The meaning of "social safety nets''
The meaning of "social safety nets''
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.asieco.2008.09.011
复制
发表时间：
2008-11-01
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
Puopongsakorn, Nipon
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Paitoonpong, Srawooth;Abe, Shigeyuki;Puopongsakorn, Nipon
在东南亚，自金融危机以来，“社会安全网”（SSN）问题更加突出。尽管对社会安全网的兴趣日益增加，但学者以及国家和国际组织对这一术语的使用和含义仍有相当大的混淆。这篇文章考虑了这个词的不同定义-特别是在亚洲金融危机期间使用的-并试图澄清它的含义和正确使用。安全网的比喻来自高空走钢丝的人，他们在摔倒时受到安全网的保护。安全网可以防止任何步行者意外或非意外地摔倒，以免撞到地板而造成灾难性的伤害。按照这样的思路，一些组织和学者将社会安全网（SSN）这一术语用于帮助个人维持最低消费水平的私人和公共机制也就不足为奇了。布雷顿森林机构开始将“社会安全网”（SSN）这一术语用于与贷款计划相关的结构调整计划。发展中国家采用了社会保障网，以减轻结构调整措施对特定低收入群体的社会影响。它们最初是为三个目标制定的：减轻贫困，使调整方案在政治上更容易接受，以及机构改革。在亚洲金融危机期间，社会保障网的内容和识别方法出现了很大的混乱。公共社会保障网可分为正式和非正式的安全网。正式和非正式安全网一般按执法情况来区分：正式安全网是指在法律上保证个人获得经济或社会支助的安全网，而非正式安全网则为个人提供支助的可能性，以确保他们达到或保持在指定的最低生活水平之上，但没有任何法律的保证。私人非正式社会保障号码的例子包括来自家庭成员、朋友、邻居和社区成员以及包括非政府组织在内的机构的转移，而公共非正式社会保障号码的例子是指个人可以通过创造资产或就业的计划从政府获得的支持。、转移收入或提供基本社会服务，作为帮助受影响的个人不低于指定的最低生活标准的一种手段。正式和非正式公共SSN之间的区别在于是否存在正式的法律的支持的assistance.The文章提供了更多的讨论，世界银行，亚太经社会，国际劳工组织和TDRI使用的SSN的定义。总之，作者指出，在使用这个词的巨大变化引起混乱，使它几乎无用的技术概念。这个比喻的本质唤起了一个包含许多不同类型程序的大网络的愿景。在许多情况下，甚至不可能列出所包括的具体方案，因为这些方案的具体形式当然可能因地点、时间和情况而异。使事情更加复杂的是，这个术语有时被用于非常狭义的意义上。鉴于这一术语的使用标准化的可能性很低，经济学家和国家/国际组织完全避免使用这一术语，而使用其组成部分可能会更好。(C)2008年爱思唯尔公司All rights reserved.
In Southeast Asia, the issue of "social safety nets'' (SSNs) has emerged more prominently since the financial crisis. Despite the increased interest in social safety nets, there is still considerable confusion among scholars and national and international organizations regarding the use and meaning of the term. This article considers the different definitions of the term-particularly as it was used during the Asian Financial Crisis-and to attempt to clarify its meaning and proper use.The safety net analogy is drawn from high-wire walkers who are protected by a safety net if they fall. The safety net prevents any walker who falls-unexpectedly or not-from hitting the floor and incurring catastrophic injuries. Following this line of reasoning, it is not surprising to learn that some organizations and scholars use the term SSN such that it encompasses private and public mechanisms that assist individuals in maintaining a minimum level of consumption.The term "social safety net'' (SSN) began to be used by Bretton Woods' institutions in connection with structural adjustment programs related to their lending programs. Developing countries introduced SSNs to mitigate the social impact of structural adjustment measures on specific low-income groups. They were initially formulated to serve three objectives: poverty alleviation, to make adjustment programs more politically acceptable, and institutional reform. During the Asian Financial Crisis, there was a great deal of confusion regarding the content and consequent identification of SSN programs.Public SSN programs can be classified into formal and informal safety nets. Formal and informal safety nets are, generally, distinguished by law enforcement: formal safety nets are those which legally guarantee individuals access to economic or social support whereas informal safety nets provide likelihood of support to individuals to assure them of attaining or remaining above the designated minimum standard of living but with no legal guarantee.Informal SSNs can be divided into private and public ones. Examples of private informal SSNs include transfers from family members, friends, neighbors and community members and institutions, including NGOs, while those of public informal SSNs refer to the support which individuals can hope for from the government, through programs which generate assets or employment, transfer income, or provide basic social services, as a means of helping affected individuals from falling below the designated minimum standard of living. The difference between formal and informal public SSNs is whether there exists a formal legal support of the assistance.The article has provided more discussion on the definitions of SSN used by the World Bank, ESCAP, ILO and TDRI.In conclusion, the authors note that the tremendous variation in the use of the term invites confusion and makes it virtually useless as a technical concept. The very nature of the metaphor invokes a vision of a large net that encompass a number of different types of programs. In many cases it is not even possible to list specific programs that are included, as the particular forms of these programs could, of course, vary with place, time and circumstances. Complicating things further, the term is sometimes used in a very narrow sense. Given the low probability that usage of the term will ever be standardized, economists and national/international organizations might be well served by avoiding the term completely and instead using its component parts. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.