Beyond Design: Examining the Implementation of Gender-Responsive Social Protection in Ethiopia1 2 3

Maria Klara Kuss4 and Sofia af Hällström5

Abstract

Recent years have witnessed increased global attention and investment in inclusive and gender-responsive social protection programming in low- and middle-income countries. While high-level design commitments are important and welcome, in practice, they may not guarantee protection from vulnerabilities and a reduction in gender inequality. Programme implementation presents a critical, yet often underestimated, challenge. This article offers insights into the reality of implementing the gender provisions of Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net Programme. Drawing on qualitative data from rural Ethiopia, it shows that the implementation of the gender provisions has generated implementation gaps and inconsistencies. The findings highlight the need to move beyond commitments on paper and allocate greater resources and attention to the implementation of gender-responsive social protection.

Keywords

Gender-responsive social protection, policy implementation, gender inequality, PSNP, Ethiopia.

1 Introduction

Growing concerns about persistent and rising inequalities have prompted an increase in regional and international commitments to strengthen inclusive and gender-responsive social protection. For instance, ‘gender-responsive social protection’ constitutes a programmatic goal in the UNICEF (2021) Strategic Plan 2022–25. The International Labour Organization’s (ILO) Regional Social Protection Strategy 2021–25 for Africa emphasises ‘non-discrimination, gender equality, and responsiveness to special needs’ (2021: 21), while The UN Women Strategic Plan 2022–2025 underscores the need to strengthen social protection for women and girls (2021: 3).

Although policy and scholarly discussions have focused on promoting and designing inclusive and gender-responsive social protection, less attention has been given to programme implementation (Perera et al. 2022). This is an oversight, particularly given the substantive challenges that may arise when implementing high-level policy decisions that affect gender relations on the ground. Implementation practicalities may not only hinder the achievement of gender-responsive outcomes but can also exacerbate prevailing gender inequalities (Molyneux 2006; Cookson 2018). Problematically, development organisations, governments, and consultants often do not adequately engage with integrating gender into social protection (Kuss 2021).

This article generates insight into the implementation of gender-responsive social protection in order to guide future policy, research, and programming work. It does so by examining the implementation of the gender provisions of Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net Programme (PSNP). The findings reveal implementation gaps and inconsistencies and suggest that merely integrating gender into the design of social protection programmes is not enough. What truly impacts the lives of women and girls is how these programmes are implemented. This requires greater attention and investments into the complex implementation processes.

The article proceeds, in Section 2, with a review of gender-responsive social protection, existing knowledge gaps, and the integration of gender into the programme design of the PSNP. Section 3 briefly sets out the methodology. Sections 4 and 5 present the findings by highlighting the implementation gaps of the PSNP’s gender provisions and then shedding light on some of the potential reasons. Section 6 concludes by offering some reflections and directions for future research.

2 Gender-responsive social protection and the PSNP

The term ‘gender-responsive social protection’ has swiftly become part of the lexicon of policymakers, development partners, and activists, advocating to strengthen social protection to advance gender equality in Ethiopia and beyond. But what does the term mean? What does the evidence say about it? And how is gender integrated into the programme design of Ethiopia’s PSNP?

2.1 What is gender-responsive social protection?

The gender-responsive social protection agenda calls for strengthening national social protection systems from a gender perspective. It ‘indicates that gendered interests, needs, vulnerabilities, and inequalities are acknowledged and that measures are taken to address these’ (Cookson et al. 2023: 3). Despite growing emphasis on gender-responsive social protection in high-level rhetoric, there is ambiguity about what gender-responsive social protection actually means.

It is perhaps useful to distinguish two main ways the term is presently employed. First, some scholars and practitioners refer to gender-responsive social protection in a broad sense (see Holmes and Jones 2013; Perera et al. 2022). For them, it encompasses the overarching agenda and objective of integrating gender into social protection, regardless of the specific level of ambition. Gender-responsive social protection denotes the objective of redesigning social protection to achieve more gender-equitable outcomes. Seen as an umbrella term, ‘gender-responsive’ social protection is occasionally used interchangeably with ‘gender-sensitive’, ‘gender-aware’, and sometimes ‘gender-transformative’ social protection (see Cookson et al. 2023).

