufficient investments in the proper nutrition, healthcare, and education of their children with
severe and irreversible damage to the long-term development and productivity as adults

11
The government of Uganda has laid a good foundation for national SP capacity and systems
development: SAGE- Senior Citizens Grant, NUSAF3 & DRDIP including DRF in 55 districts,
KCCA-Girls Empowering Girls Urban CT, Special Grant for PWD, Urban Cash for Work (under
design), Child Sensitive SP in West Nile, West Nile Emergency CT, Development Partner support
including on Shock-responsive Social Protection (SRSP): WB, FCDO (formerly DFID), Irish Aid,
WFP, Sida, FAO, EUD, ILO

E. KENYA

Social protection has been implemented in Kenya for many years in various forms that include
both non-contributory and contributory schemes. These schemes were given an impetus by the
2006 African Union meeting in Livingstone, Zambia, following which the Government of Kenya
initiated a wide consultative process to formulate a national social protection framework. Through
this process, the Government has identified several key social protection actions in the areas of
social assistance, social security, and health insurance.

The Constitution of Kenya (2010) contains a comprehensive Bill of Rights. Article 43 guarantees
all Kenyans their economic, social, and cultural (ESC) rights. It asserts the "right for every
person...to social security and binds the State to provide appropriate social security to persons who
are unable to support themselves and their dependents." This right is closely linked to other social
protection rights, including the right to healthcare, human dignity, reasonable working conditions,
and access to justice. Article 21 establishes the progressive realization of social and economic
rights and obligates the State to "observe, respect, protect, promote, and fulfil the rights and
fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights." The Constitution emphasizes the direct application
of international agreements ratified by Kenya. These include the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (1948), which recognizes social protection as a fundamental human right for all citizens of
the world. This is reinforced by many UN and ILO conventions as well as regional agreements
including the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (1981) and the East African
Community Common Market Protocol. The UN/ILO Social Protection Floor Initiative (SPF)
guarantees a universal minimum package of social transfers and services within a lifecycle
approach to social protection. Within Kenya itself, Vision 2030 envisages an equitable society to
which social protection can contribute.

12
In Kenya, Social protection interventions are provided by many different stakeholders including
Government ministries and agencies, the private sector, communities, households, and other non-
state actors. In the past, these different actors have often operated in isolation from each other,
which has thus diminished their potential impact. Through the Kenya Social Protection Policy
Document (2011), the Government of Kenya is reviewing existing social protection strategies,
programs, and activities with a view to promoting synergy and minimizing duplication and
conflict. Some of the schemes targeted for review and reform include but are not limited to: the
National Social Security Fund (NSSF), the Civil Service Pension scheme, various retirement
benefit schemes provided under the Retirement Benefits Authority (RBA) Act, the National
Hospital Insurance Fund (NHIF), and cash transfer programs. The Government is also cognizant
of the fact that informal community support and extended families provide a significant form of
social protection to our people.

Kenya is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), which recognizes social
protection as a fundamental human right for all citizens of the world. Other international
instruments adopted by the country include the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and
Cultural Rights (1967), the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
Against Women (1979), the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1990), the UN Convention
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006), the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare
of the Child (1990), the International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention on the Worst Forms
of Child Labor (1999), the ILO Minimum Age Convention (1973) that deals with the minimum
age for employment, and the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (1981). Kenya is also
a signatory to several ILO Conventions and Regional Protocols on migrant labor. Kenya has
implemented several social protection policies that have shown to be successful in improving the
well-being of its citizens. National Health Insurance Fund: The National Health Insurance Fund
(NHIF) provides affordable health insurance to all Kenyan citizens, with a particular focus on low-
income households. The NHIF has expanded access to health services and improved health
outcomes for many Kenyans. Public works programs: The Kenyan government has implemented
several public works programs to provide temporary employment opportunities for vulnerable
groups. These programs have provided income support and skills training to participants, which
has led to improvements in their livelihoods. A good example is the recent “kazi mtaani” program.

