Social Protection Floor Index Monitoring National Social Protection Policy Implementation Discussion Paper A Social Protection Floor Index: Monitoring National Social Protection Policy Implementation Mira Bierbaum, Annalena Oppel, Sander Tromp, Michael Cichon1 Maastricht Graduate School of Governance / UNU-MERIT 1 The paper is the result of a team effort. The authors are listed alphabetically, thus the sequence of names does not reflect the value or size of the individual contributions to the paper. The authors would like to express their deep gratitude to Michael Cichon who set up this project on a Social Protection Floor Index and without whom this paper would not have been possible. They are also grateful for very helpful comments and suggestions by Sylvia Beales (HelpAge International), Richard Bluhm (Leibniz University Hannover), Barbara Caracciolo (SOLIDAR), Daniel Horn (HelpAge International), Charles Knox-Vydmanov (HelpAge International), Cäcilie Schildberg (Friedrich- Ebert-Stiftung), Vishal Dave, and participants of the Roundtable Discussion on Social Protection Floors and the Transition to Justice at the International Week of Justice of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, 21–23 April 2015 in Berlin. CONTENT 1. From the Social Protection Floor Concept to a Social Protection Floor Index ....... 6 2. Methodology and Data ........................................................................................... 7 2.1 Index Criteria ........................................................................................................ 7 2.2 Measuring Shortfalls in Income Security ................................................................. 8 2.3 Measuring Shortfalls in Health Security ............................................................... 10 2.4 Aggregation and Interpretation .......................................................................... 12 3. Results of the SPFI in 2012 .................................................................................... 12 4. Limitations and Strengths of the SPFI .................................................................. 13 5. Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 15 Reference List ........................................................................................................... 16 Annex: Results .......................................................................................................... 18 Table A.1: SPFI country ranking based minimum income criterion of $1.90 a day in 2011 PPP, 2012..................................................................... 18 Table A.2: SPFI country ranking based minimum income criterion of $3.10 a day in 2011 PPP, 2012..................................................................... 20 Table A.3: SPFI country ranking based on relative minimum income criterion and income floor, 2012 ......................................................... 22 Data Description ....................................................................................................... 24 5 1| FROM THE SOCIAL PROTECTION FLOOR CONCEPT TO A SOCIAL PROTECTION FLOOR INDEX st t the 101 International Labour Confer- In 2008, the International Labour Conference (ILC) Aence in 2012, 184 members unanimous- adopted the landmark ILO Declaration on Social Jus- ly adopted the Social Protection Floors (SPFs) tice for a Fair Globalization. The Declaration institu- Recommendation No. 202, which provides tionalised the Decent Work concept, which has been developed by the International Labour Organisa- guidance to members for establishing and tion (ILO) since 1999 to promote a fair globalisation maintaining SPFs as a core element of their through a global, integrated approach that recogniz- national social security systems, guarantee- es employment, social dialogue, rights at work, and ing access to essential health care and a ba- social protection as strategic objectives, with the lat- sic income over the life cycle. In support of ter including »the extension of social security to all« (ILO 2008b: 9–10). As a follow-up to this declaration, the principle of regular monitoring, the Social the 100th ILC in 2011 discussed the social protection Protection Floor Index (SPFI) has been devel- objective and mandated the ILO to develop a rec- oped. It assesses the degree of implementa- ommendation on national floors of social protection. tion of national SPFs, by detecting protection The Social Protection Floors (SPFs) Recommendation gaps in the health and income dimension and No. 202 was unanimously adopted by 184 Members st 2 indicating the magnitude of financial resourc- at the 101 ILC one year later. The Recommendation provides guidance to members for establishing and es needed to close these gaps in relation to a maintaining SPFs as a core element of their national country’s economic capacity. The SPFI thus in- social security systems and for ensuring continuous forms members, trade unions, civil society or- progression towards achieving higher levels of social ganizations, and other stakeholders about the security, ultimately striving to protect against pover- need for corrective policy action, compares ty, vulnerability, and social exclusion (ILC 2012). the implementation of SPFs across members, An SPF consists of four nationally defined basic social and, in future, monitors members’ progress security guarantees that members should establish over time. In the long run, it is hoped that the by law, and—in accordance with their existing in- SPFI can contribute to achieving a fairer and ternational obligations—provide to all residents and more inclusive globalization. children. A national SPF should comprise the follow- ing four social security guarantees: access to a nationally defined set of goods and ser- vices constituting essential health care—including maternity care—which meets the criteria of availa- bility, accessibility, acceptability, and quality basic income security for children at a nationally defined minimum level, which provides access to nutrition, education, care, and any other nec- essary goods and services basic income security at a nationally defined mini- mum level, for persons in active age who are una- ble to earn sufficient income, particularly in cases of sickness, unemployment, maternity, and disability 6 SOCIAL PROTECTION FLOOR INDEX basic income security at a nationally defined sections, the SPFI results for 2012 are presented minimum level, for older persons and its limitations and strengths are subsequently weighed. A discussion of financial resources needed Recommendation No. 202 clearly formulates a pro- for SPF policies concludes. tection objective: according to Article 4, »these guar- antees should ensure that all in need have access to 2 Cichon (2013) provided a detailed review of the emergence of the essential health care and basic income security, which social protection floor concept. together secure effective access to goods and services defined as necessary at the national level«. The Rec- ommendation furthermore endorses a number of fun- damental principles that members should apply when implementing the Recommendation—such as the uni- versality of protection, adequate and predictable ben- 2| METHODOLOGY efits, non-discrimination, and regular monitoring and AND DATA periodic evaluation of the implementation (ibid.). The SPFI is constructed based on the SPFs Recommen- In support of the principle of regular monitoring, the dation No. 202, which serves as a conceptual frame- Social Protection Floor Index (SPFI) has been devel- work. The origins of the principal methodology of es- oped. It is a composite indicator that captures the timating the potential costs to close social protection implementation of the four basic social security guar- gaps stem from Cichon and Cichon (2015: 24). antees in two dimensions. On the one hand, income security means access to a basic level of income dur- After summarizing the quality criteria that guided ing childhood, adult life, and old age. On the other the development of the index, the measurement hand, health security encompasses universal access of gaps in income and health security and the data to essential health care. Rather than looking at attain- sources are introduced. Finally, there is a discussion ments, the degree of implementation of these basic of how the two dimensions are aggregated into one social security guarantees is assessed by detecting single index, the SPFI, and how this index can be in- protection gaps in the income and health dimension terpreted. respectively. These shortfalls are expressed in terms of the share of a country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) that would be required to close these gaps, 2.1 Index Criteria and are finally aggregated over the two dimensions. We present results for the reference year 2012—the A number of criteria have been taken into account in year the Recommendation was adopted—which can order to ensure quality of the index, both in terms of then be seen as baseline for future monitoring. the underlying data and the construction of the com- posite index (cf. OECD/JRC 2008: 44–46). The first The SPFI allows members and other stakehold- criterion is interpretability—i.e., the SPFI intends to ers—e.g., trade unions or civil society organizations— be easily understandable and viable for a wide range to measure national SPF policy implementation by de- of users, such as policymakers, trade unions, or civ- tecting current shortcomings;