Second, the term ‘gender-responsive social protection’ has also been used to signify a specific level of ambition for incorporating gender considerations into social protection. This interpretation, developed by UNICEF (2020), distinguishes gender-responsive social protection from other levels, including gender-discriminatory, gender-neutral/blind, gender-sensitive, and gender-transformative ambitions. Here, gender-responsive social protection emphasises the ambition to recognise and actively address the wider practical needs of men and women within social protection programming and delivery (ibid.; Camilletti, Nesbitt-Ahmed and Subrahmanian 2022; Gavrilovic, Petrics and Kangasniemi 2023).

2.2 What does the evidence say?

The gender-responsive social protection agenda has been backed by a fast-expanding evidence base, primarily comprising impact studies that disaggregate results by sex or assess effects on specific gender indicators. This scholarship consistently demonstrates how social protection programmes and policies can either support or hinder the achievement of gender equality outcomes (Peterman et al. 2019; Perera et al. 2022).

For example, in a systematic review of reviews, Perera et al. (2022)6 highlight the positive impact of thoroughly formulated and implemented social protection programmes on women and girls. These effects span various areas, including improved health, increased workforce participation, higher school enrolment and attendance, greater utilisation of health services, enhanced knowledge of reproductive health and service uptake, improved nutrition and breastfeeding practices, and increased empowerment and autonomy (ibid.). Yet the review also reveals that social protection can result in adverse or unintended outcomes for women and girls. For instance, providing financial incentives for girls’ education may unintentionally reduce boys’ school enrolment, and mothers engaging in labour market programmes may result in decreased school attendance among their adolescent daughters, who take on greater caregiving and household responsibilities (Dickson and Bangpan 2012; Dammert et al. 2018).

Importantly, Perera et al.’s (2022) review underscores that adverse consequences often stem from inadequate programme implementation. However, there has been limited research on how to implement gender-responsive social protection more effectively – albeit with some important contributions, such as Cookson (2018), Chopra (2018), and Kuss (2021).

2.3 How is gender integrated into the PSNP?

The PSNP is Ethiopia’s flagship social protection programme, supporting approximately 8 million people across the country (World Bank 2021: 5). It provides for households facing food insecurity, and consists of multiple components, including direct cash transfers, public works, and a livelihood component. Most PSNP recipients participate in the public works component, which provides cash transfers to poor or food-insecure households in exchange for their participation in labour-intensive public works projects (Alene, Duncan and Van Dijk 2022).

The PSNP is a forerunner in incorporating gender into its programme design. Since its inception in 2005, the PSNP has undergone several phases.7 Each phase added innovations and design modifications, including changes to the level and manner in which gender was integrated. By 2010, the PSNP had adopted gender equity as a cross-cutting principle, and the programme had committed ‘to respond to the unique needs, interests, and capabilities of men and women to ensure that they benefit equally from the programme’ (MoA 2010: 10). In order to achieve this objective, numerous gender design elements, known as gender provisions, have been incorporated into the programme design. These have different forms and scope, such as women’s participation in PSNP committees, joint access to payments, public works activities on the land of female-headed households, and preferential targeting for female-headed and polygamous households.

In terms of the public works component, specific gender objectives were adopted to address ‘the differential access of female-headed households to resources’ while acknowledging ‘the responsibility of women for both productive and reproductive work’ (MoA 2014: 23).8 The design seeks to address this by incorporating work conditions that would allow women to participate in public works while bearing in mind their domestic work responsibilities. The main provisions related to women’s working conditions include reduced work hours at the same pay, lighter tasks, childcare facilities, and maternity leave (also referred to as temporary direct support).