13
CONSTRAINTS TO SOCIAL SECURITY POLICIES IN BOTH DEVELOPED AND
DEVELOPED SOCIETIES

A. ECONOMIC Constraints
The extent to which social security programs can meet their different objectives depends on the
resources which can be mobilized by the government. The rise in taxation as a share of GDP with
the level of development is a reflection not simply of the income elasticity of demand for public
services, but also of the rise in taxable capacity with the monetization of an economy and
increasing size of its formal sector.

Taxable capacity and the structure of social security are, of course, interrelated. The provision of
social-security benefits may lead to a more effective and highly motivated labor-force, which
increases production ’and hence increases the tax base. The existence of a State pension scheme
may mean that people are no longer dependent on their children for support in old age and hence
reduce the incentive to have children, with possible consequential beneficial effects on incomes
per head. It is however the negative effects of social security on economic performance that have
received most attention in the recent literature, particularly in the US. The disincentive aspects of
social-security benefits have been emphasized, it being argued that they affect at the margin the
decisions of individuals and firms. It is asserted that benefits distort an otherwise efficient
allocation of resources, the point of reference being the standard competitive general equilibrium
model. The particular areas of decision-making which have been investigated include the decision
when to retire, the level of saving for retirement, whether to lay off workers, the hours of work
supplied, whether to exit from unemployment and take a job, and whether to register as disabled.

Social security benefits may therefore mean that people are induced to change their behavior, for
example retiring earlier than they would otherwise have chosen, and this may raise the cost of the
program. In an early article on the negative income tax, Diamond (1968) showed how the curve
indicating the level of the feasible transfer lay below that estimated ignoring labor supply changes.
Indeed, it is argued by commentators such as Murray (1984) in Losing Ground that transfers to the
poor have been counter-productive, in that more people are deterred from seeking self-help than
are raised above the poverty line by the transfers. In the case of benefits in kind, it has been argued
that households reduce their own purchases, or resell the goods, thus undermining any attempt to
achieve specified consumption levels of particular goods.

14
The significance of behavioral responses for the design of social-security policy depends on the
quantitative magnitude of the effects. We lack, however, firm, agreed empirical estimates in many
cases. There has been a great deal of interesting empirical analysis, much of it involving
imaginative use of data, particularly at the micro-economic level, and the development of
econometric techniques which allow in sophisticated ways for the subtleties of the problem in
hand. The results are, however, all too often conflicting, even when authors use the same kind of
data, since findings appear often to be highly sensitive to the specification of the behavioral model,
to the way in which taxes and benefits are introduced, to the treatment of unobserved variables,
and to the choice of sample. For example, Atkinson (1987 a: table 5.1) lists seven studies of the
effect of pensions on retirement in the US using the same basic source (the Longitudinal
Retirement History Survey), of which four conclude that pensions have a significant influence on
retirement, but three conclude that the effect is either statistically insignificant or economically
unimportant.

Moreover, the interpretation of the results is often open to question. For example, the samples
studied are typically restricted to a subset of the population. This is illustrated by the US literature
just cited on the effect of pensions on the date of retirement. If you are a white, married male in
employment, then you stand a good chance of being included in the econometric analysis, but if
you are black, female, or self-employed, then your retirement decision is much less likely to have
been modeled. This severely limits the extent to which the conclusions can be extrapolated to the
population as a whole. A second example concerns the use of cross-section survey data, which has
been the most active area of recent research. We observe differences in the behavior of people
with, say, different pension levels, but it is not clear what can be inferred from these cross-section
differences about what would happen if pensions were to be increased for everyone. This depends
on the general equilibrium of the economy, about which the empirical analysis may not be very
informative.

It is for this kind of reason that in an earlier review of the literature on the effects of income support
on retirement decisions, workforce participation by the disabled, the behavior of the unemployed,
family formation, and retirement savings, one of us concluded, ‘the great volume of empirical
research in this field in the past decade has not led to robust or widely-accepted answers to the
basic question as to how income support affects economic behavior’ (Atkinson 1987 a: 880).

