Podcasts about Social protection

We've covered the US Agency for International Development, or USAID, pretty consistently on Statecraft, since our first interview on PEPFAR, the flagship anti-AIDS program, in 2023. When DOGE came to USAID, I was extremely critical of the cuts to lifesaving aid, and the abrupt, pointlessly harmful ways in which they were enacted. In March, I wrote, “The DOGE team has axed the most effective and efficient programs at USAID, and forced out the chief economist, who was brought in to oversee a more aggressive push toward efficiency.”Today, we're talking to that forced-out chief economist, Dean Karlan. Dean spent two and a half years at the helm of the first-ever Office of the Chief Economist at USAID. In that role, he tried to help USAID get better value from its foreign aid spending. His office shifted $1.7 billion of spending towards programs with stronger evidence of effectiveness. He explains how he achieved this, building a start-up within a massive bureaucracy. I should note that Dean is one of the titans of development economics, leading some of the most important initiatives in the field (I won't list them, but see here for details), and I think there's a plausible case he deserves a Nobel.Throughout this conversation, Dean makes a point much better than I could: the status quo at USAID needed a lot of improvement. The same political mechanisms that get foreign aid funded by Congress also created major vulnerabilities for foreign aid, vulnerabilities that DOGE seized on. Dean believes foreign aid is hugely valuable, a good thing for us to spend our time, money, and resources on. But there's a lot USAID could do differently to make its marginal dollar spent more efficient.DOGE could have made USAID much more accountable and efficient by listening to people like Dean, and reformers of foreign aid should think carefully about Dean's criticisms of USAID, and his points for how to make foreign aid not just resilient but politically popular in the long term.We discuss* What does the Chief Economist do?* Why does 170% percent of USAID funds come already earmarked by Congress?* Why is evaluating program effectiveness institutionally difficult?* Why don't we just do cash transfers for everything?* Why institutions like USAID have trouble prioritizing* Should USAID get rid of gender/environment/fairness in procurement rules?* Did it rely too much on a small group of contractors?* What's changed in development economics over the last 20 years?* Should USAID spend more on governance and less on other forms of aid? * How DOGE killed USAID — and how to bring it back better* Is depoliticizing foreign aid even possible?* Did USAID build “soft power” for the United States?This is a long conversation: you can jump to a specific section with the index above. If you just want to hear about Dean's experience with DOGE, you can click here or go to the 45-minute mark in the audio. And if you want my abbreviated summary of the conversation, see these two Twitter threads. But I think the full conversation is enlightening, especially if you want to understand the American foreign aid system. Thanks to Harry Fletcher-Wood for his judicious edits.Our past coverage of USAIDDean, I'm curious about the limits of your authority. What can the Chief Economist of USAID do? What can they make people do?There had never been an Office of the Chief Economist before. In a sense, I was running a startup, within a 13,000-employee agency that had fairly baked-in, decentralized processes for doing things.Congress would say, "This is how much to spend on this sector and these countries." What you actually fund was decided by missions in the individual countries. It was exciting to have that purview across the world and across many areas, not just economic development, but also education, social protection, agriculture. But the reality is, we were running a consulting unit within USAID, trying to advise others on how to use evidence more effectively in order to maximize impact for every dollar spent.We were able to make some institutional changes, focused on basically a two-pronged strategy. One, what are the institutional enablers — the rules and the processes for how things get done — that are changeable? And two, let's get our hands dirty working with the budget holders who say, "I would love to use the evidence that's out there, please help guide us to be more effective with what we're doing."There were a lot of willing and eager people within USAID. We did not lack support to make that happen. We never would've achieved anything, had there not been an eager workforce who heard our mission and knocked on our door to say, "Please come help us do that."What do you mean when you say USAID has decentralized processes for doing things?Earmarks and directives come down from Congress. [Some are] about sector: $1 billion dollars to spend on primary school education to improve children's learning outcomes, for instance. The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) [See our interview with former PEPFAR lead Mark Dybul] is one of the biggest earmarks to spend money specifically on specific diseases. Then there's directives that come down about how to allocate across countries.Those are two conversations I have very little engagement on, because some of that comes from Congress. It's a very complicated, intertwined set of constraints that are then adhered to and allocated to the different countries. Then what ends up happening is — this is the decentralized part — you might be a Foreign Service Officer (FSO) working in a country, your focus is education, and you're given a budget for that year from the earmark for education and told, "Go spend $80 million on a new award in education." You're working to figure out, “How should we spend that?” There might be some technical support from headquarters, but ultimately, you're responsible for making those decisions. Part of our role was to help guide those FSOs towards programs that had more evidence of effectiveness.Could you talk more about these earmarks? There's a popular perception that USAID decides what it wants to fund. But these big categories of humanitarian aid, or health, or governance, are all decided in Congress. Often it's specific congressmen or congresswomen who really want particular pet projects to be funded.That's right. And the number that I heard is that something in the ballpark of 150-170% of USAID funds were earmarked. That might sound horrible, but it's not.How is that possible?Congress double-dips, in a sense: we have two different demands. You must spend money on these two things. If the same dollar can satisfy both, that was completely legitimate. There was no hiding of that fact. It's all public record, and it all comes from congressional acts that create these earmarks. There's nothing hidden underneath the hood.Will you give me examples of double earmarking in practice? What kinds of goals could you satisfy with the same dollar?There's an earmark for Development Innovation Ventures (DIV) to do research, and an earmark for education. If DIV is going to fund an evaluation of something in the education space, there's a possibility that that can satisfy a dual earmark requirement. That's the kind of thing that would happen. One is an earmark for a process: “Do really careful, rigorous evaluations of interventions, so that we learn more about what works and what doesn't." And another is, "Here's money that has to be spent on education." That would be an example of a double dip on an earmark.And within those categories, the job of Chief Economist was to help USAID optimize the funding? If you're spending $2 billion on education, “Let's be as effective with that money as possible.”That's exactly right. We had two teams, Evidence Use and Evidence Generation. It was exactly what it sounds like. If there was an earmark for $1 billion dollars on education, the Evidence Use team worked to do systematic analysis: “What is the best evidence out there for what works for education for primary school learning outcomes?” Then, “How can we map that evidence to the kinds of things that USAID funds? What are the kinds of questions that need to be figured out?”It's not a cookie-cutter answer. A systematic review doesn't say, "Here's the intervention. Now just roll it out everywhere." We had to work with the missions — with people who know the local area — to understand, “What is the local context? How do you appropriately adapt this program in a procurement and contextualize it to that country, so that you can hire people to use that evidence?”Our Evidence Generation team was trying to identify knowledge gaps where the agency could lead in producing more knowledge about what works and what doesn't. If there was something innovative that USAID was funding, we were huge advocates of, "Great, let's contribute to the global public good of knowledge, so that we can learn more in the future about what to do, and so others can learn from us. So let's do good, careful evaluations."Being able to demonstrate what good came of an intervention also serves the purpose of accountability. But I've never been a fan of doing really rigorous evaluations just for the sake of accountability. It could discourage innovation and risk-taking, because if you fail, you'd be seen as a failure, rather than as a win for learning that an idea people thought was reasonable didn't turn out to work. It also probably leads to overspending on research, rather than doing programs. If you're doing something just for accountability purposes, you're better off with audits. "Did you actually deliver the program that you said you would deliver, or not?"Awards over $100 million dollars did go through the front office of USAID for approval. We added a process — it was actually a revamped old process — where they stopped off in my office. We were able to provide guidance on the cost-effectiveness of proposals that would then be factored into the decision on whether to proceed. When I was first trying to understand Project 2025, because we saw that as a blueprint for what changes to expect, one of the changes they proposed was actually that process. I remember thinking to myself, "We just did that. Hopefully this change that they had in mind when they wrote that was what we actually put in place." But I thought of it as a healthy process that had an impact, not just on that one award, but also in helping set an example for smaller awards of, “This is how to be more evidence-based in what you're doing.”[Further reading: Here's a position paper Karlan's office at USAID put out in 2024 on how USAID should evaluate cost-effectiveness.]You've also argued that USAID should take into account more research that has already been done on global development and humanitarian aid. Your ideal wouldn't be for USAID to do really rigorous research on every single thing it does. You can get a lot better just by incorporating things that other people have learned.That's absolutely right. I can say this as a researcher: to no one's surprise, it's more bureaucratic to work with the government as a research funder than it is to work with foundations and nimble NGOs. If I want to evaluate a particular program, and you give me a choice of who the funder should be, the only reason I would choose government is if it had a faster on-ramp to policy by being inside.The people who are setting policy should not be putting more weight on evidence that they paid for. In fact, one of the slogans that I often used at USAID is, "Evidence doesn't care who pays for it." We shouldn't be, as an agency, putting more weight on the things that we evaluated vs. things that others evaluated without us, and that we can learn from, mimic, replicate, and scale.We — and the we here is everyone, researchers and policymakers — put too much weight on individual studies, in a horrible way. The first to publish on something gets more accolades than the second, third and fourth. That's not healthy when it comes to policy. If we put too much weight on our own evidence, we end up putting too much weight on individual studies we happen to do. That's not healthy either.That was one of the big pieces of culture change that we tried to push internally at USAID. We had this one slide that we used repeatedly that showed the plethora of evidence out there in the world compared to 20 years ago. A lot more studies are now usable. You can aggregate that evidence and form much better policies.You had political support to innovate that not everybody going into government has. On the other hand, USAID is a big, bureaucratic entity. There are all kinds of cross-pressures against being super-effective per dollar spent. In doing culture change, what kinds of roadblocks did you run into internally?We had a lot of support and political cover, in the sense that the political appointees — I was not a political appointee — were huge fans. But political appointees under Republicans have also been huge fans of what we were doing. Disagreements are more about what to do and what causes to choose. But the basic idea of being effective with your dollars to push your policy agenda is something that cuts across both sides.In the days leading up to the inauguration, we were expecting to continue the work we were doing. Being more cost-effective was something some of the people who were coming in were huge advocates for. They did make progress under Trump I in pushing USAID in that direction. We saw ourselves as able to help further that goal. Obviously, that's not the way it played out, but there isn't really anything political about being more cost-effective.We'll come back to that, but I do want to talk about the 2.5 years you spent in the Biden administration. USAID is full of people with all kinds of incentives, including some folks who were fully on board and supportive. What kinds of challenges did you have in trying to change the culture to be more focused on evidence and effectiveness?There was a fairly large contingent of people who welcomed us, were eager, understood the space that we were coming from and the things that we wanted, and greeted us with open arms. There's no way we would've accomplished what we accomplished without that. We had a bean counter within the Office of the Chief Economist of moving about $1.7 billion towards programs that were more effective or had strong evaluations. That would've been $0 had there not been some individuals who were already eager and just didn't have the path for doing it.People can see economists as people who are going to come in negative and a bit dismal — the dismal science, so to speak. I got into economics for a positive reason. We tried as often as possible to show that with an economic lens, we can help people achieve their goals better, period. We would say repeatedly to people, "We're not here to actually make the difficult choices: to say whether health, education, or food security is the better use of money. We're here to accept your goal and help you achieve more of it for your dollar spent.” We always send a very disarming message: we're there simply to help people achieve their goals and to illuminate the trade-offs that naturally exist.Within USAID, you have a consensus-type organization. When you have 10 people sitting around a room trying to decide how to spend money towards a common goal, if you don't crystallize the trade-offs between the various ideas being put forward, you end up seeing a consensus built: that everybody gets a piece of the pie. Our way of trying to shift the culture is to take those moments and say, "Wait a second. All 10 might be good ideas relative to doing nothing, but they can't all be good relative to each other. We all share a common goal, so let's be clear about the trade-offs between these different programs. Let's identify the ones that are actually getting you the most bang for your buck."Can you give me an example of what those trade-offs might be in a given sector?Sure. Let's take social protection, what we would call the Humanitarian Nexus development space. It might be working in a refugee area — not dealing with the immediate crisis, but one, two, five, or ten years later — trying to help bring the refugees into a more stable environment and into economic activities. Sometimes, you would see some cash or food provided to households. The programs would all have the common goal of helping to build a sustainable livelihood for households, so that they can be more integrated into the local economy. There might be programs providing water, financial instruments like savings vehicles, and supporting vocational education. It'd be a myriad of things, all on this focused goal of income-generating activity for the households to make them more stable in the long run.Often, those kinds of programs doing 10 different things did not actually lead to an observable impact over five years. But a more focused approach has gone through evaluations: cash transfers. That's a good example where “reducing” doesn't always mean reduce your programs just to one thing, but there is this default option of starting with a base case: “What does a cash transfer generate?"And to clarify for people who don't follow development economics, the cash transfer is just, “What if we gave people money?”Sometimes it is just that. Sometimes it's thinking strategically, “Maybe we should do it as a lump sum so that it goes into investments. Maybe we should do it with a planning exercise to make those investments.” Let's just call it “cash-plus,” or “cash-with-a-little-plus,” then variations of that nature. There's a different model, maybe call it, “cash-plus-plus,” called the graduation model. That has gone through about 30 randomized trials, showing pretty striking impacts on long-run income-generating activity for households. At its core is a cash transfer, usually along with some training about income-generating activity — ideally one that is producing and exporting in some way, even a local export to the capital — and access to some form of savings. In some cases, that's an informal savings group, with a community that comes and saves together. In some cases, it's mobile money that's the core. It's a much simpler program, and it's easier to do it at scale. It has generated considerable, measured, repeatedly positive impacts, but not always. There's a lot more that needs to be learned about how to do it more effectively.[Further reading: Here's another position paper from Karlan's team at USAID on benchmarking against cash transfers.]One of your recurring refrains is, “If we're not sure that these other ideas have an impact, let's benchmark: would a cash-transfer model likely give us more bang for our buck than this panoply of other programs that we're trying to run?”The idea of having a benchmark is a great approach in general. You should always be able to beat X. X might be different in different contexts. In a lot of cases, cash is the right benchmark.Go back to education. What's your benchmark for improving learning outcomes for a primary school? Cash transfer is not the right benchmark. The evidence that cash transfers will single-handedly move the needle on learning outcomes is not that strong. On the other hand, a couple of different programs — one called Teaching at the Right Level, another called structured pedagogy — have proven repeatedly to generate very strong impacts at a fairly modest cost. In education, those should be the benchmark. If you want to innovate, great, innovate. But your goal is to beat those. If you can beat them consistently, you become the benchmark. That's a great process for the long run. It's very much part of our thinking about what the future of foreign aid should look like: to be structured around that benchmark.Let's go back to those roundtables you described, where you're trying to figure out what the intervention should be for a group of refugees in a foreign country. What were the responses when you'd say, “Look, if we're all pulling in the same direction, we have to toss out the three worst ideas”?One of the challenges is the psychology of ethics. There's probably a word for this, but one of the objections we would often get was about the scale of a program for an individual. Someone would argue, "But this won't work unless you do this one extra thing." That extra thing might be providing water to the household, along with a cash transfer for income-generating activity, financial support, and bank accounts. Another objection would be that, "You also have to provide consumption and food up to a certain level."These are things that individually might be good, relative to nothing, or maybe even relative to other water approaches or cash transfers. But if you're focused on whether to satisfy the household's food needs, or provide half of what's needed — if all you're thinking about is the trade-off between full and half — you immediately jump to this idea that, "No, we have to go full. That's what's needed to help this household." But if you go to half, you can help more people. There's an actual trade-off: 10,000 people will receive nothing because you're giving more to the people in your program.The same is true for nutritional supplements. Should you provide 2,000 calories a day, or 1,000 calories a day to more people? It's a very difficult conversation on the psychology of ethics. There's this idea that people in a program are sacrosanct, and you must do everything you can for them. But that ignores all the people who are not being reached at all.I would find myself in conversations where that's exactly the way I would try to put it. I would say, "Okay, wait, we have the 2,000,000 people that are eligible for this program in this context. Our program is only going to reach 250,000. That's the reality. Now, let's talk about how many people we're willing to leave untouched and unhelped whatsoever." That was, at least to me, the right way to frame this question. Do you go very intense for fewer people or broader support for more people?Did that help these roundtables reach consensus, or at least have a better sense of what things are trading off against each other?I definitely saw movement for some. I wouldn't say it was uniform, and these are difficult conversations. But there was a lot of appetite for this recognition that, as big as USAID was, it was still small, relative to the problems being approached. There were a lot of people in any given crisis who were being left unhelped. The minute you're able to help people focus more on those big numbers, as daunting as they are, I would see more openness to looking at the evidence to figure out how to do the most good with the resources we have?” We must recognize these inherent trade-offs, whether we like it or not.Back in 2023, you talked to Dylan Matthews at Vox — it's a great interview — about how it's hard to push people to measure cost-effectiveness, when it means adding another step to a big, complicated bureaucratic process of getting aid out the door. You said,"There are also bandwidth issues. There's a lot of competing demands. Some of these demands relate to important issues on gender environment, fairness in the procurement process. These add steps to the process that need to be adhered to. What you end up with is a lot of overworked people. And then you're saying, ‘Here's one more thing to do.'”Looking back, what do you think of those demands on, say, fairness in the procurement process?Given that we're going to be facing a new environment, there probably are some steps in the process that — hopefully, when things are put back in place in some form — someone can be thinking more carefully about. It's easier to put in a cleaner process that avoids some of these hiccups when you start with a blank slate.Having said that, it's also going to be fewer people to dole out less money. There's definitely a challenge that we're going to be facing as a country, to push out money in an effective way with many fewer people for oversight. I don't think it would be accurate to say we achieved this goal yet, but my goal was to make it so that adding cost-effectiveness was actually a negative-cost addition to the process. [We wanted] to do it in a way that successfully recognized that it wasn't a cookie-cutter solution from up top for every country. But [our goal was that] the work to contextualize in a country actually simplified the process for whoever's putting together the procurement docs and deciding what to put in them. I stand by that belief that if it's done well, we can make this a negative-cost process change.I just want to push a little bit. Would you be supportive of a USAID procurement and contracting process that stripped out a bunch of these requirements about gender, environment, or fairness in contracting? Would that make USAID a more effective institution?Some of those types of things did serve an important purpose for some areas and not others. The tricky thing is, how do you set up a process to decide when to do it, when not? There's definitely cases where you would see an environmental review of something that really had absolutely nothing to do with the environment. It was just a cog in the process, but you have to have a process for deciding the process. I don't know enough about the legislation that was put in place on each of these to say, “Was there a better way of deciding when to do them, when not to do them?” That is not something that I was involved in in a direct way. "Let's think about redoing how we introduce gender in our procurement process" was never put on the table.On gender, there's a fair amount of evidence in different contexts that says the way of dealing with a gender inequity is not to just take the same old program and say, "We're now going to do this for women." You need to understand something more about the local context. If all you do is take programs and say, "Add a gender component," you end up with a lot of false attribution, and you don't end up being effective at the very thing that the person [leading the program] cares to do.In that Vox interview, your host says, "USAID relies heavily on a small number of well-connected contractors to deliver most aid, while other groups are often deterred from even applying by the process's complexity." He goes on to say that the use of rigorous evaluation methods like randomized controlled trials is the exception, not the norm.On Statecraft, we talked to Kyle Newkirk, who ran USAID procurement in Afghanistan in the late 2000s, about the small set of well-connected contractors that took most of the contracts in Afghanistan. Often, there was very little oversight from USAID, either because it was hard to get out to those locations in a war-torn environment, or because the system of accountability wasn't built there. Did you talk to people about lessons learned from USAID operating in Afghanistan?No. I mean, only to the following extent: The lesson learned there, as I understand it, wasn't so much about the choice on what intervention to fund, it was procurement: the local politics and engagement with the governments or lack thereof. And dealing with the challenge of doing work in a context like that, where there's more risk of fraud and issues of that nature.Our emphasis was about the design of programs to say, “What are you actually going to try to fund?” Dealing with whether there's fraud in the execution would fall more under the Inspector General and other units. That's not an area that we engaged in when we would do evaluation.This actually gets to a key difference between impact evaluations and accountability. It's one of the areas where we see a lot of loosey-goosey language in the media reporting and Twitter. My office focused on impact evaluation. What changed in the world because of this intervention, that wouldn't otherwise have changed? By “change in the world,” we are making a causal statement. That's setting up things like randomized controlled trials to find out, “What was the impact of this program?” It does provide some accountability, but it really should be done to look forward, in order to know, “Does this help achieve the goals we have in mind?” If so, let's learn that, and replicate it, scale it, do it again.If you're going to deliver books to schools, medicine to health clinics, or cash to people, and you're concerned about fraud, then you need to audit that process and see, “Did the books get