While much research has been conducted on the PSNP, only a few studies explicitly focus on the implementation of its gender provisions (e.g. Lemma et al. 2022; Getachew 2020; Evers et al. 2008). Instead, most studies have explored the general gendered outcomes of the PSNP. This research indicates that the PSNP has enhanced women’s food security, income, and the development of community resources, such as water stations, that have aided women in managing their domestic responsibilities (Jones, Tafere and Woldehanna 2010). However, women’s social status and decision-making authority, both at home and in the community, have largely remained unchanged (Devereux and Sabates-Wheeler 2004; Jones and Holmes 2011). Low implementation capacity has been highlighted as a critical obstacle, hindering the achievement of gender equality outcomes (Cochrane and Tamiru 2016). This further emphasises the importance of this particular study on implementation of the gender provisions of the PSNP.

3 Studying programme implementation

Implementation studies come in a range of styles (see Hill 2005 for an overview). Many inquiries investigate the fidelity and effectiveness of policy implementation. This entails commencing with the formal programme design and conducting a comparative assessment between the design and the actual operational procedures and outcomes. This type of analysis commonly uncovers disparities or variations between the intended design and the real-world implementation – also referred to as ‘implementation gaps’ (de Sardan and Piccoli 2018). Explanatory factors for implementation gaps often include organisational factors (e.g. financial support, specialist technical advice, training, and hardware) or relational qualities of the state (e.g. hierarchical control structures within bureaucracies and downward accountability mechanisms) (Vom Hau 2012; Levy and Kpundeh 2004). Such explanations reveal the state’s capacity (or incapacity) to install adequate institutional structures to translate policy choices into practice (Centeno and Portes 2006; Fukuyama 2004).

Methodologically, implementation studies tend to rely on qualitative data (or a mix of qualitative and quantitative data), analysed thematically. In line with this, this article draws on qualitative data collected as part of a study of the PSNP gender provisions, carried out under the Gender-Responsive and Age-Sensitive Social Protection (GRASSP) research programme (Kuss et al. 2024). It draws primarily on data gathered in the first round of research – which took place in October and November 2021. This included 54 key informant interviews (KIIs) with programme staff (at national, regional, woreda (district), and kebele (ward) levels) and 28 focus group discussions (FGDs) with recipients and non-recipients. The data collection took place in two regions: Oromia and the Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples (SNNP)9 regions, encompassing two woredas in each region and one kebele in each woreda. All KIIs and FGDs were recorded, transcribed, and coded with the qualitative data analysis software NVivo. The primary data was complemented with a review of monitoring data, programme implementation manuals (PIMs), and other programme documentation.

The focus of this article is on the gender provisions of the PSNP’s public works component. More specifically, it examines the gender provisions that aimed to facilitate women’s equitable engagement in public works. As noted previously, the core provisions in this regard included (1) reduced work hours, (2) lighter tasks, (3) childcare facilities, and (4) maternity leave for pregnant and lactating women.

4 The implementation gap

This section focuses on the implementation of selected gender provisions. It demonstrates that the process of translating the gender provisions from the top level of policy planning to the local contexts has generated large implementation gaps and inconsistencies.10

4.1 Reduced work hours

The PSNP mandates that women should benefit from reduced work hours (specifically 50 per cent of men’s work hours), which can either be implemented as late arrival and early departure from public works or as fewer total workdays. According to the PIM, this provision aims to account for women’s additional work burdens and ‘their responsibilities for reproductive labour, such as cooking and caring for children’ (MoA 2014: 137). The provision allows women to work a shorter day than men, while receiving the same payment.

However, the findings suggest that the extent to which this provision is implemented varies. FGDs and KIIs confirmed that while women may benefit from arriving late or leaving early from public works, this rarely reached the designated 50 per cent. Women participating in FGDs reported being able to arrive 30 minutes later or leave early at the discretion of the supervisor, and others reported not benefiting from the provision at all. For example, a female public worker in Oromia explained that ‘all women start working equally with men, work at the same time, retire at the same time, and they go home at the same time’,11 while another female public worker in the same kebele commented that ‘if you ask permission, you are allowed if you are very busy at home, he [the public work supervisor] can understand’.12 Similar experiences were reported in the other kebeles, indicating variation in the implementation of the gender provision both within and between kebeles.

