A critical analysis of the World Bank’s ‘progressive universalism’ approach to social protection

The COVID-19 crisis has been a wake-up call to strengthen social protection systems. Many countries have implemented social protection measures to lessen the devastating impact of lost jobs and livelihoods. However, today we, as a global community, are still far from making the human right to social security a reality for all.

The priority given by the World Bank to “targeting” –different methods to differentiate eligibility for programs between the poor- not only fails to cover the majority of thepopulation but also fails to reach the people living in dire situations, despite its primary objective. It also prevents States from developing their own social protection systems.

Ten years after the adoption of the ILO Social Protection Floors Recommendation (No. 202), we are at a crossroads between universal schemes and highly restrictive approaches to social protection.
The World Bank alone represents more than half of all international support to the expansion of social protection in low- and middle-income countries, and during COVID19, the proportion grew even larger. Importantly, its advice surpasses the influence that its financing role suggests.

The fact that “universality” is too expensive to implement at once seems to trump all the evidence showing that universal programs are superior to poverty-targeted programs in many regards. Gradual implementation is an obvious response to the lack of means for immediate implementation, and “progressive universalism” is the World Bank’s new approach to universal social protection. As shown in this report, however, “progressive universalism” has little to do with the “progressive realisation” that is a corner stone in the human rights. Rather, it appears to be an attempt to continue to promote povertytargeting, while paying lip service to the commitment to universal social protection, weakening the efforts in that way. We must not forget that the issue of universal social protection also concerns high-income countries, where existing social protection systems
are in danger, and this reminds us of the urgency of continuing to defend the quality and universality of social protection worldwide.

We hope that this report will inform anyone who is trying to navigate the debate on social protection, in particular policy makers in the major shareholders of the Bank, policy makers in countries implementing social protection programmes supported by the World Bank, and civil society organisations holding these policymakers accountable.