CC BY
1Journal of Sociology: Bulletin of Yerevan University 2024, Vol. 15, No. 1(39), June, 67-72 https://doi.org/10.46991/BYSU:F/2024.15.1.067
A SHOCK-RESPONSIVE SOCIAL PROTECTION SYSTEM: ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK*
Marine Yarmaloyan , ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0009-0004-1158-7246 PhD in Sociology, Assistant Professor of the Department of Social Work and Social Technologies, Yerevan State University. Email: [email protected]
Abstract. The paper discusses the concept of a "shock-responsive social protection system", the main options for shock-responsive social protection: including design tweaks, piggybacking, horizontal and vertical expansions, and alignment. Some key criteria are discussed in terms of evaluating the ability of social protection system to respond to emergencies. Some conclusions are presented as offers in terms of preparing for an effective response to shocks as well.
Key words: social protection, social protection and shock-responsive social protection system, emergency situation
sisnhuibrM urauiuienn. uns№LOTui ^ucs^uinhßsui ¿uurnurqc:. ^r^nromui crauirn
Ump^ht 3mptfminjmh, ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0009-0004-1158-7246 u.q.p., fc^Z ung^mjm^mh m2^mmmhp^ U ung^mjm^mh mt^hnjnq^mhtp^ mtfp^nh^
mu^urnthm t^.^num" [email protected]
Utf^n^mtf: Znq^m^nrü phhmp^lnrtf th «ghgnrtfhtp^h mpÀmqmhpnq ung^mjm^mh ^m2rn^mhnrp]mh hmtfm^mpq» hmu^mgnrpjnrhp, ung^mjm^mh ^m2rn^mhnrpjmh mpÀmqmhptfmh mmpptp ÀUtpp mpmm^mpq ^pml^m^htpnrtf: Znqlm&nrtf phhmp^-inrtf th npn2 ¿m^mh^htp, npnhp hhmpmlnpnrpjnrh th mm^u qhmhmmtjm. ung^m-jm^mh ^m2rn^mhnrp]mh hmtfm^mpq^ ^mpnqnrpjnrhp mpmm^mpq ^pm^^m^htp^h mpÀmqmhptjni. mtumh^jnrh^g: itp^mjmg^mà th hmU npn2 mnmgmp^nrpjnrhhtp" ghgnrtfhtp^h mpqjnrhm^trn mpàmqmhp hm^m^mmpmumtjni. mnnrün^:
Pmhm^ pmntp - ungjimimljmh ujm2siqmhnipjnih, ungjimimljmh ujm2siqmhnipjmh Ughgniii-hhpjih uipAwqwhpnq ungjimimljmh ujm2siqmhnipjmh hmiimljmpq, mpinmljmpq fipmiUhimlj
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Received: 27.04.2024 Revised: 27.05.2024 Accepted: 02.07.2024 © The Author(s) 2024
СИСТЕМА СОЦИАЛЬНОЙ ЗАЩИТЫ, РЕАГИРУЮЩАЯ НА ПОТРЯСЕНИЯ:
ПОДХОДЫ К АНАЛИЗУ
Маринэ Ярмалоян, ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0009-0004-1158-7246 кандидат социологических наук, ассистент кафедры Социальной работы и социальных
технологий ЕГУ.
Эл. почта: [email protected]
Аннотация. В статье обсуждается концепция «системы социальной защиты, реагирующей на шок», включая основные варианты социальной защиты, реагирующей на шок -корректировки конструкции, комбинирование, горизонтальное и вертикальное расширение, а также выравнивание. Некоторые ключевые критерии обсуждаются с точки зрения оценки способности системы социальной защиты реагировать на чрезвычайные ситуации. В статье также представлены предложения по подготовке к эффективному реагированию на потрясения.
Ключевые слова: социальная защита, система социальной защиты и защиты, реагирующая на потрясения, чрезвычайная ситуация
For various reasons, wars, epidemics and natural disasters have become more frequent in the modern world. From this point of view, it is very important that social protection systems are able to respond to emergency situations in a timely and adequate manner. Emergencies arise as a result of natural and man-made disasters. Brathwaite defines disaster as "an event which seriously disrupts the normal functioning of the affected society causing widespread human, material or environmental losses which exceed the ability of the affected society to cope, using its own resources'' (Rock & Corbin, 2007, p. 386).
A disaster has seven elements that distinguish it from other tragedies. Those elements are: a disaster
• ''involves the destruction of property, injury or loss of life'';
• ''has an identifiable beginning and end'';
• ''is sudden and time-limited'';
• ''affects a relatively large group of people'';
• "is ''public'' and affects more than one family;
• ''is out of the realm of ordinary experience'';
• ''is psychologically traumatic enough to induce stress in almost anyone'' (Rosenfeld, Caye, Ayalon, & Lahad, 2005, p. 11).