Evidence from the midline of PSNP 4 corroborates these findings (Getachew 2020), showing that on average women worked 3.7 hours daily compared to men who worked 4.1 hours (ibid.: 18). This presents a 10 per cent reduction, not the 50 per cent outlined in the formal programme design.

4.2 Lighter tasks

The PSNP’s design also indicates that women should be offered ‘lighter’ tasks, which are to be defined based on the local context (MoA 2014: 135). Evidence from the research sites indicates distinctions between the tasks women and men are expected to do during their participation in public works. Among the types of public works described as lighter jobs, the tasks most mentioned were removing, ramming, and excavating the soil, planting seeds, and installing fences. Jobs like digging, carrying stones, and chipping wood, on the other hand, were among the ones considered the heaviest.

However, while respondents identified different suitable tasks for men and women, they emphasised that the provision is more commonly implemented considering the time period spent on a given activity, instead of the type of activity undertaken. For instance, in kebeles in Oromia and SNNP regions, local key informants explained that, if men were responsible for digging a ten-metre hole, women would be assigned to dig five metres. This practice stemmed from the occasional unavailability of lighter tasks, as explained by a key informant in Oromia:

If lighter jobs are available, women are assigned to work on such jobs. But if lighter jobs are not available, women will be assigned to do the heavy ones or women will be made to work shorter hours than men. For example: if a man is made to work for four hours, the woman will be required to do only for two hours. That is how it is done.
(Regional Officer 1, October 2021)

4.3 Childcare facilities

The PIM outlines that childcare facilities should be:

provided at each work site or in the village to guarantee that people [read mothers] can adequately engage in public works, but also to ensure that the burden of childcare obligations does not fall on girls or boys of school-going age.
(MoA 2014: 138)

This provision acknowledges and strives to reduce the unpaid childcare work carried out by women and girls in order to enhance their participation in paid work. It also seeks to avoid the transfer of unpaid care work to older children, especially girls.

The findings revealed that permanent childcare facilities are largely absent. The Annual Progress Report for the PSNP 5 indicates that equipment has been procured for only 45 childcare centres as part of a pilot in the Amhara region and has not yet been scaled up (MoA 2022). Discussions with implementers and clients confirmed the absence of childcare facilities in the studied locations.

In lieu of formal childcare facilities, some respondents observed the development of informal arrangements. This was particularly the case in some kebeles in Oromia, where children were placed in nearby tents or under the shade of a tree, while their mothers participated in public works. A key informant explained that ‘regarding temporary child centres, the mothers put their children under the shade and work the public work’.13 In other cases, mothers left their smaller children in the care of older children. Since care is typically gendered, the work often fell to older daughters, thereby reproducing gendered disadvantages from one generation to the next.

4.4 Maternity leave

The PSNP also offers paid maternity leave by exempting pregnant and lactating women from participation in public works. As per the PIM, pregnant women transition to ‘temporary direct support after first ANC [antenatal care] visit (or in the absence of such a visit the fourth month of pregnancy)’ and remain in receipt of temporary direct support (TDS) until one-year post-partum (MoA 2014: 284).

While this provision seems widely implemented and generally well understood by both recipients and implementers, some discrepancies were reported regarding the time women would transition and stop working. Some implementers at the woreda and kebele levels reported instances of pregnant or nursing women participating in public works despite the provision, although this was infrequently mentioned. FGDs with female public workers revealed that many women were not aware about the provision’s start and end dates. Moreover, in some cases, the conditions of paid maternity leave were not clear, and some respondents seemed to believe that they were only continuing to receive the cash transfer if they arranged for a work replacement.

