Investing more in universal social protection: Applying international social security standards in social protection policy and financing

Bierbaum, Mira; Schmitt, Valérie Working Paper Investing more in universal social protection: Applying international social security standards in social protection policy and financing ILO Working Paper, No. 43 Provided in Cooperation with: International Labour Organization (ILO), Geneva Suggested Citation: Bierbaum, Mira; Schmitt, Valérie (2022) : Investing more in universal social protection: Applying international social security standards in social protection policy and financing, ILO Working Paper, No. 43, ISBN 978-92-2-036254-9, International Labour Organization (ILO), Geneva This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/263109 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/ XInvesting better in universal social protection Applying international social security standards in social protection policy and financing Authors / Mira Bierbaum, Valérie Schmitt January / 2022 ILO Working Paper 43 Contents Copyright © International Labour Organization 2022 This is an open access work distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 IGO License (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo). Users can reuse, share, adapt and build upon the original work, even for commercial purposes, as detailed in the License. The ILO must be clearly credited as the owner of the original work. The use of the emblem of the ILO is not permitted in connection with users’ work. Translations – In case of a translation of this work, the following disclaimer must be added along with the attribution: This translation was not created by the International Labour Office (ILO) and should not be considered an official ILO translation. The ILO is not responsible for the content or accuracy of this translation. Adaptations – In case of an adaptation of this work, the following disclaimer must be added along with the attribution: This is an adaptation of an original work by the International Labour Office (ILO). Responsibility for the views and opinions expressed in the adaptation rests solely with the author or authors of the adaptation and are not endorsed by the ILO. All queries on rights and licensing should be addressed to ILO Publications (Rights and Licensing), CH-1211 Geneva 22, Switzerland, or by email to [email protected]g. ISBN: 9789220362532 (print) ISBN: 9789220362549 (web-pdf) ISBN: 9789220362556 (epub) ISBN: 9789220362563 (mobi) ISSN: 2708-3446 The designations employed in ILO publications, which are in conformity with United Nations practice, and the presentation of material therein do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the International Labour Office concerning the legal status of any country, area or territory or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers. The responsibility for opinions expressed in signed articles, studies and other contributions rests solely with their authors, and publication does not constitute an endorsement by the International Labour Office of the opinions expressed in them. Reference to names of firms and commercial products and processes does not imply their endorsement by the International Labour Office, and any failure to mention a particular firm, commercial product or process is not a sign of disapproval. ILO Working Papers summarize the results of ILO research in progress, and seek to stimulate discussion of a range of issues related to the world of work. Comments on this ILO Working Paper are welcome and can be sent to socpr[email protected]. Authorization for publication: Shahra Razavi, Director, Social Protection Department ILO Working Papers can be found at: www.ilo.org/global/publications/working-papers Suggested citation: Bierbaum, M., Schmitt, V. 2022. Investing better in universal social protection: Applying international social security standards in social protection policy and financing, ILO Working Paper 43 (Geneva, ILO). 01 ILO Working Paper 43 Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed significant gaps in the coverage, comprehensiveness and adequacy of social protection systems worldwide. These gaps have jeopardized the health, incomes and jobs of billions of people. Closing these protection gaps, facilitating faster and inclusive socio-economic recovery and enhancing resilience against future shocks requires more investment in social protection. Yet, more investment alone is not sufficient; countries also need to invest better in universal social protection, that is, to ensure that investments in social protection contribute to building systems that are aligned with international social security standards, in particular the Social Protection Floors Recommendation, 2012 (No. 202), working in tandem with the Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No. 102). This working paper is intended for a broad audience and outlines how the guidance provided by Recommendation No. 202 contributes to building nationally owned social protection systems that comprehensively and adequately protect the population and leave no one behind, are financially sustainable and socially just and rely on sound management and good governance. JEL classification: I3, H3, H53, H55, F53 Key words: social protection, social security systems, social protection floors, international social security standards, social security contributions, public expenditure, fiscal space, social protection financing, solidarity, developing countries, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). About the authors Mira Bierbaum is a Technical Officer in the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) Social Protection Department. She holds a Master’s degree in Public Policy and Human Development with a specialization in Social Policy Design and Financing and a PhD in Economics from Maastricht University. Before joining the ILO, she worked as a consultant for the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, the International Training Centre of the ILO, UN Women, and the World Bank. Valérie Schmitt is the Deputy Director of the ILO’s Social Protection Department. She is also leading the ILO’s Flagship programme on building social protection floors for all. She holds a Master of Advanced Studies (first year of doctoral studies programme) in quantitative economics from Paris Sciences Economiques (Laboratoire du Delta) and a Master of Business Administration with honours from HEC Paris. She also holds a bachelor’s degree in Philosophy from the University of Paris IV – La Sorbonne. Ms. Schmitt joined the ILO in 2003. She has 25 years of progressively responsible professional experience in the field of social protection, combining both headquarters and field experience in various types of organizations: ILO headquarters, ILO in Africa and Asia, consulting groups in France, and an NGO in West Africa. 02 ILO Working Paper 43 Abstract 01 About the authors 01 Acronyms 05 Key points 06 X1 Introduction 07 X2 Scope and strategic approach 10 2.1 Scope: From national social protection floors to universal social protection systems 10 2.2 Strategies for the extension of social protection 11 2.2.1 A two-dimensional strategy to build national social protection systems 11 2.2.2 From emergency to long-term solutions 14 X3 Guidance for the design, financing and delivery of social protection 15 3.1 Primary responsibility of the State 16 3.2 Achieving a national consensus on social protection through tripartite dialogue 17 3.3 Leaving no one behind by realizing the right to social security for all 19 3.4 Progressive and sustainable investments 20 3.5 Social solidarity, including solidarity in financing 21 3.6 Exploring a diversity of approaches and mechanisms 23 3.7 Ensuring good governance and creating synergies 24 X4 Conclusion 27 References 28 Acknowledgements 33 Table of contents 03 ILO Working Paper 43 List of Figures Figure 1: Two-dimensional strategy to extend social protection 12 (a) Guarantee a social protection floor for all through horizontal and vertical extension 12 (b) A social protection floor is guaranteed for all; higher levels of protection are provided to more people through vertical extension 12 04 ILO Working Paper 43 List of Boxes Box 1: Resolution and conclusions concerning the second recurrent discussion on social protection (social security), International Labour Conference, 109th Session, 2021 09 Box 2: Thailand’s two-dimensional extension strategy 13 Box 