Social

Protection of
the
Vulnerable in
the Pacific
By
Allison Woodruff, Sunhwa Lee, and Gi Soon Song
Regional Conference on Enhancing Social Protection in
the Asia and Pacific Region, 21-22 April 2010, Manila

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this paper/presentation are the views of the author and do not
necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Asian Development Bank (ADB), or its Board of
Governors, or the governments they represent. ADB does not guarantee the accuracy of the data
included in this paper and accepts no responsibility for any consequence of their use. Terminology
used may not necessarily be consistent with ADB official terms.
 Informal Risk-Coping
Mechanisms in the Pacific
• High exposure to risk
in Pacific Developing
Member Countries
(PDMCs)
• Informal social safety
nets have evolved over
time to cope with these
risks
• Traditional community
decision-making
structures strong in the
Pacific
 Informal Risk-Coping
Mechanisms in the Pacific
• Traditional coping
mechanisms have been
coming under strain with the
spread of the cash economy
and rural-urban migration
• Less well suited to cope with
widespread shocks and
multiple shocks
• Remittances have been an
effective informal safety net
but not during the recent GEC
Which Groups in the Pacific are
Vulnerable?
• Term ‘hardship’ used
to describe poverty in
PDMCs
• Poor quality of data
and statistics
• Weak capacity to
identify and target
vulnerable groups
Which Groups in the Pacific are
Vulnerable?
• Rural children
• Rural and working-class
women
• Out-of-school and
unemployed youth
• Urban squatters
• Low paid formal and
informal sector workers
• People living with
disabilities
• Widows and single-parent
headed households
 Formal Social Protection in
 
the Pacific
Overall Coverage Indicator • Limited formal social
Papua New Guinea
Pakistan
protection available in most
Tonga
Vanuatu
Fiji Islands
PDMCs (except Cook
Bhutan
Tuvalu
Islands)
Cambodia
Nepal
Lao PDR
• Benefits that do exist are
Maldives
Bangladesh poorly targeted and
Marshall Islands
Nauru
Philippines
inadequate to meet basic
India
ASIA needs
PRC
Malaysia
Tajikistan • Basic services e.g. health
Armenia
Indonesia
Viet Nam
and education provided free
Uzbekistan
Sri Lanka of charge but access limited
Kazahkstan
Azerbaijan
Kyrgyzstan
and quality poor outside of
Cook Islands
Mongolia urban areas
Korea
Japan

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Community-Based Approaches
to Social Protection
• Involvement of
community and NGOs
in delivery of basic
services in Pacific is
widespread
• Community-based
social protection build
on strong informal
networks and can help
to overcome limited
government capacity
Community-Based Approaches
to Social Protection
• Advantages:
– Better information to
identify and monitor
– Lower administration and
set-up costs
• Disadvantages
– Marginalized groups may
be excluded
– Possible political capture
or rent-seeking
– Community and
government capacity
issues
 ADB Approach to Social
Protection in the Pacific
• Implementation of Pacific Approach 2010-2014
• Country-led social protection policy development
and implementation:
– Strengthened understanding of vulnerability and how best to
address needs of vulnerable
– Piloting of ‘semi-formal’ safety nets
– Social protection policy development support
• Initially hoped to pilot this approach in 5 countries in
2010 including: Cook Islands, Marshall Islands,
Samoa, Solomon Islands, and Tonga
 Thank you
For more information, please
contact:
Sunhwa Lee, Senior Social Development Specialist, Pacific
Department, ADB sunhwalee@adb.org
Allison Woodruff, Young Professional (Economics), Pacific
Department, ADB awoodruff@adb.org
Gi Soon Song, Governance Specialist, Pacific Department,
ADB, gssong@adb.org