It should be noted that the existence of a shock-responsive social protection system is also very necessary for the Republic of Armenia, taking into account a number of factors. Armenia is located in a high-risk zone for natural hazards. The country is susceptible to strong earthquakes, and is also vulnerable to weather-related shocks. Escalation of tensions and active conflict in 2016, 2020, and 2023 has contributed to cross-border displacement of thousands of ethnic Armenians from Artsakh, many of whom are struggling to meet their basic needs.
Thus, it is important to develop a common analysis framework which will provide an opportunity to understand if a social-protection system in any country is a shock-responsive or not. The development of above mentioned framework considers discussing a number of questions:
• What is a social protection?
• What are the main levels of social protection system?
• What is a shock-responsive social protection system?
• What are the main criteria of a shock-responsive social protection?
• What are the main options for shock-responsive adaption?
Social protection is the set of certain actions "aimed at preventing social risks, as well as mitigating and eliminating their consequences through ensuring the social security of the population " (Yarmaloyan M., 2016, 2 (20), p.26). Those actions can be governmental or non-governmental.
Social protection is implemented through different mechanisms such as "social assistance", "social insurance'', "labor market policies". (Yarmaloyan M., 2018, 2(26), p. 43). Those mechanisms can serve four different broad functions: protection (providing relief from deprivation); prevention (averting deprivation); promotion (enhancing real income and capabilities); and transformation (addressing social inequity and exclusion) (Devereux, Sabates-Wheeler, 2004).
It is important to mention that social assistance is the most prevalent and most often considered for shock response in the low- and middle-income countries1.
Social protection as a system can be considered at three levels:
• The sector;
• Individual programs;
• Delivery systems (See O'Brien, C., et al., 2018, p. 6).
The highest level includes the ministries and other agencies and their mandates, their coordination bodies, their policies and strategies, the laws and regulations they issue, the sector budget and the way its distribution is prioritized.
Individual programs are the visible face of social protection for households in a country, for example cash transfer programs, school feeding programs etc.
The delivery systems underpin the programs: their registration processes, databases, payment mechanisms, frameworks for monitoring and evaluation and so on.
A shock responsive social protection (SRSP) is defined as "the ability of the social protection system to anticipate shocks to maintain its regular program/s, to scale up and/or flex to accommodate new populations and needs as a result of the shocks and to contribute to resilience building of individuals, households, communities and systems against future shocks" (Preparing social protection systems for shock response. A case study of UNICEF's experiences in Armenia, p.3).
In order to know whether shock-responsive social protection or not it is important to determine the criteria by which a judgment can be made about it. Here are some criteria (See e.g. O'Brien, C. et al., 2018, pp.12-13):
• meeting needs;
• coverage;
• timeliness;
1 Countries are grouped in terms of economic criteria. Gross national income (GNI) per capita is widely used to group countries in terms of their level of economic development. The World Bank uses this approach in its annual World Development Report. According to the World Bank's 2024 report, low-income countries are those which have GNI per capita of $ 1,135 or less. Upper middle income countries are those with GNI per capita of $4,466 to $13,845.
• predictability;
• elimination of duplicated delivery systems,
• sustainability.
1. Meeting needs. Better meeting the needs of any group of people might be received through a response that is better targeted, provides a more adequate level of support, or provides support of a more appropriate nature. (See e.g. White et al., 2013).
2. Coverage of the population. Some policy and decision makers use social protection programs to increase the absolute number of people reached. Coverage of the population can be improved by reducing the number of people who need assistance in the first place, as well as by supporting people after a disaster occurs.
3. Timeliness.According to some studies an early and adequate response generally provides a better outcome than the same response delivered later (see e.g. Cabot Venton et al, 2012).
4. Predictability. This has two aspects: predictability of funding for implementing agencies and predictability of support for families or households. In terms of predictability is emphasized if the supported is delivered regularly and predictable.
5. Elimination of duplicated delivery systems and processes, such as multiple organizations realizing similar targeting programs in the same communities. Duplication can be reduced by increasing coordination between program implementers, or by harmonizing aspects of program delivery. The aim of doing so may be to reduce costs, to improve coverage of those in need, to improve timeliness, or to achieve a greater consensus among agencies as to how to tackle a policy problem.
6. Sustainability. In terms of delivering a response to emergency situations, the sustainability of anintervention could be perceived as a function which could strengthen organizational capacity.
Beyond these above mentioned factors, others may also exist.
The social protection systems of different countries could respond to emergencies differently. According to some studies there are five key options for shock-responsive adaptation (See e.g. O'Brien, C. et al., 2018).
• "Design tweaks;
• "Piggybacking;
• "Vertical expansion";
• "Horizontal expansion";
• Alignment.