to the schools, the medicine to the people, the cash to the people?” You don't need to ask, "Did the medicine solve the disease?" There's been studies already. There's a reason that medicine was being prescribed. Once it's proven to be an effective drug, you don't run randomized trials for decades to learn what you already know. If it's the prescribed drug, you just prescribe the drug, and do accountability exercises to make sure that the drugs are getting into the right hands and there isn't theft or corruption along the way.I think it's a very intuitive thing. There's a confusion that often takes place in social science, in economic or education interventions. They somehow forget that once we know that a certain program generates a certain positive impact, we no longer need to track continuously to find out what happens. Instead, we just need to do accountability to make sure that the program is being delivered as it was designed, tested, and shown to work.There are all these criticisms — from the waste, fraud, and corruption perspective — of USAID working with a couple of big contractors. USAID works largely through these big development organizations like Chemonics. Would USAID dollars be more effective if it worked through a larger base of contractors?I don't think we know. There's probably a few different operating models that can deliver the same basic intervention. We need to focus on, ”What actually are we doing on the ground? What is it that we want the recipients of the program to receive, hear, or do?” and then think backwards from there: "Who's the right implementer for this?" If there's an implementer who is much more expensive for delivering the same product, let's find someone who's more cost-effective.It's helpful to break cost-effective programming into two things: the intervention itself and what benefits it accrues, and the cost for delivering that. Sometimes the improvement is not about the intervention, it's about the delivery model. Maybe that's what you're saying: “These players were too few, too large, and they had a grab on the market, so that they were able to charge too much money to deliver something that others were equally able to do at lower cost." If that's the case, that says, "We should reform our procurement process,” because the reason you would see that happen is they were really good at complying with requirements that came at USAID from Congress. You had an overworked workforce [within USAID] that had to comply with all these requirements. If you had a bid between two groups, one of which repeatedly delivered on the paperwork to get a good performance evaluation, and a new group that doesn't have that track record, who are you going to choose? That's how we ended up where we are.My understanding of the history is that it comes from a push from Republicans in the ‘80s, from [Senator] Jesse Helms, to outsource USAID efforts to contractors. So this is not a left-leaning thing. I wouldn't say it is right-leaning either. It was just a decision made decades ago. You combine that with the bureaucratic requirements of working with USAID, and you end up with a few firms and nonprofits skilled at dealing with it.It's definitely my impression that at various points in American history, different partisans are calling for insourcing or for outsourcing. But definitely, I think you're right that the NGO cluster around USAID does spring up out of a Republican push in the eighties.We talked to John Kamensky recently, who was on Al Gore's predecessor to DOGE in the ‘90s.I listened to this, yeah.I'm glad to hear it! I'm thinking of it because they also pushed to cut the workforce in the mid-90s and outsource federal functions.Earlier, you mentioned a slide that showed what we've learned in the field of development economics over the past 20 years. Will you narrate that slide for me?Let me do two slides for you. The slide that I was picturing was a count of randomized controlled trials in development that shows a fairly exponential growth. The movement started in the mid-to-late 1990s, but really took off in the 2000s. Even just in the past 10 years, it's seen a considerable increase. There's about 4-5,000 randomized controlled trials evaluating various programs of the kind USAID funds.That doesn't tell you the substance of what was learned. Here's an example of substance, which is cash transfers: probably the most studied intervention out there. We have a meta-analysis that counted 115 studies. That's where you start having a preponderance of evidence to be able to say something concrete. There's some variation: you get different results in different places; targeting and ways of doing it vary. A good systematic analysis can help tease out what we can say, not just about the effect of cash, but also how to do it and what to expect, depending on how it's done. Fifteen years ago, when we saw the first few come out, you just had, "Oh, that's interesting. But it's a couple of studies, how do you form policy around that?” With 115, we can say so much more.What else have we learned about development that USAID operators in the year 2000 would not have been able to act upon?Think about the development process in two steps. One is choosing good interventions; the other is implementing them well. The study of implementation is historically underdone. The challenge that we face — this is an area I was hoping USAID could make inroads on — was, studying a new intervention might be of high reward from an academic perspective. But it's a lot less interesting to an academic to do much more granular work to say, "That was an interesting program that created these groups [of aid recipients]; now let's do some further knock-on research to find out whether those groups should be made of four, six, or ten people.” It's going to have a lower reward for the researcher, but it's incredibly important.It's equivalent to the color of the envelope in direct marketing. You might run tests — if this were old-style direct marketing — as to whether the envelope should be blue or red. You might find that blue works better. Great, but that's not interesting to an academic. But if you run 50 of these, on a myriad of topics about how to implement better, you end up with a collection of knowledge that is moving the needle on how to achieve more impact per dollar.That collection is not just important for policy: it also helps us learn more about the development process and the bottlenecks for implementing good programs. As we're seeing more digital platforms and data being used, [refining implementation] is more possible compared to 20 years ago, where most of the research was at the intervention level: does this intervention work? That's an exciting transition. It's also a path to seeing how foreign aid can help in individual contexts, [as we] work with local governments to integrate evidence into their operations and be more efficient with their own resources.There's an argument I've seen a lot recently: we under-invest in governance relative to other foreign aid goals. If we care about economic growth and humanitarian outcomes, we should spend a lot more on supporting local governance. What do you make of that claim?I agree with it actually, but there's a big difference between recognizing the problem and seeing what the tool is to address it. It's one thing to say, “Politics matters, institutions matter.” There's lots of evidence to support that, including the recent Nobel Prize. It's another beast to say, “This particular intervention will improve institutions and governance.”The challenge is, “What do we do about this? What is working to improve this? What is resilient to the political process?” The minute you get into those kinds of questions, it's the other end of the spectrum from a cash transfer. A cash transfer has a kind of universality: Not to say you're going to get the same impact everywhere, but it's a bit easier to think about the design of a program. You have fewer parameters to decide. When you think about efforts to improve governance, you need bespoke thinking in every single place.As you point out, it's something of a meme to say “institutions matter” and to leave it at that, but the devil is in all of those details.In my younger years — I feel old saying that — I used to do a lot of work on financial inclusion, and financial literacy was always my go-to example. On a household level, it's really easy to show a correlation: people who are more financially literate make better financial decisions and have more wealth, etc. It's much harder to say, “How do you move the needle on financial literacy in a way that actually helps people make better decisions, absorb shocks better, build investment better, save better?” It's easy to show that the correlation is there. It's much harder to say this program, here, will actually move the needle. That same exact problem is much more complicated when thinking about governance and institutions.Let's talk about USAID as it stands today. You left USAID when it became clear to you that a lot of the work you were doing was not of interest to the people now running it. How did the agency end up so disconnected from a political base of support? There's still plenty of people who support USAID and would like it to be reinstated, but it was at least vulnerable enough to be tipped over by DOGE in a matter of weeks. How did that happen?I don't know that I would agree with the premise. I'm not sure that public support of foreign aid actually changed, I'd be curious to see that. I think aid has always been misunderstood. There are public opinion polls that show people thought 25% of the US budget was spent on foreign aid. One said, "What, do you think it should be?" People said 10%. The right answer is about 0.6%. You could say fine, people are bad at statistics, but those numbers are pretty dauntingly off. I don't know that that's changed. I heard numbers like that years ago.I think there was a vulnerability to an effort that doesn't create a visible impact to people's lives in America, the way that Social Security, Medicare, and roads do. Foreign aid just doesn't have that luxury. I think it's always been vulnerable. It has always had some bipartisan support, because of the understanding of the bigger picture and the soft power that's gained from it. And the recognition that we are a nation built on the idea of generosity and being good to others. That was always there, but it required Congress to step in and say, "Let's go spend this money on foreign aid." I don't think that changed. What changed was that you ended up with an administration that just did not share those values.There's this issue in foreign aid: Congress picks its priorities, but those priorities are not a ranked list of what Congress cares about. It's the combination of different interests and pressures in Congress that generates the list of things USAID is going to fund.You could say doing it that way is necessary to build buy-in from a bunch of different political interests for the work of foreign aid. On the other hand, maybe the emergent list from that process is not the things that are most important to fund. And clearly, that congressional buy-in wasn't enough to protect USAID from DOGE or from other political pressures.How should people who care about foreign aid reason about building a version of USAID that's more effective and less vulnerable at the same time?Fair question. Look, I have thoughts, but by no means do I think of myself as the most knowledgeable person to say, here's the answer in the way forward. One reality is, even if Congress did object, they didn't have a mechanism in place to actually object. They can control the power of the purse the next round, but we're probably going to be facing a constitutional crisis over the Impoundment Act, to see if the executive branch can impound money that Congress spent. We'll see how this plays out. Aside from taking that to court, all Congress could do was complain.I would like what comes back to have two things done that will help, but they don't make foreign aid immune. One is to be more evidence-based, because then attacks on being ineffective are less strong. But the reality is, some of the attacks on its “effectiveness,” and the examples used, had nothing to do with poorly-chosen interventions. There was a slipperiness of language, calling something that they don't like “fraud” and “waste” because they didn't like its purpose. That is very different than saying, “We actually agreed on the purpose of something, but then you implemented it in such a bad way that there was fraud and waste.” There were really no examples given of that second part. So I don't know that being more evidence-based will actually protect it, given that that wasn't the way it was really genuinely taken down.The second is some boundaries. There is a core set of activities that have bipartisan support. How do we structure a foreign aid that is just focused on that? We need to find a way to put the things that are more controversial — whether it's the left or right that wants it — in a separate bucket. Let the team that wins the election turn that off and on as they wish, without adulterating the core part that has bipartisan support. That's the key question: can we set up a process that partitions those, so that they don't have that vulnerability? [I wrote about this problem earlier this year.]My counter-example is PEPFAR, which had a broad base of bipartisan support. PEPFAR consistently got long-term reauthorizations from Congress, I think precisely because of the dynamic you're talking about: It was a focused, specific intervention that folks all over the political spectrum could get behind and save lives. But in government programs, if something has a big base of support, you have an incentive to stuff your pet partisan issues in there, for the same reason that “must-pass” bills get stuffed with everybody's little thing. [In 2024, before DOGE, PEPFAR's original Republican co-sponsor came out against a long-term reauthorization, on the grounds that the Biden administration was using the program to promote abortion. Congress reauthorized PEPFAR for only one year, and that reauthorization lapsed in 2025.]You want to carve out the things that are truly bipartisan. But does that idea have a timer attached? What if, on a long enough timeline, everything becomes politicized?There are economic theorems about the nature of a repeated game. You can get many different equilibria in the long run. I'd like to think there's a world in which that is the answer. But we have seen an erosion of other things, like the filibuster regarding judges. Each team makes a little move in some direction, and then you change the equilibrium. We always have that risk. The goal is, how can you establish something where that doesn't happen?It might be that what's happened is helpful, in an unintended way, to build equilibrium in the future that keeps things focused on the bipartisan aspect. Whether it's the left or the right that wants to do something that they know the other side will object to, they hold back and say, "Maybe we shouldn't do that. Because when we do, the whole thing gets blown up."Let's imagine you're back at USAID a couple of years from now, with a broader latitude to organize our foreign aid apparatus around impact and effectiveness. What other things might we want to do — beyond measuring programs and keeping trade-offs in mind — if we really wanted to focus on effectiveness? Would we do fewer interventions and do them at larger scale?I think we would do fewer things simpler and bigger, but I also think we need to recognize that even at our biggest, we were tiny compared to the budget of the local government. If we can do more to use our money to help them be more effective with their money, that's the biggest win to go for. That starts looking a lot like things Mark Green was putting in place [as administrator of USAID] under Trump I, under the Journey to Self-Reliance [a reorganization of USAID to help countries address development challenges themselves].Sometimes that's done in the context of, "Let's do that for five or ten years, and then we can stop giving aid to that country." That was the way the Millennium Challenge Corporation talked about their country selection initially. Eventually, they stopped doing that, because they realized that that was never happening. I think that's okay. As much as we might help make some changes, even if we succeed in helping the poorest country in the world use their resources better, they're still going to be poor. We're still going to be rich. There's still maybe going to be the poorest, because if we do that in the 10 poorest countries and they all move up, maybe the 11th becomes the poorest, and then we can work there. I don't think getting off of aid is necessarily the objective.But if that was clearly the right answer, that's a huge win if we've done that by helping to prove the institutions and governance of that country so that it is rolling out better policies, helping its people better, and collecting their own tax revenue. If we can have an eye on that, then that's a huge win for foreign aid in general.How are we supposed to be measuring the impact of soft power? I think that's a term that's not now much in vogue in DC.There's no one answer to how to measure soft power. It's described as the influence that we gain in the world in terms of geopolitics, everything from treaties and the United Nations to access to markets; trade policy, labor policy. The basic idea of soft power manifests itself in all those different ways.It's a more extreme version of the challenge of measuring the impact of cash transfers. You want to measure the impact of a pill that is intended to deal with disease: you measure the disease, and you have a direct measure. You want to measure the impact of cash: you have to measure a lot of different things, because you don't know how people are going to use the cash. Soft power is even further down the spectrum: you don't know exactly how aid is helping build our partnership with a country's people and leaders. How is that going to manifest itself in the future? That becomes that much harder to do.Having said that, there's academic studies that document everything from attitudes about America to votes at the United Nations that follow aid, and things of that nature. But it's not like there's one core set: that's part of what makes it a challenge.I will put my cards on the table here: I have been skeptical of the idea that USAID is a really valuable tool for American soft power, for maintaining American hegemony, etc. It seems much easier to defend USAID by simply saying that it does excellent humanitarian work, and that's valuable. The national security argument for USAID seems harder to substantiate.I think we agree on this. You have such a wide set of things to look at, it's not hard to imagine a bias from a researcher might lead to selection of outcomes, and of the context. It's not a well-defined enough concept to be able to say, "It worked 20% of the time, and it did not in these, and the net average…" Average over what? Even though there's good case studies that show various paths where it has mattered, there's case studies that show it doesn't.I also get nervous about an entire system that's built around [attempts to measure soft power]. It turns foreign aid into too much of a transactional process, instead of a relationship that is built on the Golden Rule, “There's people in this country that we can actually help.” Sure, there's this hope that it'll help further our national interests. But if they're suffering from drought and famine, and we can provide support and save some lives, or we can do longer term developments and save tomorrow's lives, we ought to do that. That is a good thing for our country to do.Yet the conversation does often come back to this question of soft power. The problem with transactional is you get exactly what you contract on: nothing more, nothing less. There's too many unknowns here, when we're dealing with country-level interactions, and engagements between countries. It needs to be about relationships, and that means supporting even if there isn't a contract that itemizes the exact quid pro quo we are getting for something.I want to talk about what you observed in the administration change and the DOGE-ing of USAID. I think plenty of observers looked at this in the beginning and thought, “It's high time that a lot of these institutions were cleaned up and that someone took a hard look at how we spend money there.”There was not really any looking at any of the impact of anything. That was never in the cards. There was a 90-day review that was supposed to be done, but there were no questions asked, there was no data being collected. There was nothing whatsoever being looked at that had anything to do with, “Was this award actually accomplishing what it set out to accomplish?” There was no process in which they made those kinds of evaluations on what's actually working.You can see this very clearly when you think about what their bean counter was at DOGE: the spending that they cut. It's like me saying, "I'm going to do something beneficial for my household by stopping all expenditures on food." But we were getting something for that. Maybe we could have bought more cheaply, switched grocery stores, made a change there that got us the same food for less money. That would be a positive change. But you can't cut all your food expenditures, call that a saving, and then not have anything to eat. That's just bad math, bad economics.But that's exactly what they were doing. Throughout the entire government, that bean counter never once said, “benefits foregone.” It was always just “lowered spending.” Some of that probably did actually have a net loss, maybe it was $100 million spent on something that only created $10 million of benefits to Americans. That's a $90 million gain. But it was recorded as $100 million. And the point is, they never once looked at what benefits were being generated from the spending. What was being asked, within USAID, had nothing to do with what was actually being accomplished by any of the money that was being spent. It was never even asked.How do you think about risky bets in a place like USAID? It would be nice for USAID to take lots of high-risk, high-reward bets, and to be willing to spend money that will be “wasted” in the pursuit of high-impact interventions. But that approach is hard for government programs, politically, because the misses are much more salient than the successes.This is a very real issue. I saw this the very first time I did any sort of briefing with Congress when I was Chief Economist. The question came at me, "Why doesn't USAID show us more failures?" I remember thinking to myself, "Are you willing to promise that when they show the failure, you won't punish them for the failure — that you'll reward them for documenting and learning from the failure and not doing it again?" That's a very difficult nut to crack.There's an important distinction to make. You can have a portfolio of evidence generation, some things work and some don't, that can collectively contribute towards knowledge and scaling of effective programs. USAID actually had something like this called Development Innovation Ventures (DIV), and was in an earmark from Congress. It was so good that they raised money from the effective altruist community to further augment their pot of money. This was strong because a lot of it was not evaluating USAID interventions. It was just funding a portfolio of evidence generation about what works, implemented by other parties. The failures aren't as devastating, because you're showing a failure of some other party: it wasn't USAID money paying for an intervention. That was a strong model for how USAID can take on some risks and do some evidence generation that is immune to the issue you just described.If you're going to do evaluations of USAID money, the issue is very real. My overly simplistic view is that a lot of what USAID does should not be getting a highly rigorous impact evaluation. USAID should be rolling out, simple and at scale, things that have already been shown elsewhere. Let the innovation take place pre-USAID, funded elsewhere, maybe by DIV. Let smaller and more nimble nonprofits be the innovators and the documenters of what works. Then, USAID can adopt the things that are more effective and be more immune to this issue.So yeah, there is a world that is not first-best where USAID does the things that have strong evidence already. When it comes to actual innovation, where we do need to take risks that things won't work, let that be done in a way that may be supported by USAID, but partitioned away.I'm looking at a chart of USAID program funding in Fiscal Year 2022: the three big buckets are humanitarian, health, and governance, all on the order of $10–12 billion. Way down at the bottom, there's $500 million for “economic growth.” What's in that bucket that USAID funds, and should that piece of the pie chart be larger?I do think that should be larger, but it depends on how you define it. I don't say that just because I'm an economist. It goes back to the comment earlier about things that we can do to help improve local governance, and how they're using their resources. The kinds of things that might be funded would be efforts to work with local government to improve their ability to collect taxes. Or to set up efficient regulations for the banking industry, so it can grow and provide access to credit and savings. These are things that can help move the needle on macroeconomic outcomes. With that, you have more resources. That helps health and education, you have these downstream impacts. As you pointed out, the earmark on that was tiny. It did not have quite the same heartstring tug. But the logical link is huge and strong: if you strengthen the local government's financial stability, the benefits very much accrue to the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education, and the Ministry of Social Protection, etc.Fighting your way out of poverty through growth is unambiguously good. You can look at many countries around the world that have grown economically, and through that, reduced poverty. But it's one thing to say that growth will alleviate poverty. It's another to say, "Here's aid money that will trigger growth." If we knew how to do that, we would've done it long ago, in a snap.Last question. Let's say it's a clean slate at USAID in a couple years, and you have wide latitude to do things your way. I want the Dean Karlan vision for the future of USAID.It needs to have, at the high level, a recognition that the Golden Rule is an important principle that guides our thinking on foreign aid and that we want to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Being generous as a people is something that we pride ourselves in, our nation represents us as people, so we shouldn't be in any way shy to use foreign aid to further that aspiration of being a generous nation.The actual way of delivering aid, I would say, three things. Simpler. Let's focus on the evidence of what works, but recognize the boundaries of that evidence and how to contextualize it. There is a strong need to understand what it means to be simpler, and how to identify what that means in specific countries and contexts.The second is about leveraging local government, and working more to recognize that, as big as we may be, we're still going to be tiny relative to local government. If we can do more to improve how local government is using its resources, we've won.The third is about finding common ground. There's a lot. That's one of the reasons why I've started working on a consortium with Republicans and Democrats. The things I care about are generally non-partisan. The goal is to take the aspirations that foreign aid has — about improving health, education, economic outcomes, food security, agricultural productivity, jobs, trade, whatever the case is — and how do we use the evidence that's out there to move the needle as much as we can towards those goals? A lot of topics have common ground. How do we set up a foreign aid system that stays true to the common ground? I'd like to think it's not that hard. That's what I think would be great to see happen. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

