Introduction

Social protection is a vague concept that is often overlooked due to its broad nature and
relatively undefined boundaries. At its foundation, social protection consists of interventions
designed to provide support and assistance to prevent vulnerability in certain populations.
Vulnerability, in this context, refers to how likely one is to be poor in the future (Barrientos,
Hickey, Simutanyi & Wood, 2005). However, vulnerability in the context of social protection
is multidimensional, engendered by factors of income, consumption, assets, susceptibility to
risk and circumstance (Sabetes-Wheeler & Devereux, 2007).

The Zambian government defines social protection as, “policies and practices that protect
and promote the livelihoods and welfare of people suffering from critical levels of poverty
and deprivation and/or are vulnerable to risks and shocks” (MCDMCH, 2014). These
policies and programs are targeted poverty reduction interventions designed to improve and
protect all citizens while recognizing that women, children, elderly and the disabled should
be the principal beneficiaries’ due to their increased vulnerability. The government’s
recognition of their responsibility to provide social support to these specific groups has been
reflected in increased social protection response (MCDSW, 2016). These policies and
programs are framed on a context of persistent poverty and vulnerability.

Historically, progress towards poverty reduction has been slow, with sustained levels of
poverty since the 1990’s. According to the 2015 Living Conditions Monitoring Survey
(LCMS), the incidence of poverty was 54.4 percent, with rural levels of 76.6 percent
compared to a mere 23.4 percent in urban areas. Most concerning, however, is the chronic

Social protection in Zambia

In Zambia, social protection interventions come in three forms, social insurance schemes,
social assistance programs and empowerment programs (Pruce &Hickey, 2017). However,
the existing institutional framework surrounding social protection is insufficient in altering
prevailing social narratives that sustain chronic poverty extreme poverty affecting 40.8
percent of the population. The 2015 LCMS found that the incidence of extreme poverty in
rural areas (60.8 percent) is five times greater than the estimated urban levels (12.8 percent),
indicating a failure to meet the MDG target of 29percent extreme poverty rate by 2015
(Central Statistical Office, 2016).
1
Narratives of economic development in Zambia run contrary to poverty indices. Zambia has
experienced a decade of uninterrupted economic growth, increasing approximately 6.5
percent per annum, making it one of the most prosperous developing economies in Africa
(Ministry of Foreign Affairs Finland, 2017). However, this macro-economic growth does not
translate effectively into reduction of poverty. Although poverty trends from 2010 to 2015
indicate an overall reduction of poverty from 60.5 to 54.4 percent, improvements are felt
disproportionately by urban populations and in provinces that have the highest level of
extreme poverty, such as Western, Northern and Luapula, where the poverty levels have
increased (Central Statistical Office, 2016). This chronic poverty with widening income
inequalities poses a critical issue in accessibility of goods and services.

The language of the FNDP and SNDP surrounding social protection focused on justifying the
need for social protection. The FNDP based the need for social protection on the fact that in
its absence, “no meaningful and sustained economic growth can happen” as social protection
strengthens the capacity of the poor and vulnerable to withstand most economic shocks
(Republic of Zambia, 2006).

The release of the Seventh National Development Plan (7NDP) in June 2017 evinced a
changing impression of social protection. The language of the 7NDP surrounding social
protection focused on expansion and integration, indicating increased knowledge,
acceptability and commitment towards social protection. In the 7NDP, social protection is
embedded in strategic goals aimed at effectively achieving wider social goals of reducing
widespread poverty and vulnerability.

Together, the NSPP and 7NDP represent a significant paradigm shift toward sustainable
social and economic development by working to address the current fragmented, ill
coordinated and inefficient social protection system. Creating an overarching legal and
regulatory framework has been a slowly developing political process but these policies and
plans provide the foundation for a comprehensive social protection system.

Malawi social protection system

According to a recent study of the SCT (Matita & Chirwa, 2014) a high proportion of
beneficiary households do not fulfil the criteria prior to being selected into the programme. In

2
fact, comparisons of dependency ratios and labour supply before and after selection suggest
strategic restructuring of households to suit the criteria.

In 2013, only 33 percent of beneficiary households had a dependency ratio higher than3 prior
to selection. This percentage rose to 61 percent during programme participation. Using a
variety of poverty measures a study finds the inclusion error of the programme to vary
between 37 and 68 percent (Miller et al, 2008).