3: Guiding principles of the Social Protection Floors Recommendation, 2012 (No. 202) 15 Box 4: The steps of an assessment-based national dialogue: Defining priorities and identifying financial needs in Timor-Leste 18 Box 5: Uruguay’s “Know your rights and obligations to social security” programme 20 Box 6: Examples of social solidarity and solidarity in financing social protection 22 Box 7: Achieving near-universal social protection for children in Argentina 24 Box 8: Mongolia’s one-stop-shops go online 25 Box 9: Monotax: A triple-win-strategy 26 05 ILO Working Paper 43 Acronyms ABND assessment-based national dialogue ECLAC Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean FfDI Financing for the Development in the Era of COVID-19 and Beyond Initiative GDP gross domestic product ILO International Labour Organization IMF International Monetary Fund ISSA International Social Security Association PEFA Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability program RAP Rapid Assessment Protocol SDG Sustainable Development Goals 06 ILO Working Paper 43 Key points ●The COVID-19 pandemic has acted as a stress test for social protection systems worldwide, exposing often dramatic gaps in their coverage, comprehensiveness and adequacy and thereby jeopardizing the health, incomes and jobs of billions of people. These protection gaps, pre-existent to the crisis and further exacerbated by it, are associated with insufficient public investment in social protection. ●Closing these protection gaps, facilitating faster and inclusive socio-economic recovery and enhancing resilience against future shocks requires more investment in social protection. Yet, this is not sufficient; countries also need to invest better in social protection, that is, to ensure that investments in social protection contribute to building systems that are aligned with international social security standards, in particular the Social Protection Floors Recommendation, 2012 (No. 202), working in tandem with the Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No. 102). ●To achieve universal social protection, Recommendation No. 202 outlines a two-dimensional extension strategy. First, countries should as quickly as possible guarantee the set of four basic social security guarantees for all that constitute the social protection floor: income security for children; income security for people of working age; income security for older persons; and access to essential health care. Second, countries should seek to accomplish higher levels of protection for as many people as possible and as soon as possible. ●Furthermore, Recommendation No. 202 defines 19 principles that can guide countries to invest better in universal social protection. At its 109th Session, the International Labour Conference reaffirmed the full relevance of these guiding principles, which can be understood as the backbone of universal, adequate, comprehensive and sustainable national social protection systems that are adapted to developments in the world of work. They need to be implemented in a holistic manner since the failure to observe one of them could compromise the current and future solidity of the entire social protection architecture. In line with these principles, investing better in social protection requires: acknowledging the primary responsibility of the State; achieving a national consensus based on effective tripartite social dialogue; ensuring that no one is left behind to realize the right to social security; making progressive and sustainable investments; ensuring social solidarity, including solidarity in financing; exploring diverse approaches and mechanisms; and ensuring good governance and creating synergies. ●Applying these 19 principles in all policy and financing decisions related to social protection will ensure that investments in social protection are systematically used to build universal social protection systems that provide a social protection floor for all members of society. 13 ILO Working Paper 43 The following elements should be addressed by such a strategy (see Recommendation No. 202, para. 14): a) objectives, in line with national priorities; b) identification of protection gaps and related barriers; c) combination of appropriate and well-coordinated schemes to close protection gaps; d) synergies and coordination with other public policies; e) identification of financial requirements and resources as well as time frame and sequencing; and f) awareness-raising. Furthermore, progress in achieving national social protection floors and other objectives set out in these strategies should be monitored through appropriate nationally defined mechanisms, including through regular national consultations, as well as the collection and compilation of administrative and household data (see Recommendation No. 202, paras 19–21). XBox 2: Thailand’s two-dimensional extension strategy The strategy for extension of social protection coverage in Thailand consisted of two pillars. First, the extension of non-contributory schemes allowed, in respect of some branches, the provision of social protection for most of the population, including those not able to contribute to the Social Security Fund. The two main examples are the Universal Coverage Health Scheme, which covers all residents not included in other social health protection schemes. In addition, Thailand introduced an old-age allowance in 2009, which is the only form of pension for many of those working in the informal economy. More recently, since its launch in April 2015, the Child Support Grant provides income security for vulnerable families with children (Schmitt, Sakunphanit, and Prasitsiriphol 2013). It has been progressively extended and covers two million children today (ILO 2021g). Second, consecutive reviews of the Social Security Act were also instrumental in widening the scope of the benefits provided, as well as system coverage. Since 2001, social protection coverage has increased from 17 per cent of the labour force to close to 31 per cent under the scheme for employees (Social Security Act, art. 33). The system was also able to include other groups with alternative packages of benefits, increasing membership for groups such as the self-employed and migrant and domestic workers. The membership increased to nearly three million workers in 2019. However, not all members contribute regularly to the system. While recognizing the importance of these developments, it is also necessary to acknowledge the remaining challenges. Although coverage for certain groups of workers such as government officials and many private sector employees is comprehensive, for those who fall outside these groups the picture is more complex. One reason for this is the variable status of those not fully covered – workers in both the formal and informal sectors, own account workers and the self-employed, and migrant and domestic workers – and therefore the reasons for their non-coverage range from financial constraints and compliance issues to legal barriers. Effective approaches to increasing coverage need to reflect this complex reality. In addition, the specific schemes set up to target these workers do not provide benefits as good as those provided under article 33 of the Social Security Act. Further efforts to extend and improve coverage are therefore required. Source: ILO (2020a) and ILO country office. 