In face of the climate emergency, integrating social protection into countries' nationally determined contributions (NDCs) is essential for supporting vulnerable communities, advancing low-carbon transitions, and unlocking climate finance to expand adaptive social protection systems. With many countries set to update these critical climate instruments under the scope of the Paris Agreement, this is a critical moment to explore the topic.  In this episode, we examine how social protection is being woven into national climate policies, with a spotlight on Cambodia's pioneering approach—not only mentioning social protection but recognising it as a distinct sector in its new NDC 3.0. We delve deeper to discuss what it takes to bridge climate action and social protection, from building resilience and inclusive adaptation, to unlocking climate finance and coordinating across ministries.  Meet our guest:   Dr. Matthew Walsham, Social Protection Specialist (Climate), Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO).  Mr. Sophornreaksmey Sreng, Deputy Secretary General, General Secretariat for the National Social Protection Council, Kingdom of Cambodia.  For our Quick Wins segment, we are joined by Sayanti Sengupta, Technical Advisor for Social Protection & Climate at the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre, expanding on concrete steps countries can take to advance the critical agenda of integrating social protection into NDCs.   References:  Publication | Integration social protection in Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)  Publication | Weathering the storm: poverty, climate change and social protection: Report of the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights  Database |  Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) Registry | UNFCCC 

