Linking Social Rights to Active Citizenship for the Most Vulnerable: the Role of Rights and Accountability in the ‘Making’ and ‘Shaping’ of Social Protection

Abstract

The rise of social protection into the limelight of social policy has opened up space for understanding how it can act as a key interface between states and citizens. This paper rethinks social protection through the lens of citizenship. It considers how the design and implementation of social protection can be shifted away from discretionary and technocratic forms, to forms which stimulate vulnerable citizens to make justice-based claims for their rights and demand accountability for the realisation of those rights. It puts forward a conceptual framework for social protection with three modalities through which citizens can be engaged: as shapers and makers; as users and choosers; and as passive consumers.

Examining Attitudes towards Welfare in an In/Security Regime: Evidence from Ghana

“…The free education policies aim to remove financial barriers to formal education in public schools from pre-school to senior high school (Mensah, 2019). The LEAP is a cash transfer scheme to cover the basic needs of poor and vulnerable individuals and households, including: older persons (sixty-five years and above); people living with severe disabilities; orphans and vulnerable children; and pregnant women and children below one-year-old (Oduro, 2015;Sabates-Wheeler et al, 2017). It currently covers only 25 per cent of the extremely poor (Marques and Honorati, 2016).…”

“…However, even with political stability from the 1990s, insecurity has prevailed due to resource mismanagement culminating in recurrent economic challenges and reliance on external sources for budgetary and technical support (Bevan, 2004). Regardless, there was a significant improvement in Ghanaʼs welfare landscape at the turn of the century resulting from public outcry against perceived government ill-will towards social security (Sabates-Wheeler etal ., 2017). This resulted in the development of Ghanaʼs first social protection policy in 2008, which was revised in 2012 (Sabates-Wheeler etal ., 2017; GoG, 2007).…”

“…Regardless, there was a significant improvement in Ghanaʼs welfare landscape at the turn of the century resulting from public outcry against perceived government ill-will towards social security (Sabates-Wheeler etal ., 2017). This resulted in the development of Ghanaʼs first social protection policy in 2008, which was revised in 2012 (Sabates-Wheeler etal ., 2017; GoG, 2007). Welfare expenditure has subsequently risen, although relatively low compared to other LMICs (Marques and Honorati, 2016).…”

“…Based on the nature of Ghanaʼs welfare regime and the recent socioeconomic and political landscape, it is expected that most population groups – regardless of their sociodemographic attributes – will hold positive attitudes towards more welfare spending and policies. This is in view of the several weaknesses in current welfare provision such as funding challenges, low coverage, and unequal distribution of available resources in Ghana (Marques and Honorati, 2016; Sabates-Wheeler etal ., 2017).…”

Priority Analysis of Right Remedies of Basic Living Recipients in Korea

“…From the recipients' point of view, the right remedy system exists to prevent violation of the right to life from illegal and improper dispositions or acts by administrative agencies. Nevertheless, in the case of institutional right remedies, qualified recipients' ability to claim rights and their right awareness is relatively weak, thus weakening their chances at successful participation in the administrative trial process and with administrative procedures [9,10]. This rigidity issue for institutional right remedies has continued to mass-produce new welfare dead zones with tragic consequences.…”