14 ILO Working Paper 43 2.2.2 From emergency to long-term solutions In crisis situations arising from conflicts and disasters – or in the case of the current pandemic – countries should primarily respond to the most urgent needs of the population, while at the same time developing, restoring and enhancing national social protection systems (see Employment and Decent Work for Peace and Resilience Recommendation, 2017 (No. 205)). These systems are crucial to prevent crises, support recovery and increase resilience. In these situations and where national social protection systems are insufficiently developed, humanitarian or emergency ad hoc interventions may be necessary to fill urgent protection gaps (ILO 2020i; Razavi et al. 2020). Whereas countries with well-established social protection systems can respond through existing schemes and programmes or scaling up or adapting these schemes, many countries do not have in place the necessary structures, for example to identify beneficiaries or disburse benefits in a safe way. During the COVID-19 pandemic, these countries had to innovate and develop new tools, mechanisms and institutional set-ups to reach vulnerable populations. Togo, for instance, fast-tracked the implementation of the Novissi programme to support workers in the urban informal economy who were disproportionately affected by lockdown measures. As of 14 April 2020, more than 1.6 million persons were registered in the database and more than 800,000 persons had received benefits (Togo 2020; see also ILO 2020a; 2020i; 2021e). To the extent possible, emergency measures or mechanisms and humanitarian interventions should be aligned with, build on or complement and further strengthen rights-based6 and sustainable7 national social protection systems. For example, in Togo the confidence generated by timely provision and the digital enrolment and payment system built in the context of the Novissi programme could be used to encourage workers in the informal economy to register under an adapted contributory scheme that is currently being developed by the National Social Security Fund. In Bangladesh and Ethiopia, the government, employers’ organizations and workers’ organizations, with the support of international development partners, are eager to explore the possibility of using an ad hoc mechanism to disburse wage subsidies and cash transfers to factories and workers in order to create, expand or improve their national social protection systems (ILO 2020j; 2021g). For this to happen, it is essential that relevant national counterparts, including the social partners, lead the design and implementation of emergency responses and longer-term solutions, and that national capacities to provide social protection are strengthened. 6A human rights-based approach to social protection is embedded in a system of rights and corresponding obligations. It ensures that human rights principles – including the principles of equality and non-discrimination, participation, transparency and accountability – are applied throughout the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of a social protection system. This requires an institutional and legal framework and a comprehensive, coherent and coordinated strategy (Sepúlveda 2014). 7Sustainability pertains not only to financial, fiscal and economic sustainability but also encompasses aspects of continued political and societal support. 15 ILO Working Paper 43 X3 Guidance for the design, financing and delivery of social protection In addition to defining the scope and outlining a strategic approach, Recommendation No. 202 provides guidance on the design, financing and delivery of social protection. It should support countries in building nationally owned social protection systems that protect the population and leave no one behind, are financially sustainable and socially just, and rely on sound management and good governance. Recommendation No. 202 outlines 19 principles to guide countries in building their social protection systems (see box 3). In some cases, countries may excel in the achievement of some of these principles (for instance universal coverage) but may not sufficiently implement others (for example adequacy of benefits or financial sustainability). These principles can be understood as the backbone of national social protection systems since the failure to observe one of them could compromise the solidity of the entire architecture. For example, a lack of tripartite participation and transparency and accountability may hinder the achievement of other principles such as sustainability. These considerations can help strike an optimal balance between the objectives of universality, adequacy, sustainability and solidarity – which should be at the core of any social protection system – and the potential conflicts between them. To the extent possible, these principles should also be applied in emergency situations. This section provides more information on the relevance of these principles for building and maintaining national social protection systems, as well as on how to realize these principles in practice while creating synergies among them. The 19 principles are subsequently presented in 7 groups. XBox 3: Guiding principles of the Social Protection Floors Recommendation, 2012 (No. 202) “3. Recognizing the overall and primary responsibility of the State in giving effect to this Recommendation, Members should apply the following principles: (a) universality of protection, based on social solidarity; (b) entitlement to benefits prescribed by national law; (c) adequacy and predictability of benefits; (d) non-discrimination, gender equality and responsiveness to special needs; (e) social inclusion, including of persons in the informal economy; (f) respect for the rights and dignity of people covered by the social security guarantees; (g) progressive realization, including by setting targets and time frames; (h) solidarity in financing while seeking to achieve an optimal balance between the responsibilities and interests among those who finance and benefit from social security schemes; (i) consideration of diversity of methods and approaches, including of financing mechanisms and delivery systems; (j) transparent, accountable and sound financial management and administration; 16 ILO Working Paper 43 (k) financial, fiscal and economic sustainability with due regard to social justice and equity; (l) coherence with social, economic and employment policies; (m) coherence across institutions responsible for delivery of social protection; (n) high-quality public services that enhance the delivery of social security systems; (o) efficiency and accessibility of complaint and appeal procedures; (p) regular monitoring of implementation, and periodic evaluation; (q) full respect for collective bargaining and freedom of association for all workers; and (r) tripartite participation with representative organizations of employers and workers, as well as consultation with other relevant and representative organizations of persons concerned.” 3.1 Primary responsibility of the State8 States must assume the general responsibility for building, financing and ensuring the good operation of universal, comprehensive, adequate and sustainable social protection systems; guaranteeing a social protection floor; and devising national social protection policies to this effect. This is part of their broader obligation to protect, promote and fulfil human rights, including the right to social security. It is also an element of institution-building as highlighted in SDG Goal 16, in particular for developing effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels (target 16.6) and ensuring responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels (target 16.7) (Behrendt et al. 2017). The State’s responsibility includes various aspects. First, the State is primarily responsible for establishing the legal and administrative architecture for the social protection system to be able to exist and operate (ILO 2021c, para. 4). This includes drafting and adopting laws and regulations and ensuring their enforcement. The State may choose between an array of mechanisms and delivery systems and even opt for delegating certain tasks or schemes to other operators such as mutual funds or private schemes. Irrespective of the chosen approach, the State nonetheless remains the final guarantor of its good operation and ensuring – through proper regulation and enforcement – that the social protection system delivers on all of its assigned objectives in terms of, inter alia, persons protected, the levels of protection and financing, in line with national laws and obligations, international social security standards and the State’s obligations to ensure the right to social security as stipulated in human rights instruments (ILO 2019c). Second, the State is responsible for the viability and sustainable financing of social protection systems and the due provision of benefits (ILO 2021c, para. 4). Therefore, most national social security laws (and international social security standards) require carrying out periodic actuarial valuations. In times of crises, the State should also guarantee the continuity of the provision of benefits and be responsible for restoring the stability of the system while guaranteeing solidarity in the repayment of deficits. Third, the State is responsible for designing and implementing policies and mechanisms that coordinate the various components of the social protection system, for instance between contributory and non-contrib- utory pillars, as well as coherence with other economic and social policies (see section 3.7). Guided by this 8See Recommendation No. 202, para. 3. 