Hollister Incorporated, a global leader in ostomy, continence, wound care and critical care products has announced an €80m R&D investment and a digital transformation project that will create approximately 50 new jobs in Ballina. The multimillion-euro investment aims to elevate Ballina into a global epicentre of expertise through novel device design and extensive site-wide training, setting a benchmark for digital transformation within Hollister's global network. This project is supported by the Irish Government through IDA Ireland. Minister for Social Protection and Minister for Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht Dara Calleary TD said: "This is a terrific day for Ballina and North Mayo with the announcement of 50 additional jobs for the region. Hollister is more than just a manufacturing plant in Ballina; it is one of the mainstays of our community. Today, second and third generations of families are employed there boosting the local economy and contributing to the everyday life of the town. I want to pay credit to Shane Caher and all of the staff in Hollister who have dedicated themselves to Ballina and to the West of Ireland but also to all of the past Hollister management and staff who's work, and commitment is the foundation of the plant's success today. Finally, I would like to acknowledge IDA Ireland for their continued support to Hollister and across Mayo. I very much look forward to what the next 50 years will bring for Hollister and Ballina" Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment, Alan Dillon TD, said: "This €80 million investment by Hollister Inc. is very welcome news. It is a powerful endorsement of Ballina's skilled workforce and Ireland's reputation as a hub for innovation in healthcare manufacturing. To see a long-standing employer, like Hollister, continue to grow and evolve through cutting-edge research and digital transformation is very encouraging. The creation of 50 new high-quality jobs will also bring economic and social benefits to the region. On behalf of the Irish Government, I thank Hollister for its continued commitment to Ballina and the West of Ireland, and I wish the team there the very best for the future and many more years of success here in Co. Mayo." Founded in 1921 in Illinois, the US MedTech manufacturer has been part of the fabric of Ballina since 1976, where it now employs almost 1000 people. Hollister is currently recruiting in the areas of Engineering, Data Science and Business Services. To explore opportunities, visit Career Opportunities | Hollister IE. "We are thrilled to announce this significant milestone for Hollister Incorporated. Our commitment to innovation and excellence continues to drive us forward, and this investment in our research program and digital transformation project is a testament to the hard work and dedication of our entire team," said Shane Caher, Senior Director of Plant Operations and General Manager. "We look forward to the exciting opportunities that lie ahead as we continue to deliver on Our Mission to make life more rewarding and dignified for those who use our products and services." IDA Ireland CEO Michael Lohan said: "Since 1976, Hollister has been creating jobs and investment in Co. Mayo. In the intervening near 50 years, Hollister has again and again committed to and delivered on its ambitions for its Irish operations. Supporting Hollister and companies across IDA Ireland's client portfolio with R&D investment and digital transformation endeavours sits right at the heart of Adapt Intelligently: A Strategy for Sustainable Growth and Innovation 2025-29. I wish to congratulate Hollister and assure them of IDA Ireland's continued support." More about Irish Tech News Irish Tech News are Ireland's No. 1 Online Tech Publication and often Ireland's No.1 Tech Podcast too. You can find hundreds of fantastic previous episodes and subscribe using whatever platform you like via our Anchor.fm page here: https://...