15
Nonetheless, it must be recognized that the belief on the part of governments that disincentives are
important has been a significant element in the policy debate.

B. Political Constraints
As our concern here is with public action, the political constraints on the use of public resources
are of key importance. In one direction, voter ‘tax revolts’ may put a cap on welfare programs; in
the other direction, civil unrest may compel action or, as in the case of Bismarck, action may be
taken so as to forestall the development of radical political alternatives. The nature of a country’s
government and political structure conditions not only the aims of its social-security system (as
discussed above), but also the resources available for it, the selection of which groups are assisted,
and the numbers assisted. Indeed, the provision of social security is not an automatic consequence
of economic growth but reflects the political process.

The political acceptability of social-security programs depends on the perceptions of the electorate
of the benefits and costs. If, for example, universal schemes of social-insurance benefits are seen
to be of general benefit, then there may be a rise in the acceptable share of tax in the economy.
Conversely, if the public provision is seen to be inadequate, for instance where private insurance
is necessary to cover medical costs, then this may lower the acceptability of taxation. The degree
of acceptance may be influenced by the pattern of financing. The social-security ‘contributions’
that individuals make to finance social insurance may have a little actuarial relationship with the
likely benefits. Instead, they are in reality a hypothecated part of direct taxation. Nonetheless,
because they are generally conceived to be a payment for a clearly defined benefit, contributions
(and the transfers they fund) may be significantly more acceptable than if general taxation was
used. Here, as with other aspects of social security and its financing, perceptions of how the system
works may be more important than its actual functioning.

The extent of redistribution via social security might be expected to vary with the degree of
electoral support for socialist or radical parties, or with the strength of organized labor, but cross-
national studies such as that by Heidenheimer et al. (1983) suggest that the relationship is complex.
These authors note that when a country must choose when to cross the line between public and
private income distribution, the power of the political right probably is important in delaying,
circumscribing, and otherwise restraining the vigor with which public policy goals are allowed to
interfere with private arrangements (1983: 212).

16
However, they go on to point out that this conclusion may not hold if the political right seeks to
defuse pressures for change by introducing ‘defensive innovations. More generally, the general
level of support for social security is likely to reflect the prevailing political philosophy. Palmer,
in his account of income security in the US under Reagan, refers to the widespread belief in the
‘American dream’ of individual opportunity, rejection of class-based politics and collectively
orchestrated schemes of redistribution, suspicion of government power, and identification of
personal freedom with private enterprise. These peculiarly American characteristics have
conditioned public support for income security policies for decades…Even during the extremely
liberal 1960s, successful politicians generally eschewed collectivist visions of the public good
(1987: 43–4).

Political factors may influence the form taken by social-security programs. To the extent that the
electorate are concerned with their own direct interests, they may be more likely to support
programs which are to the general benefit rather than those which are targeted towards small
groups. Governments may be more willing to approve pension programs where the costs fall on
future generations not yet fully represented amongst the voters. In discussions of the relative merits
of cash and in-kind transfers, it has been argued that the latter are more acceptable to electors,
since their concern is more with the level of consumption of specific goods by low-income groups
than it is with their general welfare. In the US it has been observed that food stamps are less
unpopular with politicians and the general public than other forms of transfers, although by the
same token some recipients have found them demeaning and stigmatizing (Wilson 1987: 57–8).

The role of interest groups is important. The ‘middle class capture’ thesis of Le Grand and Winter
(1987) argues that in Britain under the Thatcher Conservative Government the programs which
have survived most successfully are those which have middle-class support, the middle classes
being either beneficiaries or suppliers of services. Lynes has described the role played by different
interest groups in shaping the evolution of pensions in France after the Second World War:
‘national solidarity had not proved strong enough to overcome the numerous vested interests or to
persuade the self-employed and higher-paid employees to throw in their lot with the manual
workers’ (1985: 25). In the US, food stamps are again an example, their expansion owing a great
deal to the farming lobby (they are administered by the Department of Agriculture). According to

17
MacDonald, the Food Stamp Act of 1964 was the result of a ‘logrolling arrangement between
backers of wheat and cotton price supports and proponents of food stamps’ (1977: 7).