17 ILO Working Paper 43 “bigger picture”, the State also needs to ensure a balance and alignment between public finance management and social protection objectives. The notion of progressive realization (see section 3.4) cannot be used to justify non-action; in fact, States are obliged to demonstrate that they have made every effort to achieve minimum levels of protection, including in times of severe resource constraints (Behrendt et al. 2017; United Nations 2008). Nonetheless, even though social protection systems should be primarily financed from domestic resources to the extent possible, this may also be complemented with international support on a temporary basis, meaning that the principle of solidarity (see section 3.5) can transcend national borders. 3.2 Achieving a national consensus on social protection through tripartite dialogue9 International social security principles place a special emphasis on the need to develop a widely shared national vision of social protection through inclusive social dialogue in all its forms, including collective bargaining. Inclusive social dialogue and consultation with other relevant and representative organizations of persons concerned refers to the meaningful involvement of relevant stakeholders in all stages of the decision-making process from devising a strategy and policy design to implementation and the monitoring and evaluation of policies, as well as in the governance of national social security systems and, where these exist, of social security funds (ILO 2021c, para. 14 (i)). Stakeholders include the government at all levels and representatives of employers’ and workers’ organizations (the so-called social partners), as well as civil society organizations. Representatives of the government should include representatives of technical ministries in charge of social protection (ministries of labour, health, social welfare, women and children and so on) and ministries of rural development, information and telecommunication, and others. It is also important to include ministries of finance and planning and central banks to agree on a national strategy for the extension of social protection and its means of implementation based on costing and financing options, thereby contributing to strengthened redistribution and ensuring fiscal sustainability. The participation of all relevant actors ensures that social protection systems, including floors, are responsive to specific needs and respect the rights and dignity of beneficiaries (see also section 3.3); that different perspectives are discussed and conflicting views reconciled; that awareness for the rights and obligations of the respective stakeholders is raised; and that legitimacy, transparency and accountability, which are key ingredients of good governance of social protection systems, are enhanced. Moreover, inclusive social dialogue is not only essential for identifying policy gaps, agreeing on priority policy options and costing them, but also for devising and discussing possible financing options. It is essential to strike an optimal balance between universality, adequacy, sustainability and solidarity by negotiating responsibilities and interests among those who finance and benefit from schemes and to avoid unfair sharing of financing efforts – in fact, actors may do both, yet at different points in time or in different spheres of their lives (see also section 3.5 on solidarity in financing). For example, employers and workers usually contribute to the financing of social protection through their social security contributions, as well as paying direct (for example, through taxes on personal and corporate income and gains) and indirect (for example, value-added tax and taxes on consumption) taxation. In this way, social dialogue and participation increase the social acceptance of policy decisions and ownership, the trust in these decisions and public institutions and the compliance in their implementation. To assist the development of such a shared vision based on an assessment of the current state of social protection and public finance, countries can conduct a so-called assessment-based national dialogue (ABND) (see box 4), which also fed into the development of the Social Protection Policy Options Tool of the Inter-Agency Social Protection Assessments process. Between 2012 and 2020, ABNDs have been carried 9See Recommendation No. 202, para. 3, guiding principles (q) and (r). 18 ILO Working Paper 43 out in 26 countries,10 leading in many cases to the development and adoption of national social protection strategies and specific schemes (for example the launch of the Mother and Early Child Grant in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic; or the design and implementation of an unemployment insurance scheme in Indonesia). In emergency contexts and when a full-fledged ABND cannot be carried out, it is nonetheless crucial to involve social partners in decision-making processes. XBox 4: The steps of an assessment-based national dialogue: Defining priorities and identifying financial needs in Timor-Leste Based on the experience of conducting ABNDs in 14 countries in Africa and Asia, the ILO prepared a global guide (ILO 2016) that has informed such an exercise in many more countries in the framework of the ILO’s Flagship Programme on Building Social Protection Floors for All (ILO 2021g). An ABND provides a sound basis for identifying and costing policy scenarios based on national dialogue, as well as for discussing the creation of fiscal space by bringing all stakeholders to the table. Its success hinges on the participation of all stakeholders from the outset, including line ministries (finance and planning, health, labour, social affairs and so on), social security institutions and social protection programmes, local government bodies, employers’ and workers’ organizations, civil society organizations, academics, development partners and IFIs. Timor-Leste, for instance, conducted such an ABND between 2016 and 2018. Its explicit goal was to inform its national social protection strategy. Throughout the process, representatives of the stakeholders listed above and many more were involved. Such an ABND comprises three steps. (1) Building the assessment matrix and developing policy options. The assessment matrix lists and describes the existing social security schemes and programmes that guarantee access to essential health care and income security over the life cycle. It identifies policy gaps and implementation issues and provides recommendations for further designing and implementing social protection provisions with the aim of guaranteeing, at a minimum, a social protection floor for all residents and children. In Timor-Leste, one of the results of the assessment matrix was that the broad range of existing programmes and policies lacked coordination, leading to inefficiencies as well as coverage and adequacy gaps. In addition, many programmes were not anchored in national law. This assessment provided the basis for formulating five objectives and related recommendations for the national social protection strategy. (2) Costing policy options, assessing their potential impact and exploring financing options. Policy recommendations are then translated into concrete policy options. For each guarantee, several less and more ambitious scenarios in terms of population coverage and benefit levels should be identified, costed and projected over a ten-year period, for instance using the ILO’s Rapid Assessment Protocol (RAP) model. The costing serves as a basis for discussions of fiscal space and government budget reallocations and can help prioritize among different policy options. Importantly, this also requires a detailed understanding of the size and composition of the current social protection budget. Timor-Leste also used the RAP model to cost a set of policies that could build a national social protection floor. Depending on whether a low- or high-cost scenario was chosen, the costs of a national social protection floor ranged between approximately 4 and 12 per cent of GDP in 2018. The costing was complemented by a microsimulation exercise to assess the potential impact of the different scenarios on poverty reduction. Finally, the ABND discussed ways to create fiscal space for social protection in Timor-Leste, such as through the reprioritization of budget allocations. 