This blog was originally published by Development Pathways and written by David Hillson.

The webinarWhy are human rights considerations fundamental to social protection responses to COVID-19? took place on July 14, 2020, and was organised by Development Pathways, in cooperation with UNICEF South Asia and the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). This was the twenty-second event of the “Social protection responses to COVID-19” webinar series organised by 

The debate centred on how the COVID-19 global crisis has acutely exposed the need to refocus on human rights within social protection and make responses to the pandemic more focused on a human rights-based approach. This, the panellists suggested, is the result of human rights taking a “backseat” in recent years in the development discourse, with more emphasis being placed on economic means such as “growth”, “fiscal stimulus packages” and debt relief, amongst others. This has been compounded by the political economies of governments who have favoured social protection programmes and schemes based on a lack of investment, poor targeting, high exclusion errors and, the resulting, widespread stigmatisation of benefit claimants, the panellists also argued. 

The discussion was moderated by Shea McClanahan, