Review of National Social Protection Strategies

Abstract

This helpdesk report reviews ten national social protection strategies (published between 2011-2019) in order to map their content, scope, development processes and measures of success. Each strategy was strongly shaped by its local context (e.g. how social development was defined, development priorities and existing capacity and resources) but there were also many observed similarities (e.g. shared values, visions for social protection). The search focused on identifying strategies with a strong social assistance remit from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), Sub-Sarahan African and South and South-East Asian regions1 (Latin America was deemed out of scope due the advanced nature of social protection there). Examples from Sub-Saharan Africa are most widely available. Few examples are available from the MENA region2 – it may be that such strategies do not currently exist, that potential strategy development process are in more nascent stages or that those strategies that do exist are not accessible in English. A limitation of this review is that it has not been able to review strategies in other languages. The strategies reviewed in this report are from Bangladesh (2015), Cambodia (2011), Ethiopia (2012), Jordan (2019), Kenya (2011), Lesotho (2014), Liberia (2013), Rwanda (2011), Uganda (2015) and Zambia (2014). The content of this report focuses primarily on the information from these strategies. Where appropriate, it also includes information from secondary sources about other strategies where those original strategies could not be found (e.g. Saudi Arabia’s NSDS).

Challenges and Innovations of Real Estate for Achieving Spatial Balance in Post-Disaster Countries

“…This was accompanied by purchasing lands illegally [75], instead of focusing on tapping into the power of traditional customary cohesion in the human relationships among the Rwandan community. Those deeds were spurred by the normative discordance of the local real estate tenure system, which exacerbated the spatial imbalance between urban and rural areas, leading eventually to regional disparity [77].…”