The form of the programs which are enacted may reflect political preferences even where the
motives are more disinterested. In the case of poverty alleviation, there may be differing weights
on two different kinds of redistribution ‘efficiency’: horizontal efficiency in assisting all of the
target group and vertical efficiency in assisting only the target group (Weisbord 1969). If the ‘target
group’ is taken as only the poor, systems based on universal contingency-based payments may
perform badly by the second criterion. Child Benefit in Britain is received by all families with
children and not just those below the poverty line. Means-tested systems may well perform badly
by the first criterion. For instance, the official estimate of the percentage of those entitled to Family
Income Supplement (now replaced by Family Credit) in Britain in 1984 who did in fact claim is
55 percent, with only 65 percent of the amount available being claimed (HM Treasury 1988: table
15.17). The failure to claim non-universal benefits may result not just from their usual greater
complexity, but also from the effects of the stigma attached to claiming, itself a product of the
public acceptability of transfers.

C. Administrative Constraints
The way in which social security is administered may have major implications for its effectiveness
and for its cost. Success in channeling benefits to those for whom they are intended, both avoiding
payment of the benefit to those not entitled and avoiding non-payment of benefit to those who are
entitled, depends on the identification of potential beneficiaries and the elicitation of the correct
information. Errors of one kind payments to the ineligible may be reduced by a harsh system of
administration, as has long been recognized. As Midgley says of the English Poor Law of the last
century, ‘by requiring the routine incarceration of the recipients of poor relief, the New Poor Law
hoped to prevent fraud and to coerce the indigent to seek an honest living’ (1984: 87). But the cost
of imposing such ordeals is that fewer of those genuinely eligible can be induced to apply and
more of those with rightful claims are rejected in error.

The administration of social security is likely to be constrained in terms of the measures which
may be used. It is, for example, hard to imagine that it could be made compulsory for non-claimants
to provide information to the benefit authorities in order to see if they are in fact eligible. Similarly,

18
there are restrictions on the information which can be obtained from employers about their
employees.

Administrative considerations are also likely to influence the form of social security programs. A
key issue is the availability of information, particularly that collected from claimants. Direct
measurement of the income of the poor as a way of identifying those to receive benefits is
administratively difficult. The forms recently issued for claiming the new Family Credit in Britain
are sixteen A4 pages long (compared with the one-page form for the universal Child Benefit). The
administrative costs for the means-tested Supplementary Benefit (now Income Support) in Britain
amounted to 11.3 percent of spending on the benefit in 1985/6. This represented 45 percent of the
total administration costs of social security, for a benefit that represented only 18 percent of total
expenditure (HM Treasury 1988: tables 15.22, 15.23).

Targeting does not, however, have to take the form of means testing. Regular life cycle
contingencies like maternity, sickness, disability, unemployment, and old age can be used as more
straightforward tests of the probability of being in need. The efficiency of contingency-based
benefits as a way of targeting the poor (as opposed to the more general aim of reducing uncertainty
for the population as a whole) depends on the extent to which those covered by the contingency
are poor, and on the extent to which the poor fall into one or other of the contingencies chosen.

THE CENTRALITY OF SOCIAL PROTECTION POLICIES – LINKAGE TO

DEVELOPMENT

Social protection policies are a crucial element in promoting development as they play a significant
role in reducing poverty, inequality, and vulnerability. Economic growth, while necessary, needs
to be inclusive and more equitable to reduce poverty and inequalities. To leave no one behind and
reach the furthest behind first, development gains must reach the poorest of the poor and create
more decent jobs for all.

