The Case for universal social protection

• Author: Isabel Ortiz
• Position: Director of the Social Protection Department at the International Labour Organization
• Pages: 32-34

32 FINANCE & DEVELOPMENT | December 2018

The Case for

UNIVERSAL

SOCIAL

PROTECTION

Everyone faces vulnerabilities during their lifetime

Isabel Ortiz

Countries across the world aim to pro-

vide social protection for all citi zens or

residents, generally by a combination

of public social insurance and social

assistance. Social protection, or social security,

includes cash and in-kind benefits provided for

children, mothers, and fam ilies; support for those

sick and without jobs; and pensions for older and

disabled persons. ese benefit schemes are not

only for the poor, as anyone may fall sick, lose

a job, or have a child—and everyone inev itably

gets old. Governments recognize t he existence of

universal needs among their citi zens—reflecting

vulnerabilities t hat all people are likely to face at

least once in their lifetime.

At an international level, the United Nations

Sustainable Development Goals, adopted by world

leaders in 2015, commit countries to implementing

nationally appropriate social protection system s for

all (universal), including floors, for reducing and

preventing poverty. is commitment reaffirms

the global agreement on the extension of socia l

security achieved by t he International Labour

Organization’s (ILO’s) 2012 Social Protection

Floors Recommendation, which was adopted by

workers, employers, and governments from all

countries (see box).

But despite significant progress in the e xtension

of social protection in many par ts of the world,

only 45 percent of the global population is effec-

tively covered by at least one social protection

benefit, while the remaini ng 55 percent—4 billion

people—are left u nprotected (see chart).

Coverage gaps are associated with signific ant

underinvestment in social protection, particu-

larly in Afric a, Asia, and the Arab states. In m any

countries benefits are low, keeping people vulner-

able. On the positive side, many middle-income