Over 100 family carers in Clare will receive an increased allowance from this week. The Department of Social Protection has announced that the weekly income disregard for Carer's Allowance has been bumped up to €625 for a single person and €1,250 for a couple. Over 5,200 recpients of the allowance will now avail of a higher rate of payment including 107 in Clare. Clare family carer and Chairperson of EDS Ireland, Anne Micks, claims however that carers are being forced to survive on an amount below the living wage.

Over 100 family carers in Clare will receive an increased allowance from this week. The Department of Social Protection has announced that the weekly income disregard for Carer's Allowance has been bumped up to €625 for a single person and €1,250 for a couple. Over 5,200 recipients of the allowance will now avail of a higher rate of payment including 107 in Clare. Clare family carer and Chairperson of EDS Ireland, Anne Micks, claims however that carers are being forced to survive on an amount below the living wage.

As the world prepares for the 4th International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4), the need to rethink how we fund social protection has never been more urgent. Debt burdens, shrinking official development assistance (ODA), and growing global inequalities are squeezing fiscal space, especially for low- and middle-income countries, putting the goal of Universal Social Protection by 2030 increasingly out of reach. In this episode, we explore the bold reforms needed to unlock sustainable financing for social protection and a just transition. In the first part, we discuss how the global financial architecture must evolve to meet the needs of low- and lower-middle income countries—and how innovative tools like special drawing rights (SDRs) could offer solutions. Then, we reflect on what financing for social protection should look like in today's crisis-prone world, unpacking the political choices behind budget constraints, the role of domestic resource mobilization, and how international solidarity can help turn political commitments into meaningful and measurable outcomes. Meet our guests: Hassatou Diop N'Sele, Vice President for Finance and CFO, African Development Bank Group Celine Julia Felix, Social Protection Specialist for Social Protection System Strengthening, UNICEF Lena Simet, Senior Researcher and Advocate, Human Rights Watch For Quick Wins, Jamele Rigolini, Senior Advisor for Social Protection and Labor at the World Bank, joins us to discuss the State of Social Protection Report 2025 and why expanding not just coverage, but adequacy is key in today's uncertain world. Resources: Event | 4th International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4) Publication | African Union Agenda 2063: The Africa We Want Publication | A Call for Action on Financing Social Protection Publication | State of Social Protection Report 2025: The 2-Billion-Person Challenge Publication | World Social Protection Report 2024-26: Universal social protection for climate action and a just transition  

Please join us at patreon.com/tortoiseshack “In 2015, while at home looking after our new baby, my wife received a letter from the Department of Social Protection telling her that she needed to attend a social welfare office to be photographed for a Public Services Card or have her child benefit payment cut off. As she did not want to drag an infant out to a government office she solved this problem the sensible way. She handed me the letter and said "Deal with that."” These are the opening lines of the latest Gist with friend of the shack, digital rights expert, solicitor Simon McGarr and he joins us now to discuss a good day for our rights. Simon has threatened to take away my collection of Spicy Sauces unless I add the link to his always must-read Gist:https://www.thegist.ie/simon/ Liam Cunningham on Displaced in Gaza is out now:https://www.patreon.com/posts/patron-exclusive-131053187 Donate to dignity for Palestine:https://www.patreon.com/posts/dignity-for-129326641

A healthcare & childcare recruitment event will take place in Ennis next week, the 10th of June. The event at the College of FET, Ennis Campus sees Employability Clare partnering with a number of stakeholders (Depart. of Social Protection, Clare Local Development Company, LCETB). To discuss this further, Alan Morrissey was joined by Employment Coach at Employability Clare, Jennifer Coleman, and Guidance Counsellor from LCETB, Michael Donnellan. Photo(C): Clare FM

Health is a human right, as well as a cornerstone of social protection systems. Yet globally, millions remain excluded from essential care, with financial hardship and systemic gaps still standing in the way of universal health coverage. In this episode, numbered as the 50th of the Social Protection Podcast, we take a close look at Zambia's National Health Insurance Scheme as a case study for how countries are working to expand social health protection, and what the social protection and health sectors can learn from each other to achieve the shared goal of universal coverage. Meet our guests:  Herryman Moono, Director of Research, Planning & Strategy at the National Health Insurance Management Authority of Zambia  Lou Tessier, Health Protection Specialist at the International Labour Organization (ILO) For our Quick Wins segment, we speak with Peter Ombasa, Senior Social Protection Specialist and Assistant Director of Children's Services of the Government of Kenya, about the USP2030 Joint Statement: Key messages on Social Protection for the World Social Summit 2025. Resources: Blog post | Social Protection for Health and Wellbeing Publication | Towards Universal Health Coverage: Social Health Protection Principles Publication | World Social Protection Report 2024-26: Universal social protection for climate action and a just transition Publication | Financing gap for universal social protection: Global, regional and national estimates and strategies for creating fiscal space Publication | Universal social security is feasible in low-income countries: a critical review of the ILO's calculations on the cost of bridging the gap Podcast | Think Change episode 70: how can development financing be reformed? The road to Seville

This lecture touches on the changing global focus of development cooperation, the reform processes that have been put in place, and Ireland's perspective on the future of development. The Minister of State speaks about Ireland's role in key events this year, such as the upcoming Financing for Development Conference in Seville, the G20 Development Working Group and COP 30 to be held in Brazil in November, and highlights the Key Priorities for Ireland, focusing on gender and health, climate action, nutrition and education. About the Speaker: Neale Richmond is Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs with special responsibility for International Development and Diaspora. He previously served as Minister of State at the Department of Finance with special responsibility for Financial Services, Credit Unions and Insurance, and as Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment with special responsibility for Business, Employment and Retail, and the Department of Social Protection.

Today, Leave No Trace Ireland launched its annual "Love This Place" campaign, calling on the public to come together to protect Ireland's rich natural landscapes, so we can all enjoy them responsibly as we head into the summer season. Now in its fifth year, the national awareness campaign is supported by partners including the Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht, the Office of Public Works, Coillte, Sport Ireland, Waterways Ireland, Wicklow Co Council, Galway Co Council, Clare Co Council & Cork City Council - all dedicated to promoting responsible outdoor recreation and environmental stewardship. With more people than ever seeking connection with nature - through hiking, swimming, dog-walking and exploring - this year's "Love This Place" campaign reinforces the simple message: "If you love this place, leave no trace." The Need for Protection Ireland's great outdoors has seen a sharp rise in popularity in recent years, with over 98% of residents valuing time spent in nature. However, increased footfall has also brought challenges: trail erosion, littering, dog fouling, wildlife disturbance, and an increase in wildfires - 96% of which are linked to human activity. "Our message is clear," said Maura Kiely, CEO of Leave No Trace Ireland, "We all have a part to play in preserving the places and wildlife we love. This campaign invites everyone enjoying the outdoors this summer, from seasoned hikers to dog owners, to take simple, mindful steps to protect our natural landscapes." Campaign Highlights Throughout the summer, "Love This Place" will roll out: A digital storytelling campaign featuring voices from across Ireland: farmers, walkers, dog owners, and community groups. On-the-ground events and clean-up days coordinated with local authorities and environmental groups. Education initiatives and social media toolkits for influencers, schools, and tourism partners. Taking Action The "Love This Place" 2025 campaign shares three tangible actions for the public to take: Be responsible with your dog - Keep dogs on a lead, especially around farm animals and wildlife, and always clean up after them. Protect Wildlife and wild places - Bring all litter home, don't feed wild animals, and watch wildlife from a safe distance. Stay on the path - Stick to marked trails to avoid damaging habitats or disturbing animals, both seen and unseen. A Shared Responsibility "Our land is not just scenic - it's living," added Kiely. "It feeds us, shelters biodiversity, and connects our communities. Respecting it is not about restriction, but about care and responsibility. We're so grateful to the public and our partners for supporting "Love This Place" - we ask everyone to take action and join the movement because protecting the places we love means we can continue to enjoy them in the future." Speaking about the launch Dara Calleary TD. Minister for Social Protection and Minister for Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht said, "Ireland's natural heritage is one of our greatest assets - environmentally, culturally, and economically. The "Love This Place" campaign reminds us that with this privilege comes responsibility. By embracing the principles of Leave No Trace, we protect our landscapes and support efforts to tackle our declining biodiversity. Even small actions matter, helping us to work in greater harmony and building the resilience of nature across the country. I am proud to support this campaign and encourage everyone to play their part." To learn more or get involved, visit: www.leavenotraceireland.org/love-this-place

Our social safety nets were designed to protect people from “social risks” like illness and unemployment, and to alleviate poverty. But in the era of climate change, do we need to re-boot the social protection system so that it's adaptive and responsive to climate risks? On today's episode we spoke with Dr. Meghan Bailey, the Head of Social Protection and Health at the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre. Meghan leads the portfolios on climate-responsive social protection and the climate-health nexus. They are also an adviser on the design of forecast-based financing systems. Meghan holds a PhD on climate change adaptation from the University of Oxford. Meghan explains the need for climate-responsive social protection systems and the promising practices that are already being implemented around the world today – like providing people cash transfers before disaster strikes to prevent people from falling into poverty.   Pullback is a proud member of the Harbinger Media Network Enjoy our work? Support us on Patreon!

