Social protection and inequality in the global South: Politics, actors and institutions

Abstract

In this themed section, we explore the links between contemporary social protection approaches and inequality in developing countries, focusing on political economy drivers and the role of actors and institutions in recent reform and implementation processes. This introduction article establishes some common ground by introducing context, concepts and questions. Reducing inequality is identified as a key condition for achieving inclusive and sustainable development as aspired in the Sustainable Development Goals governments committed to in 2015. The introduction situates the three articles in this issue, two studies of pro-poor cash transfers in the Philippines and Kenya, and an analysis of the new national minimum wage policy in South Africa, in a context of contested globalisation, increasing inequality and the social turn, a come-back of social policy as a key development instrument. After identifying the limitations and opportunities of this social turn, the article discusses the three social protection reforms and their impact on equality and social change in the different country contexts through a lens of contestation, institutions and transformative change.

Reshaping state–citizen relationships through donor‐designed targeting systems in Lesotho and Malawi

“…Transnational actors have been extremely successful in putting social protection on the policy agenda in sub‐Saharan Africa (Davis et al, 2016; Hickey et al, 2020b; Hujo, 2021). But, as has been noted, transnational actors do not speak with one voice and often pursue their own agendas which has implications for cash transfer design and implementation.…”

Conceptualising the Relationship Between Formal and Informal Social Protection

“…While these agencies provide significant funding and technical assistance (Dodlova, 2020), concerns arise regarding their control over policy agendas and the exclusion of local actors, including informal ones, in policymaking. Hujo (2021) highlights that donor agencies often rely on their own experts and consultants to design and implement social protection programs in the global south. These consultants are criticised for offering standardised solutions that fail to consider country-specific needs and nuances (Mazzucato & Collington, 2023).…”

Intersectional Experiences of Unfair Treatment Caused by Automated Computational Systems

“…We categorise participants from this list as at-risk, as vulnerable Southern populations are at risk of discriminatory harm from AI that is designed with little regard to local context [25, p.604]. We are aware that the Global South is a composite and plural entity within which privilege is distributed unequally [66,84], and our approach precludes stratified privilege within national context -e.g., white South Africans tend to be more privileged than Black South Africans. • Disability: We consider disability status an at-risk variable.…”