10 Albania, Cambodia, Cameroon, Egypt, Georgia, Ghana, Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Malawi, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, the Niger, Pakistan, the Philippines, Senegal, Solomon Islands, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Vanuatu, Viet Nam and Zambia. 19 ILO Working Paper 43 (3) Finalization and endorsement. The final recommendations must be technically validated and politically endorsed. Usually, an ABND leads to the recommendation and ideally the adoption of a new national social protection policy or the evaluation of an existing one. In Timor-Leste, the recommendations were validated and the report was published. On 11 November 2021, the national social protection policy was approved by the Council of Ministers. Source: ILO (2016); United Nations, ILO, and Ministry of Social Solidarity of Timor-Leste (2018). 3.3 Leaving no one behind by realizing the right to social security for all11 The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted once again that gaps in social protection systems are not only unacceptable from a human rights perspective but can have tragic consequences at the level of individuals, economies and societies, in particular in case of large covariate shocks. Investing better in social protection – and truly living up to the commitment to leave no one behind – requires that not only a minority of the population and most often its most well-off members but all members of society have access to universal social protection. Social protection systems, including floors, should ensure universal protection – everyone can become vulnerable and the COVID-19 pandemic has shown that we are only as safe as the most vulnerable among us. Leaving no one behind is also key to sustain and extend public investments in social protection, which are more widely accepted – as reflected by people and enterprises complying with payment of taxes and social security contributions – when the benefits of social protection are tangible for everyone (Behrendt et al. 2017; Mkandawire 2005). Furthermore, social protection systems need to be comprehensive and cover all life-cycle risks – here as well, the COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the need to provide unemployment protection and sickness benefits for all workers, including workers in the informal economy. Social protection systems also need to provide adequate and predictable benefits to allow for a life in dignity and “peace of mind”, to truly enable people to navigate their uncertain lives and invest in their human capacities and capabilities (ILO 2019d; USP2030 2019). In emergency responses, however, it may be difficult to immediately live up to the principles of universality, comprehensiveness and adequacy. When limited resources require selecting beneficiaries, using categorical selection criteria (for instance all households in a specific region affected by a drought or all workers with young children) may increase transparency in how these decisions are taken and promote their acceptance. Investing better therefore means designing concrete and innovative solutions to protect those who are today left out from national social protection systems, including the so-called “missing middle”, composed of the employers and workers in the informal economy and their families, and fostering their social inclusion. In the Conclusions concerning the second recurrent discussion on social protection (social security) adopted at its 109th Session in 2021, the International Labour Conference highlighted the disproportionate gaps in coverage and adequacy, in particular among “women, youth, persons with disabilities, migrant workers, domestic workers, agricultural workers, platform workers, rural populations, persons in precarious situations, persons in low-paid work, and persons in the informal economy” (ILO 2021c, para. 8). Achieving universal social protection cannot usually be achieved through a one-size-fits-all approach as social protection systems should be responsive to special needs – needs and opportunities vary and schemes and programmes need to ensure that they are accessible and adequate for everyone. Such “progressive universalism” can be achieved by involving not only social partners but also representatives of specific groups such as persons in situations of vulnerability or exclusion in the design and implementation of social protection policies; this ensures that the policies and schemes are responsive to the needs of those groups and respects their dignity (see also section 3.2). Social security is not charity but a fundamental human right that people should be able to exercise whenever they need it, at any point of their life. Investing better – and making the right to social security a 11 See Recommendation No. 202, para. 3, guiding principles (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (o). 20 ILO Working Paper 43 reality for all – implies that entitlements to benefits should be prescribed by law to ascertain these guarantees and their predictability. In addition, beneficiaries and contributors should have access to efficient complaint and appeal procedures – it needs to be possible to hold the State and those acting on its behalf accountable (see also section 3.1). This includes, for example, situations when claimants have complaints regarding their eligibility, the quality and availability of services or the amounts of benefits, or when benefits are refused. Importantly, individuals need to be aware of their rights and obligations and the procedures they can use to hold governments accountable. Public awareness and education can contribute to improving both transparency and the participation of social partners in the design of the system. Uruguay, for instance, has invested in the development of a culture of social protection (see box 5). Anchoring social security rights in law is also one of the ways to increase the sustainability of social protection and make investments in social protection more predictable and reliable, as indicated in section 3.4 . At the same time, this also requires a long-term financial and fiscal strategy to ensure that the State can fulfil its obligations today and in the future. XBox 5: Uruguay’s “Know your rights and obligations to social security” programme In 2007, Uruguay launched an education initiative on social security that aims to inform the population of their rights and obligations, promote active participation in the improvement of the social security system and extend its coverage. Through a joint effort between the Social Security Institution and the institutions responsible for education and culture, the Government provided content on social security for the curricula used in all schools and professional training institutions at all levels. Today, the programme, entitled “Know your rights and obligations to social security”, reaches all students, including children from five years of age, adolescents attending high school and adults attending vocational training institutions or finalizing formal studies. Thanks to the programme, the population is now more aware of their rights and obligations. The social security culture resulting from the implementation of the programme is arguably one of the key factors that contributed to the extension of coverage and the increase of contributions by 22 per cent between 2007 and 2014. Source: Méndez and Giroud-Castiella (2019). 3.4 Progressive and sustainable investments12 The right to social security is not the outcome of a development process but an indispensable ingredient in the development process to avoid States becoming trapped in a “low cost–low human development” growth pattern. The benefits of social protection extend far beyond its direct impact on preventing and reducing poverty, inequalities, social exclusion and insecurity: its economic and social effects and returns on investment can be substantial. Investments in social protection are equally investments in human capacities and capabilities, which in turn foster decent work, productive employment, sustainable enterprises and inclusive economic growth; investments in social cohesion and peace; and finally, investments in increased resilience (ILO 2021c, paras 5 and 6). In recent decades, a solid evidence base has demonstrated the positive impact of social protection on reducing poverty and inequalities and promoting positive outcomes related to education, health, nutrition, labour market participation, enterprise performance, social cohesion, peace, political stability and state-building (see for example Abramo, Cecchini, and Morales 2019; Bastagli et al. 2019; Cantillon 2009; FAO and UNICEF 2017; ILO 2014; Lee and Torm 2017; Mathers and Slater 2014; OECD 2015; 2018; UNDP 2019). Evidently, universal social protection systems including floors cannot be achieved from one day to the next or through one-off financial injections but require the continuous development of institutional capacity and financial resources. International social security standards recognize this and provide guidance on how to set priorities and ensure progressive and sustainable investments. First, national social protection floors 12 See Recommendation No. 202, para. 3, guiding principles (g) and (k). 