5 Explaining the implementation gap

This section sheds light on the factors that have contributed to the implementation gaps and inconsistencies of the PSNP’s gender provision. It specifically focuses on the operational challenges that were reported by implementers.

5.1 Financing

Limited financial resources constituted a significant obstacle towards the successful implementation of the gender provisions. Programme implementers and stakeholders at the national and regional level highlighted the lack of dedicated funding for the implementation of the gender provisions, including for the training and community sensitisations. For example, a federal-level informant emphasised the need for budget allocation for gender-related activities as follows:

No, there is no earmarked budget allocated to gender-related activities. But had there been such kind of allocated budget, it would be nice. In fact, we have identified this issue as critical to undertake gender and social development activities effectively… In short, to plan and do an effective job, budget is a must.
(Federal Officer 1, October 2021)

Many informants stressed the need for increased financial resources allocated to gender provisions and their implementation structures. They emphasised how specific budgetary requirements influenced the implementation of these provisions. For instance, the costs associated with childcare facilities were frequently cited to explain why they had yet to be implemented. Other reported challenges contributing to the implementation gaps of the gender provisions included funding delays and discrepancies between allocated funds and expected responsibilities.

5.2 Coordination

Interviewed implementers also highlighted the complex delivery structure as a factor contributing to the limited implementation of the gender provisions. Responsibilities regarding the gender provisions were reported to be dispersed among multiple implementing units and agents. Moreover, implementers underscored the lack of clarity in allocated roles and responsibilities, which was perceived to contribute to a lack of accountability regarding the provisions.

Limited coordination among involved stakeholders was seen to compound this issue. Even the programme documents themselves provided limited information regarding who was designated to provide coordination and leadership for implementing the different gender provisions. While they included some statements outlining specific role descriptions, they lacked detail regarding additional responsibilities, as well as broader coordination, monitoring, and reporting arrangements. This perceived lack of clarity was believed to influence the overall effectiveness of implementation, as highlighted by an informant: ‘At any rate the work concerns all of them [stakeholders] and unless the coordination problem is resolved, it will be hard to do effective work’.14

5.3 Implementation capacity

Lack of expertise about the gender provisions among implementing staff was also reported to contribute to the gaps in the implementation. Several implementers noted that they did not have Gender and Social Development (GSD) experts at all locations. GSD experts are officers dedicated to leading the implementation of the gender provisions on the ground. Moreover, they are responsible for wider capacity building and monitoring of the provisions at the woreda level. Several implementers mentioned that without GSD experts, the overall commitment and also extent of implementation is reduced. One regional officer explained the situation as follows: ‘The differences [in the implementation of the gender provisions] is mainly due to the implementers in the respective area... The GSD experts aren’t available everywhere. We have the GSDs in few woredas’.15

Furthermore, a high degree of staff turnover was perceived to further exacerbate institutional knowledge issues. For example, when asked about the challenges to implementation, an informant at the federal level highlighted the following:

In addition to that, the biggest challenge we are facing now is higher staff turnover, particularly staffs specialised in gender issues and well aware of the gender provisions leave their jobs for different reasons. So this is a big problem.16

5.4 Capacity building

Closely linked to the capacity challenges described above are difficulties in providing regular capacity building and training on the gender provisions. While the PSNP has a comprehensive standalone training on gender and the gender provisions – covering their purpose, objectives, and implementation – interviewed implementers highlighted limited frequency of trainings and rollout delays.

Many respondents cited the PSNP 5 training as an example. Although these trainings were intended to cascade from the federal to the local level, at the time of data collection, training on the latest round of gender provisions had not reached all implementation levels. Consequently, implementers directly involved in delivering the gender provisions had not received updated information or guidance. This was noted to result in concrete implementation gaps, particularly for the new and revised gender provisions. An implementer shared: ‘How will we be able to do the newly added provisions? Now our staff are trying their best to implement these provisions without getting training on them. This will definitely reduce the quality’.17

6 Conclusion

The PSNP is an important social protection programme that has made commendable progress assisting millions of food-insecure households across Ethiopia. When it comes to the gender provisions, however, there is still work to be done. The implementation gaps of the gender provisions of Ethiopia’s PSNP suggest that integrating gender into the design of social protection programmes is not sufficient. To truly impact the lives of women and girls, these provisions must be effectively implemented on the ground.