Typology of options for shock-responsive adaptation
Design Tweaks Piggybacking Vertical Expansion I lorizontal Expansion Alignment
Adjusting the design of fOulme Use an ensbng programme's Temporanly increase the value or duration Temporenty increase ttre number of Align wtlh other currant or
social protection interventions Infrastructure ot benefit for dusting recipients recipients m an ensbng programme planned interventions
Design tweaks
The design of social protection programs takes into account the type of shocks expected in a country. This will be made before a shock, or it could be after. The social protection programs can be designed in a manner to reduce the vulnerabilities of disaster-affected populations. The opportunity for design tweaks can exist for all programs.
Piggybacking
Piggybacking is a program response to the emergency situation using part of an established system or program. This option can be more cost-effective if someactors are already connected.
"Vertical expansion"
The vertical expansion of social programs refers to the benefit value or duration of the program which is temporarily increased for some or all beneficiaries. This can be done via an adjustment of transfer amounts or values, or through the introduction of extraordinary payments or transfers.
"Horizontal expansion"
The "horizontal expansion'' of a social protection program means that new beneficiaries from disaster-affected areas are temporary included in social protection program. This could be done in three ways:
• To extend the program's geographical coverage;
• To enroll additional beneficiaries in geographical areas already covered, who meet the program's usual criteria,
• To involve additional beneficiaries by modifying the eligibility criteria.
Alignment
The term "alignment" describes the development of one or more elements of a parallel humanitarian response that align as best as possible with those used in a current or possible future social protection program. For instance, this could be an alignment of objectives, targeting method, and transfer value or delivery mechanism.
It is important to mention that alignment is distinct from piggybacking as it uses a parallel infrastructure rather than the same system.
Conclusions
Different countries can use different options for shock-responsive adaptation or they can use the combination of these options. Countries will benefit from taking the time to consider whether these shock-responsive social protection programs are a priority and the most appropriate way of responding to emergency situations, besides, if they are implemented—what needs to be done in order to maximize their effectiveness at the moment they are needed.
It is important to mention that vulnerability and needs assessments are a crucial element of decision-making about whether social protection is an appropriate vehicle for addressing a shock. Moreover, shock-responsive social protection programs can never meet the needs of all people who need support. But shock responses to emergencies can be more effective if they are planned in advance, through early decision-making, active planning and early delivery of assistance.
REFERENCES
Beazley, R., Doyle, A., Hebbar, M., Seyfert, K., Carraro, L. (2020). Towards shock-responsive social protection: Lessons from the COVID-19 response in six countries. Towards shock-responsive social protection, Oxford Policy Management, Oxford. Borton, J. (2009). Future of the humanitarian system: impacts of internal changes.
Humanitarian horizons. Cabot Venton, C. (2013). Value for money of multi-year approaches to humanitarian funding. DFID, UK.
Devereux, S., Sabates-Wheeler, R. (2004). Transformative social protection. IDS Working
Paper no. 232, Institute of Development Studies. Healy, L. M. (2008). International social work. Professional action in an independent world.
Second ed., Oxford University Press. Midgley J. (1997). Social welfare in global context. SAGE publications, Inc. O'Brien, C., Scott, Z., Smith, G., Barca V., Kardan, A., Holmes, R., Watson, C., Congrave, J. (2018). Shock-responsive social protection systems research: synthesis report. Oxford Policy Management, Oxford, UK. Preparing social protection systems for shock response. A case study of UNICEF's experiences
in Armenia, Retrieved from the https://www.unicef.org/eca/media/14826/file Rock, L., & Corbin, C. (2007). Social work students' and practitioners' views on the need for training Caribbean social workers in disaster management. International Social Work, 50(3), 383-394.
Rosenfeld, L. B., Caye, J. S., Ayalon, O., & Lahad, M. (2005). When their world falls apart: Helping families and children manage the effects of disasters. Washington, DC: NASW Press.
White, P., Hodges, A., Greenslade, M. (2013). Guidance on measuring and maximizing value
for money in social transfer programs. Second edition, DFID, UK. World development report. (2024). Economic development in middle-income countries. Retrieved from the https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/ba24094c4f9f37714f07345 b1505c930-0050062023/original/WDR2024-Concept-Note.pdf Yarmaloyan M. (2016). The content of the term "social protection": a categorial analysis.
Bulletin of Yerevan State University. Sociology, Economics, 2 (20), pp. 21-27. Yarmaloyan M. (2018). The sociological approaches of exploring social protection system. Bulletin of Yerevan State University. Sociology, Economics. 2 (26), pp. 38-47.
Conflicts of Interest
The author declares no ethical issues or conflicts of interest in this research. Ethical Standards
The author affirms this research did not involve human subjects.