21 ILO Working Paper 43 should be established as soon as possible, followed by progressively increasing levels of protection (see section 2.2.1). The progressive realization of universal social protection entails identifying policy priorities and setting targets and time frames for their design, financing and implementation that are formulated in national social protection strategies and well aligned with national financing frameworks. Second, in line with the overall and primary responsibility of the State (see section 3.1), government and social security institution revenues are the primary instrument for turning national development objectives into reality. Resources need to be predictable and sustainable so as to cover recurrent and future expenditures that are composed of benefits and administrative costs, taking into account important societal transformations, such as demographic changes (increased longevity, declining fertility rates or increased mobility), changes in the world of work (labour force participation, levels of informality, structure of employment, volatile job careers, migration, automation and digitalization), climate change or the likelihood of future shocks. Legal requirements to carry out social budgeting exercises, financing studies and periodic actuarial valuations are crucial to ensure the assessment of current and future flows of the revenues and expenditure of the entire social protection system (ISSA and ILO 2016). Such assessments allow social security institutions, governments and social partners to identify financial imbalances in the short, medium and long terms that might threaten the financial sustainability of countries’ social protection systems or individual schemes. This helps to initiate well in advance consideration of how to make the necessary adjustments to maintain or re-establish the long-term financial equilibrium and sustainability of the social protection system. Smart and timely adjustments of contribution rates, levels of benefits or a revised investment or funding policy (ISSA 2004) have the potential to avoid drastic and belated reforms in the future that could inflict harm or undermine public trust or the need to have recourse to government subsidies to fill gaps. Furthermore, it is necessary to ensure that the State has the capacity to fairly collect and allocate sufficient budgetary resources to meet its commitments today and in the future, in line with its national strategy to extend social security (see European Commission 2015; European Commission et al. 2020). 3.5 Social solidarity, including solidarity in financing13 Social protection systems usually build on solidarity mechanisms that pre-existed in society (for example, mutual funds, cooperatives, the Zakat, tontines and so on). The principle of solidarity in social protection has two aspects: (a) risk-pooling to protect individuals against the adverse financial consequences of certain risks, such as ill health, maternity, sickness, old age or unemployment; and (b) redistribution between individuals and population groups. Solidarity in financing contributes to preventing and reducing poverty, inequalities and social exclusion. It ensures that all members of society are covered by social protection and insured against unforeseen risks by having them contribute to pooled funds (through taxes or social security contributions) at rates that are commensurate with their ability to pay, shored up by a strong social contract. Solidarity is essential for making social protection systems more inclusive; working towards adequate benefit levels and the long-term financial sustainability of the system; and fostering social cohesion, justice and peace. In its Conclusions concerning the second recurrent discussion on social protection (social security) adopted at its 19th Session in 2021, the International Labour Conference highlighted the principles of solidarity, collective financing, well-balanced intergenerational fairness and the achievement of gender equality as cornerstones for achieving the adequacy and sustainability of social protection systems (ILO 2021c, para. 15(c)). Importantly, the principle of solidarity encompasses vertical redistribution from high- to lower-income households (for example, through progressive personal income tax rates or contribution rates that are proportional to income and ensure that contributions are higher for high-income earners). It also includes 13 See Recommendation No. 202, para. 3, guiding principles (e) and (h). 22 ILO Working Paper 43 horizontal redistribution, for instance between healthy and sick persons, men and women, younger and older persons or families with and without children (see box 6). Evidently, the optimal balance between those who finance and those who benefit in a given national context is a political decision that needs to be negotiated with all stakeholders (see section 3.2). This needs to take into account the rights and dignity of every human being, including the rights of future generations, in order to ensure that the labour market, financial and economic risk are not disproportionately shifted to either employers or workers or other groups of the population and to measure success in human rather than solely economic terms (ILO 2021c, para. 15(d)). XBox 6: Examples of social solidarity and solidarity in financing social protection Solidarity between healthy and sick persons. National social protection schemes mandate the affiliation of all individuals and enterprises, thereby creating large risk pools of “good” and “bad” risks alike. Contribution levels are usually not linked to the individual risk (what the individual or enterprise cost to the scheme) but to an average risk. In social health insurance schemes, for instance, insured members with health preconditions pay the same level of contributions as healthy members even though they may be more frequent users of health services. Solidarity between employers and workers. In most countries, employers and workers jointly contribute to social insurance, in line with the financing principle established by Convention No. 102. Article 71 establishes a ceiling on workers’ contribution, stating that that “the total of the insurance contributions borne by the employees protected shall not exceed 50 per cent of the total of the financial resources allocated to the protection of employees and their wives and children.” Solidarity between high- and low-income earners. Taxes and transfers have a significant redistributive effect, the extent of which depends on the progressivity, size and mix of these components (for example, depending on the role that personal income taxes play vis-à-vis consumption taxes). In social insurance schemes, social security contributions are generally expressed as a uniform share of members’ income, which means that high-income earners contribute more in absolute terms. In addition, benefit levels for old-age pensions, unemployment protection or other social protection schemes are usually expressed in percentage of past earnings (so-called replacement ratio). Replacement ratios are often higher for lower-income earners in order to avoid imposing additional hardship on them. This means that high-income earners may to some extent contribute to the protection of low-income earners (depending, however, on differences in life expectancy between these groups). Solidarity between women and men. Social protection may help redress some of the gender inequalities that exist in the labour market, for instance when primary caregivers (often women) can benefit from care credits in old age-pension schemes for periods spent outside the labour market while caring for children and other family members. Solidarity between present and future generations. In pay-as-you-go or partially funded old-age pension schemes,14 the contributions or taxes paid in a given year serve to finance the pensions of those in retirement. This means that those who currently pay contributions or taxes are not “saving for their own retirement” but financing the pensions of current beneficiaries. In exchange, they receive the guarantee that future cohorts of workers will in the same way finance their own pensions when they retire. This intergenerational solidarity is based on a long-term social contract that is constituent to most pension schemes around the world. 