The findings of this study reveal a range of difficulties that can occur during the implementation process and impede the adequate implementation of gender-responsive social protection. Respondents underscored a variety of factors related to wider state capacity for implementation, including a lack of dedicated financial resources, coordination problems, limited implementation capacity, and insufficient capacity building. These findings suggest that in order to strengthen gender-responsive social protection in practice, it is imperative to go beyond policy design and invest more effort and resources into strengthening implementation structures.

More studies are also needed that interrogate the multitude of factors influencing the implementation of gender-responsive social protection. While this includes research into operational factors and state capacity, future research must also explore the perceptions and norms of those on the ground, who may be at odds with the rationales underlying gender-responsive social protection. For example, implementers may disagree that strong young women should only undertake lighter tasks, and mothers may be hesitant to leave their children with strangers in childcare facilities instead of their own families. Although perhaps time-intensive, such studies are indispensable for policymakers and practitioners committed to enhancing gender equality.

References

Alene, G.D.; Duncan, J. and Van Dijk, H. (2022) ‘Development, Governmentality and the Sedentary State: The Productive Safety Net Programme in Ethiopia’s Somali Pastoral Periphery’, Journal of Peasant Studies 49.6: 1158–80

Camilletti, E.; Nesbitt-Ahmed, Z. and Subrahmanian, R. (2022) Promoting Gender-Transformative Change Through Social Protection: An Analytical Approach, Innocenti Research Report, Florence: UNICEF Office of Research Innocenti

Centeno, M.A. and Portes, A. (2006) ‘The Informal Economy in the Shadow of the State’, in P. Fernández-Kelly and J. Shefner (eds), Out of the Shadows: Political Action and the Informal Economy in Latin America, Pennsylvania PA: Penn State University Press

Chopra, D. (2018) ‘Accounting for Success and Failure in Policy Implementation: The Role of Commitment in India’s MGNREGA’, Development Policy Review 37.6: 789–811

Cochrane, L. and Tamiru, Y. (2016) ‘Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net Program: Power, Politics and Practice’, Journal of International Development 28.5: 649–65

Cookson, T.P. (2018) Unjust Conditions: Women’s Work and the Hidden Cost of Cash Transfer, Oakland CA: University of California Press

Cookson, T.P.; Ebner, N.; Amron, Y. and Kukreja, K. (2023) ‘Social Protection Systems and Gender: A Review of the Evidence’, Global Social Policy 24.1: 25–45

Dammert, A.C.; De Hoop, J.; Mvukiyehe, E. and Rosati, F.C. (2018) ‘Effects of Public Policy on Child Labor: Current Knowledge, Gaps, and Implications for Program Design’, World Development 110: 104–23

de Sardan, J.P.O. and Piccoli, E. (2018) Cash Transfers in Context: An Anthropological Perspective, New York NY: Berghahn Books

Devereux, S. and Sabates-Wheeler, R. (2004) Transformative Social Protection, IDS Working Paper 232, Brighton: Institute of Development Studies (accessed 16 May 2024)

Dickson, K. and Bangpan, M. (2012) Providing Access to Economic Assets for Girls and Young Women in Low- and-Lower Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review of the Evidence, London: EPPI Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London

Evers, B.; Wondimu, A.; Garsonnin, J. and Aberra A. (2008) Contextual Gender Analytical Study of the Ethiopia Productive Safety Net Programme, PSNP Gender Study, Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

Fukuyama, F. (2004) ‘The Imperative of State-Building’, Journal of Democracy 15.2: 17–31

Gavrilovic, M.; Petrics, H. and Kangasniemi, M. (2023) Changing Rural Women’s Lives Through Gender Transformative Social Protection – A Paper on Gender Transformative Social Protection Concepts, Evidence and Practice in the Context of Food Security and Nutrition, Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)

Getachew, S. (2020) Ministry of Agriculture Food Security Coordination Directorate – Productive Safety Net Program, Gender Analysis Report, Addis Ababa: Irish Aid

Hill, M.J. (2005) The Public Policy Process, 4th ed., Harlow: Pearson Education

Holmes, R. and Jones, N. (2013) Gender and Social Protection in the Developing World: Beyond Mothers and Safety Nets, London: Zed Books

ILO (2021) Africa Regional Social Protection Strategy, 2021–2025: Towards 40% – A Social Protection Coverage Acceleration Framework to Achieve the SDGs, Geneva: International Labour Organization

Jones, N. and Holmes, R. (2011) ‘Why is Social Protection Gender-Blind? The Politics of Gender and Social Protection’, IDS Bulletin 42.6: 45–52, DOI: 10.1111/j.1759-5436.2011.00272.x (accessed 14 June 2024)

Jones, N.; Tafere, Y. and Woldehanna, T. (2010) Gendered Risks, Poverty and Vulnerability in Ethiopia: To What Extent is the Productive Safety Net Programme (PSNP) Making a Difference?, London: Overseas Development Institute (accessed 20 June 2024)

Kuss, M.K. (2021) ‘The Negotiations of Zambia’s Welfare Regime: The Transformative Potential of Social Cash Transfers’, PhD dissertation, Maastricht Graduate School of Governance, Maastricht University (accessed 20 June 2024)

Kuss, M.K.; Van Drooghenbroeck, M.; af Hällström, S. and Petitjean, N. (2024) The Implementation of the Gender Provisions of Ethiopia’s PSNP: What Works, What Does Not, How and Why?, UNICEF Innocenti Report, Italy: UNICEF Office of Research Innocenti

Lemma, M.D.; Kukem, T.S.; Vercillo, S. and Cochrane, L. (2022) ‘Norms, Equity and Social Protection: A Gender Analysis of the Productive Safety Net Programme in Ethiopia’, Forum for Development Studies 50.1: 159–81

Levy, B. and Kpundeh, S.J. (2004) Building State Capacity in Africa: New Approaches, Emerging Lessons, Washington DC: World Bank

MoA (2022) Productive Safety Net Program Phase Five (PSNP5): Annual Performance Report for EFY 2014 (2021–2022), Addis Ababa: Ministry of Agriculture

MoA (2014) Productive Safety Net Programme (PSNP): Programme Implementation Manual, Addis Ababa: Ministry of Agriculture

MoA (2010) Productive Safety Net Programme (PSNP) Programme Implementation Manual, Addis Ababa: Ministry of Agriculture

Molyneux, M. (2006) ‘Mothers at the Service of the New Poverty Agenda: Progresa/Oportunidades, Mexico’s Conditional Transfer Programme’, Social Policy and Administration 40.4: 425–49

Perera, C. et al. (2022) ‘Impact of Social Protection on Gender Equality in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review of Reviews’, Campbell Systematic Reviews 18: e1240 (accessed 20 June 2024)

Peterman, A.; Kumar, N.; Pereira, A. and Gilligan, D.O. (2019) ‘Toward Gender Equality: A Critical Assessment of Evidence on Social Safety Nets in Africa’, in A.R. Quisumbing, R.S. Meinzen-Dick and J. Njuki (eds), 2019 Annual Trends and Outlook Report: Gender Equality in Rural Africa: From Commitments to Outcomes, Washington DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)

UNICEF (2021) UNICEF Strategic Plan 2022–2025: Renewed Ambition Towards 2030, New York NY: United Nations Children’s Fund

UNICEF (2020) Gender-Responsive Age-Sensitive Social Protection: A Conceptual Framework, Innocenti Working Paper 2020-10, Florence: UNICEF Office of Research Innocenti

