Discusión de resultados

Delivering social protection to informal sector workers is complicated, as they comprise a marginalized population. In particular, the unregistered nature of informal sector activity makes it difficult to determine which individuals and households comprise this sector. Ultimately, delivery of program benefits to informal sector workers requires appropriate administrative systems, minimizing inclusion and exclusion errors, efficient payment and delivery mechanisms, and monitoring and evaluation of program performance.

Developing Administrative Capacity

Implementation of any social protection program requires administrative capacity in identifying and registering beneficiaries and their dependents, delivering program benefits, and monitoring and evaluating program success. Social protection programs that target informal sector workers require substantial outreach capacity. Due to difficulties associated with registration and documentation as well as the heterogeneous nature of informal sector activity, social protection measures currently operating in developing countries are often voluntary, as in Indonesia and Thailand (Social Security Office, Ministry of Labour, Government of Thailand; Satriana and Schmitt 2012). In fact, identifying informal sector workers requires extensive marketing campaigns that encourage potential beneficiaries to participate. Knowledge building is likewise required if program design is appropriate.

Further, if the program is to be efficient, it must minimize inclusion and exclusion errors. This requires identifying the factors that could cause inclusion of ineligible beneficiaries or exclusion of those eligible. For example, means tests will likely need to be reformatted to the informal sector context, discrimination

or corruption that would negatively impact the outcome of community-based targeting will need to be exposed, and whether self-targeting mechanisms will attract the most marginalized segments of the informal economy must be determined.

The People’s Republic of China provides an example of policy formulation in a country with large variation in local administrative capacity. As mentioned earlier, eligibility requirements for the MLSG program are primarily determined at the local level. Due to the variation in administrative and funding capacity that exists between the country’s urban and rural areas, numerous methods have been used to determine beneficiary eligibility. In provinces or cities with substantial administrative capacity, consumption indexes are used in determining eligibility, while areas with weaker administrative capacity use income levels alone for this purpose (Umapathi, Wang, and Keefe 2013). Although this system of determining beneficiary eligibility causes coverage and benefit levels to vary widely across regions, it is sensitive to administrative capacity at the local level.

Benefit Payment and Delivery Systems

Payment and delivery systems are important elements of service delivery, as they greatly influence both the cost and impact of a social protection program. Regardless of whether they relate to transfers of cash or assets, inefficient delivery mechanisms can make the cost of a program borne by beneficiaries prohibitively expensive or can greatly diminish the development impact of the program concerned. The appropriateness of a particular delivery system depends on both the type of program implemented and the sociopolitical context of the beneficiary community.

In light of the above, the accessibility of the benefits provided is key to successful program outcomes. One study that assessed access to microfinance by poor and vulnerable populations found that the physical distance to the nearest financial institution most strongly impacted whether beneficiaries used financial institutions (Annim, Arun, and Kostov 2012). This suggests that facilities necessary for accessing program benefits—such as insurance providers, health clinics, and schools—must be available locally if the positive impact of a program is to be maximized. In many cases, partnering with local organizations improves access to program services.

While authorized pay points have traditionally been used to deliver benefits paid in cash, more innovative delivery methods—such as direct deposit, “smart cards,” or even mobile phones—have increasingly been employed. Such mechanisms both increase beneficiary convenience and reduce delivery costs. Allowing beneficiaries the option of using either physical or digital forms of collecting benefits may encourage additional beneficiaries to participate. This was the logic

underlying the direct deposit and physical collection of benefits under India’s National Social Assistance Programme, which was expanded to include informal sector beneficiaries as a result of the Unorganised Workers Social Security Act 2008 (Fasih 2011). This program allows beneficiaries to access benefits through accounts at commercial banks, the Post Office Savings Bank, postal money orders, at local government meetings in rural areas, or at neighborhood meetings in urban areas (Indian National Social Assistance Programme).

Monitoring and Evaluation

The primary objective of evaluation is to assess the degree to which a particular program achieves its objectives. Effective monitoring and evaluation also allows program design and implementation to be improved, political will for expansion or sustainability to be strengthened, and the global evidence base concerning social protection initiatives to be expanded. Monitoring—which occurs over the entire lifetime of a program—refers to identification and tracking of performance indicators and reviewing program implementation. Evaluation links outcomes to causes through objective and systematic assessment of a program’s impact. Because monitoring and evaluation serve multiple functions, the design of a program should lend itself to frequent review of the entire social protection system, of which the program concerned forms just one part. When used as part of a credible monitoring and evaluation framework, a management information system (MIS) can protect program success, reduce program costs, and allow a program to be scaled up in an affordable and appropriate manner. A well-functioning MIS contains all data, information, and processes required for evaluating program success. This includes data and information for identifying and addressing all factors that could threaten that success, maximizing the development impact of a particular intervention, and reporting all information relevant to the program in question. A well-functioning MIS also provides a means by which program risk can be managed and connections to complementary interventions established.

Indonesia’s BAPPENAS oversees monitoring, evaluation, and annual assessment of all social protection initiatives. Its online administrative system (e-Monev) assists line ministries in collecting and integrating data relating to social protection initiatives, and reporting these to BAPPENAS. e-Monev has substantially improved reporting to BAPPENAS. In 2010, only 30.0% of all line ministries submitted reports, but following implementation of e-Monev, 65.0% of line ministries submitted reports to BAPPENAS (Haryana 2013). Further, because it makes information regarding program performance and budgeting available online, e-Monev also improves accountability.7

Ultimately, comprehensive program evaluations are necessary for mobilizing political support for expanding the scope or coverage of existing social protection programs. Finally, by identifying problems and proposing solutions, program monitoring and evaluation serves not only the program itself but also the global community that designs and implements social protection programs.