14 This applies to pay-as-you-go and partially funded pension schemes but not to fully funded pension schemes that do not include an element of intergenerational solidarity. 29 ILO Working Paper 43 FAO, and UNICEF. 2017. “The Economic Case for the Expansion of Social Protection Programmes.” FAO. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i7311e.pdf. Gentilini, Ugo, Mohamed Almenfi, John Blomquist, Pamela Dale, Luciana De la Flor Giuffra, Vyjayanti Tharmaratnam Desai, Maria Belen Fontenez, et al. 2021. “Social Protection and Jobs Responses to COVID-19 : A Real-Time Review of Country Measures (May 14, 2021).” Text/HTML Version 14. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/281531621024684216/social-protection-and- jobs-responses-to-covid-19-a-real-time-review-of-country-measures-may-14-2021. ILO. 2014. World Social Protection Report 2014/15: Building Economic Recovery, Inclusive Development and Social Justice. http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/documents/publication/ wcms_245201.pdf; http://www.social-protection.org/gimi/gess/ShowTheme.action?th.themeId=3985. ———. 2016. Social Protection Assessment-Based National Dialogue: A Global Guide. Geneva: International Labour Office. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---integration/documents/publication/wcms_568693.pdf. ———. 2017. World Social Protection Report 2017-19: Universal Social Protection to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. https://www.social-protection.org/gimi/gess/RessourcePDF.action?id=54887; http://www. social-protection.org/gimi/gess/ShowWiki.action?id=594. ———. 2019a. “Brazil - Protecting Self-Employed Workers through a Monotax Mechanism.” Social Protection in Action Country Brief. Geneva: International Labour Office. https://www.social-protection.org/gimi/ ShowRessource.action?id=55659. ———. 2019b. “Rules of the Game: An Introduction to the Standards-Related Work of the International Labour Organization (Centenary Edition 2019).” Geneva: International Labour Office. https://www.ilo.org/ wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/---normes/documents/publication/wcms_672549.pdf. ———. 2019c. Universal Social Protection for Human Dignity, Social Justice and Sustainable Development: General Survey Concerning the Social Protection Floors Recommendation, 2012 (No. 202). ILC.108/III/B. https://www.ilo. org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/---relconf/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_673680.pdf. ———. 2019d. “Universal Social Protection: Key Concepts and International Framework.” Social Protection for All Issue Brief. https://www.social-protection.org/gimi/RessourcePDF.action?id=55517. ———. 2020a. “Extending Social Protection to Informal Workers in the COVID-19 Crisis: Country Responses and Policy Considerations.” Social Protection Spotlight. https://www.social-protection.org/gimi/RessourcePDF. action?id=56833. ———. 2020b. “Financing Gaps in Social Protection: Global Estimates and Strategies for Developing Countries in Light of COVID-19 and Beyond.” Social Protection Spotlight. Geneva: International Labour Organization. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_protect/---soc_sec/documents/publication/wcms_755475. pdf. ———. 2020c. “Social Protection Platform: Thailand.” 2020. https://www.social-protection.org/gimi/ ShowCountryProfile.action?iso=TH. ———. 2020d. “Toolkit on ILO Social Security Standards.” 2020. https://www.social-protection.org/gimi/ Standards.action?lang=EN. ———. 2020e. “Unemployment Protection in the COVID-19 Crisis: Country Responses and Policy Considerations.” Social Protection Spotlight. https://www.social-protection.org/gimi/RessourcePDF.action?id=56834. 30 ILO Working Paper 43 ———. 2020f. “Social Protection Responses to the COVID-19 Crisis: Country Responses in Asia and the Pacific.” Briefing note. https://www.ilo.org/asia/publications/issue-briefs/WCMS_739587/lang--en/index.htm. ———. 2020g. “Social Protection Responses to the COVID-19 Crisis: Country Responses and Policy Considerations.” Social Protection Spotlight. https://www.social-protection.org/gimi/RessourcePDF.action?id=56044. ———. 2020h. “Sickness Benefits during Sick Leave and Quarantine: Country Responses and Policy Considerations in the Context of COVID-19.” Social Protection Spotlight. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/ public/---ed_protect/---soc_sec/documents/publication/wcms_744510.pdf. ———. 2020i. “Social Protection Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic in Developing Countries: Strengthening Resilience by Building Universal Social Protection.” Social Protection Spotlight. https://www.social-protec- tion.org/gimi/RessourcePDF.action?id=56542. ———. 2020j. “ILO/Germany Programme to Protect Garment Workers Affected by COVID-19.” September 8, 2020. https://www.ilo.org/pardev/donors/germany/WCMS_753552/lang--en/index.htm. ———. 2021a. “Extending Social Security Coverage to Workers in the Informal Economy: Lessons from International Experience (Policy Resource Package).” 2021. https://informaleconomy.social-protection.org. ———. 2021b. “Governance of Social Protection Systems: A Learning Journey. Module #1: Coordination.” Geneva: International Labour Organization. https://www.social-protection.org/gimi/RessourcePDF.action?id=57387. ———. 2021c. “Resolution and Conclusions Concerning the Second Recurrent Discussion on Social Protection (Social Security). International Labour Conference. 109th Session.” https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/ public/---ed_norm/---relconf/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_806099.pdf. ———. 2021d. “Social Protection Monitor: Social Protection Responses to the COVID-19 Crisis around the World.” 2021. https://www.social-protection.org/gimi/ShowWiki.action?id=3417. ———. 2021e. “Towards Solid Social Protection Floors? The Role of Non-Contributory Provision during the COVID-19 Crisis and Beyond.” Social Protection Spotlight. https://www.social-protection.org/gimi/ RessourcePDF.action?id=57143. ———. 2021f. “World Social Protection Report 2020–22: Social Protection at the Crossroads – in Pursuit of a Better Future.” Geneva. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@dgreports/@dcomm/@publ/documents/publication/wcms_817572.pdf. ———. 2021g. “ILO Global Flagship Programme on Building Social Protection Floors for All: Report of the First Phase 2016-2020.” Geneva: International Labour Office. http://www.ilo.org/secsoc/information-resourc- es/publications-and-tools/TCreports/WCMS_822164/lang--en/index.htm. ———. 2021h. “ILO Global Flagship Programme on Building Social Protection Floors for All: Strategy for the Second Phase 2021-2025.” Geneva: International Labour Office. https://www.social-protection.org/gimi/ RessourcePDF.action?id=57506. ILO and FAO. 2021. “Extending Social Protection to Rural Populations: Perspectives for a Common FAO and ILO Approach.” Geneva and Rome: International Labour Organization and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. https://www.social-protection.org/gimi/RessourcePDF.action?id=57189. 31 ILO Working Paper 43 ILO and UN. 2016. “UNDG Social Protection Coordination Toolkit. Coordinating the Design and Implementation of Nationally Defined Social Protection Floors.” Geneva: International Labour Office and United Nations Development Group. https://undg.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/UNDG-Social-Protection-Coordination- Toolkit.pdf. ILO and UNICEF. 2019. “Towards Universal Social Protection for Children: Achieving SDG 1.3.” https://www. ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_protect/---soc_sec/documents/publication/wcms_669336.pdf. IMF. 2020. “How to Operationalize IMF Engagement on Social Spending during and in the Aftermath of the COVID-19 Crisis.” Washington D.C: International Monetary Fund. ISSA. 2004. “Guidelines for the Investment of Social Security Funds.” Technical Report. Geneva: International Social Security Association. http://www.issa.int/aiss/content/download/48118/896138/file/TR-13-2.pdf. ISSA and ILO. 2016. “Guidelines: Actuarial Work for Social Security.” Geneva: International Social Security Association and International Labour Office. https://www.issa.int/en/details?uuid=77fe60d9-f3d1-4097- 8d72-d7ef7196ccd8. Kidd, Stephen, Björn Gelders, and Diloá Bailey-Athias. 2017. “Exclusion by Design: An Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Proxy Means Test Poverty Targeting Mechanism.” ESS Paper No. 56. Geneva: ILO and Development Pathways. http://www.social-protection.org/gimi/gess/RessourcePDF.action?ressource.ressourceId=54248. Lee, Sangheon, and Nina Torm. 2017. “Social Security and Firm Performance: The Case of Vietnamese SMEs.” International Labour Review 156 (2): 185–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2015.00054.x. Mathers, Nicholas, and Rachel Slater. 2014. “Social Protection and Growth: Research Synthesis.” Barton: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Commonwealth of Australia. https://www.dfat.gov.au/sites/default/files/social-protection-and-growth-research-synthesis.pdf. Méndez, Eduardo, and Victoria Giroud-Castiella. 2019. “Uruguay. Educating People about Their Rights to Social Protection and Obligations.” In 100 Years of Social Protection: The Road to Universal Social Protection Systems and Floors., edited by Isabel Ortiz, Valérie Schmitt, and Loveleen De, 63–69. Geneva: International Labour Office. Mkandawire, Thandika. 2005. “Targeting and Universalism in Poverty Reduction.” Social Policy and Development Programme Paper. Geneva: UN Research Institute for Social Development. http://www.unrisd.org/unrisd/website/document.nsf/240da49ca467a53f80256b4f005ef245/955fb8a594eea0b0c12570f- f00493eaa/$FILE/mkandatarget.pdf. OECD. 2015. In It Together: Why Less Inequality Benefits All. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://www.oecd.org/social/in-it-together-why-less-inequality-benefits-all-9789264235120- en.htm. ———. 2018. “A Broken Social Elevator? How to Promote Social Mobility.” Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. http://www.oecd.org/social/broken-elevator-how-to-promote-social-mo- bility-9789264301085-en.htm. Razavi, Shahra, Christina Behrendt, Mira Bierbaum, Ian Orton, and Lou Tessier. 2020. “Reinvigorating the Social Contract and Strengthening Social Cohesion: Social Protection Responses to COVID-19.” International Social Security Review 73 (3): 55–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/issr.12245. 32 ILO Working Paper 43 Schmitt, Valérie, Thaworn Sakunphanit, and Orawan Prasitsiriphol. 2013. “Social Protection Assessment Based National Dialogue: Towards a Nationally Defined Social Protection Floor in Thailand.” Bangkok: United Nations/Royal Thai Government (UN/RTG) Joint Team on Social Protection. http://www.social-protection. org/gimi/gess/RessFileDownload.do?ressourceId=38377&pid=2097. Sepúlveda, Magdalena. 2014. “The Rights-Based Approach to Social Protection in Latin America: From Rhetoric to Practice.” 189 Social Policy Series. Santiago de Chile: United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. http://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/37517/S1420720_ en.pdf?sequence=1. Togo, Goverment of. 2020. “Novissi Programme.” 2020. https://novissi.gouv.tg/#. UN. 2019. “Social Protection Systems, Access to Public Services and Sustainable Infrastructure for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women and Girls.” United Nations Economic and Social Council. https:// undocs.org/en/E/CN.6/2019/L.3. ———. 2020. “COVID-19 Can Spark New Generation of Social Protection Measures: UN Chief.” COVID-19 Can Spark New Generation of Social Protection Measures: UN Chief. December 1, 2020. https://news.un- .org/en/story/2020/12/1078932. ———. 2021a. “Financing for the Development in the Era of COVID-19 and Beyond Initiative (FFDI).” 2021. https://www.un.org/en/coronavirus/financing-development. ———. 2021b. “Our Common Agenda: Report of the Secretary-General.” New York City: United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/content/common-agenda-report/assets/pdf/Common_Agenda_Report_English.pdf. UN, ILO, and Ministry of Social Solidarity of Timor-Leste. 2018. “Challenges and Ways Forward to Extend Social Protection to All in Timor-Leste. Assessment-Based National Dialogue Report.” Dili: United Nations/ International Labour Organization/ Ministry of Social Solidarity of Timor-Leste. UNDP. 2019. “Human Development Report 2019: Beyond Income, beyond Averages, beyond Today: Inequalities in Human Development in the 21st Century.” New York: United Nations Development Programme. http:// hdr.undp.org/en/2019-report. United Nations. 2008. “General Comment No. 19: The Right to Social Security (Art. 9), E/C.12/GC/19.” USP2030. 2019. “Together to Achieve Universal Social Protection by 2030 (USP2030) – A Call to Action.” Global Partnership for Universal Social Protection. https://www.usp2030.org/gimi/RessourcePDF.action?id=55464. 33 ILO Working Paper 43 Acknowledgements This paper draws heavily on the Resolution and conclusions concerning the second recurrent discussion on social protection (social security) adopted at the 109th Session of the International Labour Conference (ILO 2021c) in 2021. The authors are grateful for the inputs and comments received by their ILO colleagues (in alphabetical order): Rodrigo Ortiz D'avila Assumpcao (Social Protection Management Info Systems Expert), Christina Behrendt (Head, Social Policy Unit), Celine Peyron Bista (Chief Technical Adviser on Social Protection), Andre Felipe Bongestabs (Project Officer), Greta Cartoceti (Junior Professional Officer, Social Security, ACTRAV), Fabio Durán- Valverde (Specialist, Social Protection and Economic Development, former Head, Public Finance, Actuarial and Statistic Unit), Abalo Essodina (National Project Coordinator), Claire Harasty (Special Advisor to the DDG/P on Economic and Social Issues), Aurelie Klein (Social Protection Officer), Ursula Kulke (Specialist in Workers’ Activities, ACTRAV), Kroum Markov (Social Protection Policy Specialist), Karuna Pal (Head, Programming, Partnership and Knowledge-Sharing Unit), Alvaro Roberto Ramos Chaves (Technical Expert, Social Protection Financing), Shahra Razavi (Director, SOCPRO), Helmut Schwarzer (Head, Public Finance, Actuarial and Statistic Unit), Carlos André da Silva Gama Nogueira (Social Protection Programme Manager), Maya Stern-Plaza (Social Protection Legal and Standards Officer), Stefan Urban (Social Protection Officer), Ruben Vicente Andrés (Social Protection Programme Manager), and Veronika Wodsak (Social Protection Policy Specialist). Special thanks are due to numerous colleagues from other organizations (in alphabetical order): Doerte Bosse (EC), David Bradbury (OECD), David Coady (IMF), Michael Cichon (Actuarial economist, former advisor of the GCSPF, former Director of ILO Social Protection Department), Quentin Comet (Global Sovereign Advisory), Jürgen Hohmann (former EC), Markus Kaltenborn (GCSPF), Anne-Laure Kiechel (Global Sovereign Advisory), Thibault van Langenhove (formerly AFD, Expertise France), Benedikt Madl (EC), Marcus Manuel (ODI), Ana Rachael Powell (Executive Office of the UN Secretary-General), Delphine Juliette Prady (IMF), Oliver de Schutter (Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights), Alison Tate (ITUC), Nicola Wiebe (Brot für die Welt/GCSPF). The paper also benefited greatly from exchanges with Anousheh Karvar (Delegate of the French Government to the ILO’s Governing Body, as well as the Labour & Employment Task Officer to the G7 and G20) and Martin Denis (French Ministry of Labour) and many other policy makers and technical experts. Social Protection Department (SOCPRO) International Labour Organization Route des Morillons 4 1211 Geneva 22 Switzerland T +41 22 799 7565 [email protected]g www.ilo.org/secsoc XAdvancing social justice, promoting decent work The International Labour Organization is the United Nations agency for the world of work. We bring together governments, employers and workers to improve the working lives of all people, driving a human-centred approach to the future of work through employment creation, rights at work, social protection and social dialogue. I S B N 9789220362532 9HSTCMA*dgcfdc+ 9 789220 362532 Contact details