Other studies found that 24 percent of recipients were not eligible according to the criteria,
indicating a high inclusion error. The high inclusion errors can be attributed to the lack of
clarity of the targeting concepts and the use of poor proxies, favouritism and the influence of
village level politics

Malawi’s social protection system is overly fragmented. It is made up of a wide range of

social protection schemes and programmes, with different objectives, implementation
mechanisms, coverage, degree of national ownership and time-frames. These programmes
include, and are complemented by, programmes with a wider objective that also have a social
protection dimension– for example, farm input subsidies or active labour market
programmes. While some of these programmes are embedded in long-term strategic plans,
implemented nationwide, and financed through the central government’s consolidated
budget, none are anchored in law, and quite a few are of a short-term nature, limited in
geographical and personal coverage, and based on a volatile and insecure resource base. The
various programmes use different mechanisms to deliver the income transfer or service to
different population groups.

The complex targeting mechanism using a variety of poverty proxies raises general questions
about poverty targeting in a country with a poverty headcount of over 80 percent in some
districts and ultrapoverty rates as high as 50 percent in others. The combination of fixed 10
percent coverage rate regardless of the size of the eligible group, widespread and deep
poverty as well as lack of easily understood eligibility and targeting criteria creates incentives
for corruption among the CSPC and village leaders as well as jealousy within communities.
Beneficiaries have described their joy of being able to provide for their family and invest in
their future but have also bemoaned the jealousy and animosity they experienced in their
communities (Miller et al, 2008).

3
In 2008, the psychological impacts of the SCT on recipients were assessed and found that, in
comparison to the control group, households were considerably more hopeful about their
future and satisfied with their lives. However, beneficiaries were also more likely to
experience “jealousy from other households in their communities and, on average,
community members were less likely to help them since receiving the cash transfer” (ibid.).
Moreover, twenty-two percent of beneficiary households reported to have experienced more
conflict in the community since receiving the transfer (ibid.). Despite evidence of social
tensions in communities served by the SCT, recent evaluations assessing the level of
satisfaction towards the targeting process for the SCT, the FISP and the MVAC show greater
satisfaction for SCT than for MVAC and FISP (Jimu, 2015). For the SCT, dissatisfaction of
community member’s primarily arose from high exclusion levels (ibid, 2015).

Often donor driven

Social protection is often donor-driven and consists primarily of programmes implemented

on an ad-hoc basis. As a result there are currently few entitlements to social protection in
Malawi.

Coverage of social protection programmes varies significantly amongst age-groups

Coverage of social protection programmes varies significantly amongst age-groups. Due to

coverage gaps and, more importantly, the design and objectives of implemented programmes,
school-age children and working-age adults are currently better covered than infants, pre-
school children, and the elderly (Juergens; L. Pellerano , 2016).

Conclusion
Both Zambia and Malawi social protection policies are driven on poverty reduction with at
least 50% of its population living below poverty line both Zambia’s and Malawi’s poorest
people live and work in rural areas. The differences are that Zambia has a social protection
policy in place and social protection which is implemented by the government, Malawi has
no social protection policy most of its programs are donor funded and are provided by Non
Governmental Organisations.

4
 Bibliography
Beazley, R., & Carraro, L. (2013). Assessment of the Zambian Social Protection Expansion
Programme Targeting Mechanisms. UNICEF, Zambia-Assessment of Targeting Mechanisms.
Lusaka: OPM.

GTZ . (2005). First Monitoring Report: Pilot Cash Transfer Scheme, Kalomo District,
Zambia.

Jimu, Ignasio . (2015). Review of the targeting process of Social Cash Transfer Programme.
Study by Irish Aid Malawi.

Juergens; L. Pellerano . (2016). Review of the Malawi National Social Support Programme -
A Stakeholder-Driven Review of the Design and Implementation of the MNSSP.

Matita & Chirwa . (2014). Targeting in Social Cash Transfer and Farm Input Subsidy
programmes: Should they be harmonized? .

MCDMCH. (2014). Background and Detailed Synopsis of Proposed Sessions. Achieving

Prosperity for All. Lusaka: Zambia. Retrieved from:en/index.htm.

Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare. (2014). Namibia Social Protection Floor Assessment.

Museya, M. K. (2014). Lifelihood Impacts of Challenges in Accessing Pension Benefits: A

case of civil service teacher retirees in Kapiri-Mposhi District Zambia. Netherlands: Institute
of Social Studies.

Republic of Zambia. (2017). Seventh National Development Plan. Lusaka: Ministry of

National Development Planning.