In conflict settings, ensuring that social protection is responsive, durable, and conflict-sensitive is critical, yet often underexplored. In this episode, we delve into the intersections between humanitarian assistance, development cooperation, and peacebuilding – the so-called "Triple Nexus" – and how social protection fits within it. We examine how social protection actors, humanitarian agencies and peacebuilding specialists can work together to strengthen resilience, foster stability, and avoid exacerbating conflict. Our guests explore lessons from contexts like Ethiopia and Ukraine, the complexities of targeting and accountability, and the political dimensions of social protection in fragile and conflict-affected settings. This marks the third and final episode of the "Social Protection in Conflict and Protracted Crisis" series, produced by socialprotection.org, organised by STAAR Facility and BASIC Research and in partnership with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, FCDO, which has funded the series and provided invaluable support in shaping the episodes and connecting us with guests. Meet our guests: Ric Goodman – Director, Social Protection and Resilience, DAI Global UK Rachel Goldwyn – Senior Conflict Sensitivity and Social Safeguards Advisor, WFP Sudan Lukáš Voborský – Team Leader, Technical Assistance Facility of the PeReHID Initiative For our Quick Wins segment, we welcome Hassan-Alattar Satti, independent researcher and consultant, who shares key resources on maintaining social protection in conflict settings, focusing on lessons from Sudan. Resources: Publication | Maintaining and strengthening social assistance systems in conflict settings: Sudan case study Publication | Effective Social Protection in Conflict: Findings from Sudan Blog | Towards a conflict-sensitive role for grassroot organisations in social protection in Sudan

Another delay to the long-awaited Pension Auto-Enrolment scheme – which will create a pension pot for more than 800,000 workers who dont have a retirement plan. Dara Calleary, the minister for Social Protection, has responsibility for auto-enrolment tells us why its been put back again.

Please join us at patreon.com/tortoiseshack Matt McGranaghan joins Martin on this Echo Chamber podcast to discuss ongoing bogus self employment cases they are representing in the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) and the implications for RTE workers and pretty much all of us as taxpayers. Martin and Matt lay bare the corruption, the criminality and the gargantuan cost of decades of bogus self employment in RTE and how the process that is effectively illegal state aid has been allowed by Revenue and the Department of Social Protection. The latest on An Post's battle to misclassify Postmasters is out now here:https://www.patreon.com/posts/patron-exclusive-126277711 Donate to Dignity for Palestine here:https://www.patreon.com/posts/shoutout-to-mr-126186702

It's hoped the recent Shannon jobs fair will act as a catalyst for similar events to be held across the rest of the county. Over 600 jobseekers attended the event hosted by Shannon Chamber, Department of Social Protection and the Local Authority Integration Team, in Westpark Innovation Campus. Over 40 companies were in attendance outlining information on job vacancies and the levels of skills require to fill them. Shannon Chamber CEO, Helen Downes, says there's no reason for the rest of Clare not to follow suit.

Dara Calleary, Minister for Social Protection, and Rural and Community Development and Fianna Fáil TD for Mayo

A Clare TD is calling for a "broad review" of the Hot School Meals Programme amid nutrition, waste and environmental concerns. The Department of Social Protection has announced that the scheme has been extended to 713 primary schools nationwide, with 32 of these in Clare. It's also committed to an expert view of the meals' nutritional value, with foods high in saturated fat, sugar and salt to be removed from menus by September. Meelick Fianna Fáil TD Cathal Crowe has been telling Clare FM's Seán Lyons he believes the review should examine several aspects of the programme in addition to nutrition.

Last week, Minister for Children Norma Foley announced that the wait for monthly €200 childcare costs might be much longer than originally anticipated, as other changes in the system need to be addressed first.It begs the question, is the sector viable?Joining Kieran to discuss the Minister's statement is Karen Clince, CEO & Founder of Tigers Childcare and Mark Wall, Labour Spokesperson on Social Protection, Children, Disability and Equality.

As the world continues to grapple following President Trump's announcement on tariffs, businesses are scrambling to keep customers and investors happy during the chaos. Tom Keogh, CEO of Keogh's Crisps urges that companies' businesses will need to look at other markets, but Government support is needed. Tom joined Pat on the show along with Darragh Calleary, Minister for Rural and Community Development the Gaeltacht and Social Protection.

The need for greater ‘localisation' of humanitarian and social assistance is clear in conflict and protracted crisis settings. The increasing difficulty for international organisations to operate is a key driver of localisation, as is the recognition of the essential role local actors (including government and civil society) play in improving the relevance, legitimacy, sustainability and effectiveness of aid. For social protection programs, the role of government as a local actor may be particularly complex or contested in these settings. This episode will explore the progress and challenges of this shift towards localisation, and how local organisations in Yemen and Southeast Asia have stepped up where international or government systems are weak. Meet our guests: Abeer Al-Absi, Independent Consultant, STAAR Facility and BASIC Research Aung Naing, Research Consultant   For our Quick Wins segment, we welcome Courtenay Cabot Venton, where she talks about the study ‘Passing the Buck: The Economics of Localizing International Assistance' with the Share Trust and the Warande Advisory Centre.   Resources: Humanitarian Activism, Social Protection, and Emergent Citizenship in Myanmar Sustaining Yemeni Capacities for Social Assistance

The Shannon Jobs Fair will take place later this week. The event, a collaboration between Shannon Chamber, the local authority and the Department of Social Protection, will be held at the Westpark Innovation Campus in Shannon. To give us all the details on what will be happening, Alan Morrissey was joined by CEO, Shannon Chamber,Helen Downes. Photo(C): https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1067220015437649&set=a.456235276536129

We dive into the multifaceted life of Asma Elbadawi, a Sudanese British poet, photographer, basketball player, and activist. From her early struggles with dyslexia to lifting the hijab ban on women's basketball, Asma's story is one of perseverance and empowerment. We get an intimate look at her relationship with Sudan and how it influences her art. Asma gives a special poetry performance that encapsulates her experiences and emotions.This special episode of The afikra Podcast was recorded on the Quoz Arts Fest stage at alserkal in Dubai in January, and is the first in five episodes which will be published on this podcast or Quartertones. Make sure to check them out!00:00 Introduction 01:16 Meet Asma Elbadawi02:04 Asma's Multifaceted Journey03:56 Exploring Poetry and Photography05:20 Connection to Sudan08:18 Artistic Expression and Vulnerability13:08 Cultural and Religious Influences15:16 Parental Support and Personal Growth17:20 The Power of Dua and Career Breakthroughs21:11 Closing Remarks and Poetry PerformanceAsma Elbadawi is a Sudanese-British spoken word poet, athlete and photographer. She is known to have petitioned and succeeded in convincing the International Basketball Association (FIBA) to remove a ban on hijabs and religious headwear in the professional sport. She brings unique stories to life through sport, poetry, and visual arts, with a distinctive approach that blends creativity with purpose. Her work is rooted in cultural storytelling, empowering individuals, and creating lasting impact.Connect with Asma

In times of conflict and protracted crises, social protection systems are often strained, yet they remain vital in supporting the most vulnerable populations. In this episode, we examine how gender-responsive social protection can mitigate the impact of crises on women, children, and other marginalised groups. This episode examines the specific vulnerabilities of women and marginalised groups in these settings, the ways social protection programs are adapting to complex and evolving challenges, and key lessons for sustaining and expanding social protection in fragile contexts. We also explore the case of Lebanon, a country facing a multifaceted socio-economic crisis, compounded by political instability, refugee influx, and conflict. This marks the first episode of our new three-part series on "Social Protection in Conflict and Protracted Crisis", produced by socialprotection.org in partnership with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, FCDO, which has funded the series and provided invaluable support in shaping the episodes and connecting us with guests. Meet our guests: Rachel Sabates-Wheeler – Professorial Research Fellow & Director of the Centre for Social Protection at the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) Rima Al-Mokdad – Technical Specialist on Social Protection, Data & Research at UN Women in Lebanon For our Quick Wins segment, we welcome Buumba Chityaba, a Human Rights Governance Specialist, to discuss the key takeaways from the recent Roadmap for the Use of Social Protection to Tackle Child Marriage in Zambia report.

Minister for Gender, Children, and Social Protection, Dr. Agnes Naa Momo Lartey has announced plans to increase the school feeding fee to ensure that the caterers provide quality meals to learners. This move aims to improve the nutritional value of meals served under the Ghana School Feeding Program (GSFP), which has been in operation since 2005

Last month, the Department of Social Protection sought to have staff attend the office for a minimum of two days a week under a change to existing working arrangements. Fórsa trade union is now aiming to stop department ‘solo runs' on hybrid working. We discussed further with Peter Cosgrove Managing Director at Futurewise.

A West Clare business owner and local representative claims the Government has failed to adequately support businesses that have been affected by Storm Éowyn. Homeowners who've suffered financial losses as a result of the recent extreme weather are eligible for the Humanitarian Assistance Scheme which is operated by the Department of Social Protection. The scheme doesn't commercial, agricultural or business losses however, and Doonbeg Fianna Fáil Councillor Rita McInerney is calling for a suite of measures including a rates refund, direct grants, low-interest loans, and temporary tax relief. Councillor McInerney, who's also the proprietor of McInerney's XL in Doonbeg, says local businesses have held communities together in recent weeks and believes the State is giving them little thanks.

Co-organized by the Global Child Nutrition Foundation (GCNF) & IFPRI Undernutrition during childhood and early adolescence has long-term consequences for development and health, and for girls it can affect the survival and wellbeing of their children. Diet-related risk School meal programs are an effective way to boost children's nutrition and wellbeing, including physiological development and academic performance. These programs can also play an important role in food systems transformation by ensuring access to healthy diets, supporting equitable livelihoods, and contributing to environmental sustainability. However, data on large-scale school meal programs have historically been fragmented and inconsistent, despite the global prevalence of these programs and evidence of their positive impact. The Global Survey of School Meal Programs © https://gcnf.org/global-survey/ seeks to address this gap, collecting the most comprehensive data to date on national and large-scale school feeding programs, with information on 167 countries. It provides comprehensive global data on school meal coverage, financing, food baskets, laws and policies, home-grown school feeding, and more, thus serving as a foundation for monitoring global progress over time. The Global Child Nutrition Foundation (GCNF) https://gcnf.org/ and IFPRI invite you to the official launch of the third Global Survey report, School Meal Programs Around the World, 2024 edition, with results from the 2022 school year. The survey is implemented by GCNF, with funding from USDA and The Rockefeller Foundation and expert input from IFPRI and other lead researchers and organizations. The resulting data provide governments and other stakeholders with an up-to-date global database of standardized information on school meal programs to make informed decisions. GCNF and IFPRI will present results from the latest survey, which concluded in August 2024, and a distinguished panel of experts will discuss implications of the survey for policy, research, advocacy, implementation, and business. Highlights of the 2024 survey results are already available in English and six other languages on GCNF's website here https://gcnf.org/global-reports/ . The full report, School Meal Programs Around the World, 2024 edition, and additional resources will be released on the day of the event. Introductory Remarks Purnima Menon, Senior Director, Food and Nutrition Policy; Acting Senior Director, Transformation Strategy, IFPRI Mary Muinde, Chief of Staff to the First Lady of Kenya Fabio Veras Soares, Researcher, International Policy Centre for Inclusive Development, Institute for Applied Economic Research (IPCid/IPEA), Government of Brazil Neo Sediti, Director, National School Nutrition Programme, Government of the Republic of South Africa Dana Thomas, Managing Director, Food is Medicine, The Rockefeller Foundation Overview of Survey Results Arlene Mitchell, Executive Director, Global Child Nutrition Foundation (GCNF) Liliane Bigayimpunzi, Survey Coordinator for Africa, GCNF Ayala Wineman, Research and Survey Specialist, GCNF Panel: Putting the Survey Results into Use- Policy, Research, Advocacy, Implementation and the Business Perspective Marie Tamagnan, Senior Operations Advisor, Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) Mduduzi Mbuya, Director, Knowledge Leadership, Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN) Beatrice Wamey, President, Nascent Solutions Mia Blakstad, Social Protection Specialist, The World Bank Carmen Burbano, Director of School Meals and Social Protection, UN World Food Program (WFP) and Director of the School Meals Coalition Secretariat Closing Remarks Catherine Bertini, former Executive Director, UN World Food Program (WFP) Moderator Aulo Gelli, Senior Research Fellow, IFPRI Links More about this Event: https://www.ifpri.org/event/official-launch-of-the-third-global-survey-of-school-meal-programs/

The Department of Social Protection has told staff that from February, personnel will have to spend a minimum of two days per week in the workplace. Up to now staff in the department had to work a minimum of one day per week in the office. Is it fair to insist people can only work from home 2 to 3 days a week? Andrea hears from callers.