One of the primary objectives of social protection policies is to reduce poverty and inequality.
Poverty is a major obstacle to development, and social protection policies provide a safety net for
the poor and vulnerable, ensuring that they have access to basic needs such as food, shelter, and
healthcare. Social protection policies can also help to reduce inequality by providing a basic
income and support to those who are less advantaged.

19
In addition to poverty reduction and inequality, social protection policies can also help to promote
inclusive economic growth. By providing support to the poor and vulnerable, social protection
policies can increase their productivity, enable them to participate in the labor market, and promote
human capital development. This, in turn, can lead to increased economic growth and
development.

Furthermore, social protection policies can also promote social cohesion and stability. Social
protection policies provide a sense of security and stability for individuals and families, which can
help to reduce social tensions and promote social cohesion. This, in turn, can contribute to peace
and stability, which are crucial for development. It is therefore essential for governments to
prioritize the development of social protection policies as part of their overall development
strategy.

CRITIQUE OF SOCIAL POLICY INTERVENTIONS IN ETHNICALLY DIVIDED

SOCIETIES

Although social policy interventions have been effective in tackling the issues of ethnically divided
societies, there are also criticisms and limitations of such interventions. One concern is that social
policy interventions can reinforce stereotypes and inequalities, especially when they fail to account
for cultural differences and historical contexts. For example, affirmative action policies can be
controversial and perceived as favoring specific groups over others, while social welfare programs
can perpetuate stigmas and biases against marginalized communities.

Another critique is that social policy interventions may not address the underlying causes of
conflict and inequality, such as historical injustices, discrimination, and cultural disparities. They
may also fail to adequately target specific ethnic groups, leading to resentment and further tension.
Moreover, politicians may manipulate social policies to gain ethnic support, which can exacerbate
divisions and diminish their effectiveness.

In many ethnically divided societies, resources are often limited or unevenly distributed, which
can result in inadequate funding for social policies and further inequalities. Additionally, social
policies may be designed and implemented by external entities without local ownership and
participation, leading to misunderstandings of local contexts and needs.

20
Finally, social policies may have a short-term focus, with little consideration given to long-term
sustainable development goals. As a result, they may fail to address the root causes of ethnic
divisions and inequalities, perpetuating a cycle of poverty and underdevelopment. While social
policy interventions may be necessary to address immediate challenges faced by minority groups,
they may not be sufficient to address deeper structural issues.

CONCLUSION

Ethnically divided societies are complex and dynamic, characterized by the presence of multiple
ethnic groups with different cultures, languages, and identities living in the same geographical
location. There is great diversity in the social-security provisions that are to be found even in
countries of a similar level of development. Social policy interventions can be used to address the
challenges faced by minority groups, promote social cohesion, and prevent conflict. Affirmative
action policies, social welfare programs, education policies, and human rights policies are
examples of social policy interventions that can be effective in addressing the challenges faced by
ethnically divided societies. However, there are also limitations and critiques of these
interventions, and it is important to ensure that they are implemented in a way that is sensitive to
cultural differences and historical contexts and that they address the root causes of conflict and
inequality.

21
REFERENCES

The Journal of Social Policy Turns 50 – Time for Reflections and Looking to the Future by JAN
EICHHORN, ELKE HEINS, JAY WIGGAN

The contested jurisdiction of Social Policy in UK universities since 1972 by JOHN HUDSON,
NEIL LUNT

SOCIAL POLICY IN AFRICA: THE ROOT CAUSES OF SOCIAL PROBLEMS BY ANNA

WOLKENHAUER

Social Policy and Research Practice in Tanzania by ANDREW S T MCHOMVU, THERESIA F K

NGALULA, GEORGE S NCHAHAGA, FELICIAN S K TUNGARAZA, SAM MAGIDMBI

KENYA NATIONAL SOCIAL PROTECTION POLICY for Kenya Vision 2030 June 2011

22