Digitalization is transforming societies and economies worldwide at an unprecedented scale and pace. In the wake of automation and digitalization, new forms of employment have been emerging in various occupations and sectors, such as the digital platform economy. The emergence of new forms of employment, such as work on digital platforms, requires that existing social protection systems adapt to the specific situation and needs of such workers, as to realize the human right to social security for all. Current social protection coverage for workers on digital crowdwork platforms reveals significant gaps in social security coverage. Where such coverage exists, it is often provided through the workers’ previous or additional jobs, or indirectly through their spouses or other family members. This raises questions about digital platforms free riding on the traditional economy with regard to the financing of social security. How can social protection systems adapt to changing forms of work to ensure full and effective coverage for workers in all forms of employment, including those in “new” forms of employment? How can workers in all types of employment, including those on digital platforms, be protected in an adequate and comprehensive way, combining contributory and non‐contributory mechanisms and based on equitable and sustainable financing mechanisms, so as to ensure adequate social protection to all?

The debate about the future of work has sparked a debate about how to ensure that social protection systems can provide full and effective coverage for workers in all forms of employment, including 'new' ones. While some emerging work and employment arrangements may provide greater flexibility for workers and employers, they may lead to significant gaps in social protection coverage, at a time when demands on social protection systems are increasing. It is therefore necessary to strengthen and adapt social protection systems for a changing world of work. More than ever, they have a key role in preventing poverty, reducing inequality, enhancing income security and enabling workers and their families better to navigate work and life transitions. Comprehensive approaches, including contributory and non-contributory social protection mechanisms, with equitable and sustainable financing mechanisms available through taxes or contributions, stand the best chance of offering adequate social protection to all.

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the vulnerability of those who are inadequately covered by social protection in more and less developed countries alike, and has exacerbated the fragility of a social contract that was already under strain in many countries. A weak social contract in the context of an exceptional crisis poses a very real risk to social cohesion. Nevertheless, many States have reasserted themselves as the guarantor of rights by protecting public health and incomes. By sustaining these measures, economic recovery will be supported which will help minimize risks that may weaken social cohesion. However, this is a fast-moving, inherently unstable and protracted crisis. Social protection stands at a critical juncture. Decisive policy action will be required to strengthen social protection systems, including floors, as one of the cornerstones of a reinvigorated social contract.

This article analyses the relationship between means-tested benefits and poverty in Western Europe. Means-tested benefits, as social assistance or housing benefits, are designed as safeguards against poverty for the low-income strata of the population, but our knowledge on their impact is fairly limited. How effective are they in reducing poverty rates? To what degree can they fill the gap that income redistribution through taxes and non-means-tested social security benefits leaves? How large is the impact of means-tested transfers in private household budgets, and how does the role of means-tested benefits vary across countries? This article uses the household data of the Luxembourg Income Study to explore the effectiveness of means-tested programmes in terms of poverty alleviation in Britain, Germany and Sweden in the early 1990s. The results of this analysis show a considerable variation in the degree means-tested benefits can actually protect people from poverty. A comparison of household income before and after means-tested benefits exhibits different patterns of poverty alleviation. Using four relative poverty lines (30 percent, 40 percent, 50 percent and 60 percent of median household income adjusted for family size), this piece of research illustrates that there is considerable variation in the degree people are lifted up the income scale by means-tested benefits.

No abstract