Siobhan Wynne, Regional Director of ESB Networks // Dr. Peter Sloane, single handed GP in Carraroe, Connemara // Dara Calleary, Minister for Social Protection and Rural and Community Development // Ciaran Mullooly, Independent Ireland MEP // Anne Gorby, Principal of Mercy College in Sligo

Dara Calleary, Minister for Social Protection, outlines what Government assistance is available to home-owners and businesses affected by recent storms.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming industries worldwide, and social protection systems are no exception. From improving targeting and service delivery to enabling predictive interventions, AI has the potential to make social protection and humanitarian programs smarter and more responsive. But with these opportunities come significant challenges: data privacy concerns, biases in algorithms, and the risk of reducing human oversight in critical decision-making processes. In this episode, we explore how AI is being integrated into social protection systems globally, aiming to address pressing questions such as: How can AI enhance social protection without compromising fairness and accountability? What safeguards are needed to ensure that data remains secure and ethical principles are upheld? Meet our guest: Thomas Byrnes, Humanitarian & Social Protection Consultant, Founder and Director of MarketImpact For our Quick Wins segment, we are joined by Ralf Radermacher, Head of Programme, Social Protection, at Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, sharing some key takeaways from the ‘AI for Social Protection' workshop, which took place from 19–21 November 2024 in Bangkok, Thailand. Resources: Publication | Harnessing the Transformative Potential of Generative AI for Humanitarian Multi-Purpose Cash Assistance Opportunities, Risks, Barriers, and Recommendations Publication | How AI is Transforming Humanitarian Aid: Insights for Market-Based Professionals Publication | Novissi Togo: Harnessing Artificial Intelligence to Deliver Shock-Responsive Social Protection

In the fourth and last episode of the governance building block we dive into the discussion of social dialogue and social protection for informal workers. But what does social dialogue actually mean? How can in be used as a tool to improve social protection schemes to better include informal workers? What are the aspects we should look at when analysing these spaces and what are the main barriers workers in the informal employment face to access them? To help us understand these questions we invited two guests. First, we are going to talk to Jane Barrett, who will set the stage and introduce us to the main aspects of social dialogue, the power dynamics and how these spaces should work. Jane is the former Organization and Representation programme director at WIEGO. She has extensive experience in collective bargaining, membership recruitment and organizing, trade union membership and leadership education, research and policy advocacy. In the second part of the episode we talk to Aura Sevilla, who will talk about the concrete social dialogue experiences in Southeast Asia. Aura is the Southeast Asia focal point of the Social Protection programme at WIEGO. She has been working in a study report analysing six countries in the region: Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Myanmar, the Philippines, and Thailand. *Our theme music is Focus from AA Aalto (Creative Commons) References Informal workers and dialogue for social protection, Social Protection Responses to COVID-19 #3, by Annie Devenish and Cyrus Afshar https://www.wiego.org/social-protection-responses-covid-19/ Social Dialogue for the Transition from the Informal to the Formal Economy, by Global Deal https://www.wiego.org/research-library-publications/social-dialogue-transition-informal-formal-economy/

Today's episode dives into a fascinating book called Desperately Seeking Shah Rukh: India's Lonely Young Women and the Search for Intimacy and Independence, by Shrayana Bhattacharya, an economist with the World Bank's Social Protection and Labour unit for South Asia. In this groundbreaking work, Shrayana unpacks the economic and social realities of Indian women through the stories of ten individuals from vastly different backgrounds—an upper-caste engineer, a flight attendant, a Muslim garment worker, and a tribal domestic worker, among others. But, you may wonder, where does Shah Rukh Khan fit into all this? And why would an economist care about a Bollywood superstar? For Shrayana, Shah Rukh Khan isn't just a fan obsession, he's a research method. And through it, she discovered that the one unifying thread among these women was their love for the actor. So he became the lens through which she explored their dreams, struggles, and aspirations. For one woman, he symbolises professionalism and for another, he embodies the hope of breaking free from social barriers.The book offers a unique, raw glimpse into the everyday battles Indian women fight for independence, economic liberty, and basic dignity. Shrayana also reveals how the actor represents the spirit of economic liberalisation in India—a figure who carries the promise of opportunity and upward mobility.In this episode, host Snigdha Sharma chats with Shrayana about the phenomenon of Shah Rukh Khan, the shifting role of women in India's economy, the concept of “dal sabzi feminism,” the economics of “chik-chik,” and so much more.Tune in!Daybreak is produced from the newsroom of The Ken, India's first subscriber-only business news platform. Subscribe for more exclusive, deeply-reported, and analytical business stories.

Money left in dormant accounts is to be used to support carers. The Department of Social Protection is to use 1.2 million euros from dormant accounts funding to support carers to access training, education, and employment. The money will be given to 8 national and local projects across the country and should benefit hundreds of family carers. To talk more about this, Alan Morrissey was joined by 2024 Netwatch Clare Family Carer of the Year, Cora Nix. Photo (c): Clare FM

Join us for the 2024 Year in Review episode of the Social Protection Podcast! In this year's special (and final) episode, we delved into pivotal discussions and transformative insights that shaped the evolving landscape of social protection. From the growing recognition of social protection's role in responding to climate change, to exploring gender-responsive approaches, and rethinking program designs in the face of crises, this episode revisits the most influential ideas and critical debates of the year.  Reflecting on conversations with eminent thinkers, we reflect on the progress, challenges, and innovative practices that have defined the field of social protection in 2024. Meet our guest: Dr Keetie Roelen, Senior Research Fellow in Poverty and Social Protection at The Open University. For our Quick Wins segment, we are joined by Patricia Velloso, Knowledge Management Officer at UNICEF, and Marina Brunale, Growth and Engagement Officer at the Global Landscapes Forum, to reflect on the trajectory of the Social Protection Podcast, as well as the year that has passed. Resources: Publcation | World Social Protection Report 2024-26: Universal social protection for climate action and a just transition Publcation | The Untapped Potential of Global Climate Funds for Investing in Social Protection Publication | World Survey on the Role of Women in Development 2024 Publication | Gender-Responsive Age-Sensitive Social Protection: A conceptual framework Publication | IDS Bulletin: Reimagining Social Protection Publication | Thinking afresh: Closing the global funding gap to realise universal social protection Publication | Anti/Postwork Feminist Politics and a Case for Basic Income Event Recording | For a just transition in adaptation: The role of social protection in the Global Goal on Adaptation Event Recording | Safeguarding Human Development: Mobilizing Climate Finance for Social Protection Referenced Episodes: Ep. 4 | Bolsa Familia | Flagship Special Episode Ep. 30 | Impacts of Social Protection Ep. 36 | Gender-Transformative Social Protection Emerging Trends in the Indo-Pacific Series Ep. 03 | The Future of Climate Change and Social Protection Responses Ep. 41 | The Evolution of Universal Basic Income: From Pilots to Policy Bonus ep. | Partnerships for Social Protection: bridging divides, driving change Ep. 43 | World Social Protection Report 2024-26 Ep. 44 | Social Registries and Beyond

In the third episode of the governance building block we move on to the discussion of legal frameworks and social protection. How can legal provisions of participation, access to information, transparency and equality be leveraged to include those workers into social protection systems? What are the main legal frameworks? How does administrative justice work for this end and how it can be used a tool for informal workers in their advocacy efforts? To help us understand these questions we invited Pamhidzai Bamu. Pamhi holds a masters and a PhD in Labour Law from the University of Cape Town. She is currently the President of the African Labour Law Society. She has consulted for the International Labour Organisation and the Southern African Development Community on various projects. She is currently the Africa Coordinator of WIEGO's Law Programme. *** References Social Protection for Self-Employed Informal Workers in Sub-Saharan Africa: A rights-based assessment of the impact of the COVID-19 crisis https://www.wiego.org/publications/social-protection-self-employed-informal-workers-sub-saharan-africa-rights-based R202 - Social Protection Floors Recommendation, 2012 (No. 202) https://normlex.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:3065524 C189 - Domestic Workers Convention, 2011 (No. 189) https://normlex.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C189 African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights https://au.int/en/treaties/african-charter-human-and-peoples-rights *Our theme music is Focus from AA Aalto (Creative Commons)

Social protection features in numerous country policies and development agency strategies, as well as in several Sustainable Development Goals. However, following more than two decades of considerable expansion in policies, programmes, and research, the sector finds itself at a crossroads. In this podcast Rachel Sabates-Wheeler, IDS Research Fellow and one of the editors of the recent IDS Bulletin Reimagining Social Protection is in conversation with social protection experts Charis Reid (International Labour Organization), Jeremy Seekings (University of Cape Town) and Maria Kuss (UNICEF).Drawing on key insights and lessons, they speak on why Social Protection is such an important issue in development, particularly in the Global South. Given that Social protection coverage recently passed 50 percent for the first time, but almost half the world's population, (some 3.8 billion people) still have no access, what needs to be prioritised to ensure that we do not lose momentum on increasing social protection coverage globally? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of "Ready: Leaders to Know," we'll meet Williametta Piso Saydee-Tarr. Piso shares her fascinating journey from her childhood in Liberia, through civil war and her experiences as a refugee to her work as the Deputy National Campaign Manager on Media and Communications for Candidate George Weah in the 2017 Liberian Presidential Election and her appointment as Minister of Gender, Children & Social Protection.