UN Women (2021) UN Women Strategic Plan 2022–2025: Building a Gender-Equal World, New York NY: UN Women

Vom Hau, M. (2012) State Capacity and Inclusive Development: New Challenges and Directions, ESID Working Paper 2, Manchester: Effective States and Inclusive Development (accessed 14 June 2024)

World Bank (2021) Project Information Document (PID): Additional Financing for Strengthen Ethiopia’s Adaptive Safety Net Programme, Report PIDA32258, Washington DC: World Bank (accessed 16 May 2024)

Notes

  1. The contributions to this IDS Bulletin emerged from an international conference on ‘Reimagining Social Protection in a Time of Global Uncertainty’, organised by the Centre for Social Protection and hosted by the Institute of Development Studies in September 2023. The conference was generously funded by UK aid from the UK government through the Better Assistance in Crises (BASIC) Research programme, and by aid from the Irish government (Irish Aid). Publication of this IDS Bulletin was funded by the National Research Foundation of South Africa (grant number 98411). Return to note marker 1.
  2. The authors are grateful for enriching thought partnerships with Mathilde H.C. Van Drooghenbroeck, Jessica Daminelli, and Eszter Timar, as well as research and editorial assistance by Noé Petitjean, Vedika Pillai, Zainab Hussain, Lily Breimann, and Kiran Stallone. Additionally, they wish to thank Deepta Chopra, Keetie Roelen, Ramya Subrahmanian, Lorena Fuentes, and Juliana Nyasha Tirivayi for useful comments on earlier draft versions. Return to note marker 2.
  3. This article is part of the Gender-Responsive and Age-Sensitive Social Protection (GRASSP) research programme, led by UNICEF Innocenti – Global Office of Research and Foresight, and funded by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO). This programme seeks to strengthen the gender-responsiveness of social protection systems in low- and middle-income countries through evidence-building. The views expressed are those of the authors. Return to note marker 3.
  4. Maria Klara Kuss, Principal Investigator, UNICEF Innocenti – Global Office of Research and Foresight and Ladysmith Collective, Italy and Affiliated Researcher, UNU-MERIT/Maastricht University, The Netherlands. Return to note marker 4.
  5. Sofia af Hällström, Research Consultant, UNICEF Innocenti – Global Office of Research and Foresight, Italy. Return to note marker 5.
  6. As part of GRASSP, this review incorporates 70 systematic reviews covering 3,289 studies in 121 countries. Return to note marker 6.
  7. PSNP 1 (2005–06), PSNP 2 (2007–10), PSNP 3 (2010–15), PSNP 4 (2015–20), PSNP 5 (2021–25). Return to note marker 7.
  8. Another objective of public works was to increase women’s participation in PSNP decision-making structures at the grass roots. Return to note marker 8.
  9. Since data collection, the SNNP Region has dissolved as new administrative regional states emerged. Return to note marker 9.
  10. Our findings align with data collected in Lemma et al. (2022)’s 2017/18 study. Return to note marker 10.
  11. Female Public Worker 1, October 2021. Return to note marker 11.
  12. Female Public Worker 2, October 2021. Return to note marker 12.
  13. Regional Officer 2, October 2021. Return to note marker 13.
  14. Regional Officer 2, October 2021. Return to note marker 14.
  15. Regional Officer 3, October 2021. Return to note marker 15.
  16. Federal Officer 3, October 2021. Return to note marker 16.
  17. Regional Officer 3, October 2021. Return to note marker 17.

Credits

Copyright © 2024 The Authors. IDS Bulletin © Institute of Development Studies | DOI: 10.19088/1968-2024.127

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC), which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original authors and source are credited, any modifications or adaptations are indicated, and the work is not used for commercial purposes.

The IDS Bulletin is published by Institute of Development Studies, Library Road, Brighton, BN1 9RE, UK. This article is part of IDS Bulletin Vol. 55 No. 2 October 2024 ‘Reimagining Social Protection’; the Introduction is also recommended reading.