Event IFPRI Policy Seminar Learning Support for a Multi-Country Climate Resilience Programme for Food Security Organized by CGIAR with support from World Food Programme (WFP) and The Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad) November 5, 2024 The Learning Support for a Sub-Saharan Africa Multi-Country Climate Resilience Program for Food Security, launched in 2023, aims to enhance food security and climate resilience across 14 African countries. This collaboration among CGIAR, the World Food Programme, and the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad) has three pillars: scaling disaster risk financing, transforming food systems with sustainable school meals and clean cooking, and supporting smallholder farmers. This work leverages CGIAR's extensive experience in strategic program support, impact evaluations, and knowledge product development, and integrates the CGIAR's Fragility, Conflict, and Migration (FCM) and Seed Equal initiatives. Ongoing efforts include strategic reviews, resilience assessments, and evaluations of WFP's nutritional and crisis resilience interventions. The event aims to disseminate research findings and showcase the partnership's significant contributions to food security and climate resilience. Speakers from CGIAR, WFP, and Norad will present an overview of the program and highlights of research projects and findings, followed by a panel discussion by experts from several African countries. Introduction and Opening Remarks Johan Swinnen, Director General, IFPRI; Managing Director, Systems Transformation, CGIAR Arif Husain, Chief Economist and Director of Analysis, Planning and Performance, United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) Daniel van Gilst, Senior Agriculture Adviser, The Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad) An Overview of the CGIAR-WFP Activities Funded by Norway Daniel Gilligan, Director, Poverty, Gender, and Inclusion (PGI), IFPRI Highlights of Selected Research Projects and Findings Jessica Leight, Senior Research Fellow, IFPRI Alan de Brauw, Senior Research Fellow, IFPRI Peter Läderach, Program Leader, Co-lead CGIAR Climate Security / Principal Climate Scientist, Alliance of Bioversity and CIAT (ABC) Wolde Mekuria, Senior Researcher, International Water Management Institute (IWMI) Panel Discussion Moderated by: Sandra Ruckstuhl, Senior Researcher, International Water Management Institute (IWMI) David Kamau, Programme Officer, World Food Programme (WFP), Kenya Lynett Ochuma, Ministry of Labor and Social Protection, Kenya Christian Grassini, World Food Programme (WFP), Mozambique Serene Philip, Social Protection Specialist, World Food Programme (WFP), Somalia Adeyinka Jacob Timothy, Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping Officer, World Food Programme (WFP), Nigeria Closing Remarks Katrina Kosec, Senior Research Fellow, IFPRI Moderator Mulugeta Bayeh, Web Communications Manager, IFPRI Links: More about this Event: https://www.ifpri.org/event/learning-support-for-a-multi-country-climate-resilience-programme-for-food-security/ Subscribe IFPRI Insights newsletter and event announcements at www.ifpri.org/content/newsletter-subscription

Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), a global leader in IT services, consulting and business solutions, has secured a 15-year contract with Ireland's Department of Social Protection (DSP) to implement and support the country's new Auto Enrolment Retirement Savings Scheme, known as the "My Future Fund." This initiative will provide a comprehensive, end-to-end digital solution for automatic enrolment of nearly 800,000 workers in Ireland. Leveraging its TCS BaNCS platform and ecosystem, TCS will oversee the administration of the scheme, enabling seamless enrolment, record management, and benefit disbursement. Services will be delivered through TCS' Global Delivery Centre in Letterkenny, Co. Donegal, Ireland. This project follows the passing of the Automatic Enrolment Retirement Savings System Bill in Ireland earlier this year and the conclusion of a rigorous tender process by the Department of Social Protection. Heather Humphreys, Minister for Social Protection, said, "I am pleased to welcome TCS on board as the managed service provider for My Future Fund. TCS has a wealth of relevant experience, having provided similar services in other countries. My officials and I will be working hard alongside TCS, the Revenue Commissioners and payroll software developers to make sure that My Future Fund is delivered on time and to the highest standard." TCS has experience with similar schemes in the UK and other markets, having managed the National Employment Savings Trust (NEST) since the UK government launched a digital auto-enrolment scheme in 2011. It created a digital design for NEST, implementing a user-friendly, self-serve model that supports over 13 million workers saving for retirement. Vivekanand Ramgopal, President, BFSI Products & Platforms, TCS, said, "We are privileged to partner with the Department of Social Protection for a nationally significant programme such as the digital Auto Enrolment Pension Scheme. We look forward to partnering with the Department and the new NAERSA organisation to implement the scheme. TCS has expertise and experience in delivering critical transformation projects in the UK and Ireland. We will leverage this experience and our knowledge of the market to make the pension system more accessible, transparent and efficient for workers in Ireland." The "My Future Fund" pension scheme will enable thousands of workers to save and invest for their future. The system will benefit everyone involved, from employers and operational staff to pensioners, by improving pension record management, timely payments, effective scheme finance management, and providing easy digital access to information. Deepak Chaudhari, Country Head of TCS Ireland, said: "This partnership is a fantastic opportunity for TCS Ireland to apply its deep contextual knowledge, innovation and to contribute to a project of national importance that will have a lasting impact. It is an exciting time for our talented team, as this initiative not only expands our capabilities but also job opportunities and skills development to Donegal; further strengthening our commitment to the region and to driving meaningful change in the pensions landscape." Strengthening TCS' nearshore capabilities, the global delivery centre in Letterkenny hosts state-of-the-art facilities and employs around 1,200 associates. It is one of the largest employers in the Northwest of Ireland. TCS set up operations in the UK & Ireland nearly 50 years ago and works with 200 of the region's best-known and most-loved businesses, including Aer Lingus, AIB life, Aviva, Bank of Ireland, ESB, British Airways, Primark, Sainsbury's, Nationwide, M&S, Asda and Boots. With its deep industry expertise and an employee strength of over 23,000 people across the UK and Ireland, TCS holds a leadership position in software and IT services in the UK and Irish markets.

Marc O'Cathasaigh- Green Party TD for Waterford and Party Spokesperson on Social Protection, Darren O'Rourke, Sinn Féin TD for Meath East, Spokesperson on Environment and Climate Action, Louise Burne, Political Correspondent, Irish Mirror and Elaine Loughlin, Political Editor with the Irish Examiner.

Lebanon crisis: UN Human Rights office calls for probe into Israeli strikeHistoric drought in Southern Africa leaves millions facing hunger: WFPTwo billion women without access to social protection, says UN Women

The World Social Protection Report is the ILO's flagship publication, offering an in-depth look at the state of social protection globally. The 2024-26 edition focuses on universal social protection as a key factor for just transitions and climate action. In this episode, we dive into the latest findings, exploring both the progress made and the gaps that remain. Our conversation covers how countries are working towards expanding social protection to address climate adaptation and mitigation. We'll examine Brazil's and Gambia's evolving policy landscape, and their ambitions for building and expanding social protection systems.    Meet our guests:  Christina Behrendt, Head of the Social Policy Unit, ILO Universal Social Protection Department  Momodou K. Dibba, National Coordinator, National Social Protection Secretariat in the Office of the Vice President, the Gambia  Débora Freire, Deputy Secretary for Fiscal Policy, Ministry of Finance, Brazil  For our Quick Wins segment, we are joined by Naila Kabeer, Professor of Gender and Development at the Department of International Development, LSE.    Episode resources:  Publication | World Social Protection Report 2024-26: Universal social protection for climate action and a just transition   Publication | World survey on the role of women in development 2024 - summary of key issues that will be covered in the report 

Clare's TDs have locked horns over whether Budget 2025 will give a helping hand to those in greatest need, or is simply thinly-veiled electioneering. Minister for Finance Jack Chambers has claimed the €8.3 billion package will put the country on a "firm footing for the future", but critics have dismissed it as a giveaway as the clock winds down to Election Day. Dubbed the largest Budget since the Celtic Tiger, this year's Budget contains a raft of measures aimed at appeasing various cohorts across society. Included in its record €2 billion social protection package are double payments for some social welfare recpients in October and a €12 increase in the weekly Social Protection payment. Two energy credits of €250 will go to every households on either side of Christmas while the 9% reduced VAT rate on gas and electricity will be extended to the end of April next year. These measures, according to Minister Chambers, are to "support the most vulnerable and ease the financial burden over the winter months". Other aspects of the package include a double payment of child benefit, an extension of the free schoolbook initiative and a cut to USC. Meelick Fianna Fáil TD Cathal Crowe believes the Budget looks after the young, the elderly and the vulnerable while giving particular assistance to Middle Ireland. Critics of the Government, meanwhile, have pointed out the prevalence in the Budget of one-off payments such as the aforementioned energy credit, as well as the rent tax credit which will rise from €750 to €1,000 for single tenants, and to €2,000 for a jointly-assessed couple. These, it's been suggested, don't get to the root of the cost-of-living crisis and merely act as particular groups on side ahead of an impending election. Other measures that have come under fire include the €7.50 increase on the current rate of carbon tax on petrol and diesel from €56 to €63.50. Kilrush Independent TD Violet Anne-Wynne insists the Budget lacks compassion and claims the Government is "buying votes".

In the dynamic landscape of social protection, partnerships and collaborations serve as vital pillars of strength, innovation, inclusivity, and sustainability. September marks the ninth anniversary of socialprotection.org. This year, we are celebrating partnerships for social protection throughout the month by highlighting the significance of alliances in amplifying social impact and ensuring inclusivity through key partnerships, instruments, and interagency mechanisms such as the Social Protection Inter-Agency Cooperation Board (SPIAC-B), the Global Partnership for Universal Social Protection (USP 2030), the G20, and the socialprotection.org platform itself. In this bonus episode, we invited representatives from the ILO and the World Bank, who co-chair SPIAC-B and USP 2030, to discuss the importance of partnerships in navigating diverse perspectives and policies within global social protection. They speak candidly about the sometimes heated policy differences and debates within the sector and the importance of collaboration in bridging these divides and driving the progressive expansion of social protection worldwide. It's a wide-ranging conversation about how far the sector has come and the significant challenges it will need to grapple with in the future.   Meet our guests: Shahra Razavi, Director of the Universal Social Protection Department, International Labour Organization (ILO) Iffath Sharif, Global Director for Social Protection and Jobs, World Bank Group  Episode Resources: Publication | Social Protection in the Developing World Publication | Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights 2019

In this episode, we delve into the world of social protection with one of its foremost experts, Professor Armando Barrientos, Emeritus Professor of Poverty and Social Justice at the Global Development Institute, University of Manchester. We discuss his groundbreaking new book, Social Protection in Latin America, and explore the argument that social protection systems or institutions are not just safety nets but also mechanisms of stratification. We also talked about what that means, why it matters, and how it shapes the lives of millions across the region. Finally, we also examine the crucial role of politics in shaping social protection and debate whether Latin America should aspire to the European model of a welfare state. From the Latin American innovative approaches to their global influence and the future of social protection, this episode is a must-listen for anyone interested in the intersection of social justice and public policy.   Episode resources: Book | Social Protection in Latin America. Causality, Stratification and Outcomes Task Force | Global Alliance against Poverty and Hunger Publication | The relationship between cash-based interventions and violence: A systematic review and evidence map

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire, Sinn Féin Spokesperson on Social Protection, discusses his party's new policy document outlining its plan for International Protection Applicants.

More new research from the CEPR-PSE Symposium 2024.  It's infuriating when you're expecting a digital payment to arrive, it is lost in the system somewhere, and no one seems to be able to do anything about it. Now imagine how devastating it is if that payment is all that's keeping you and your family out of poverty. Yusuf Neggers is one of a team that have created an app to improve the administration of payments for the Indian government's MGNREGA programme. Photo: MGNREGA/UN Women Asia & Pacific

Just as we thought 'The Real Carrie Jade' series was complete, Irish Police confirm that yesterday, Friday, 12th July 2024 in County Kerry, "Gardaí arrested a woman in her 30s as part of an ongoing investigation into alleged welfare fraud in Tralee. She is currently detained at a Garda station in the Southern Region under Section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1984. Investigations are ongoing.” UPDATE: On Saturday afternoon, July 13th, 2024, Samantha Cookes was remanded in custody after being charged with the alleged theft of €59,094 from the Department of Social Protection with further serious charges to follow. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.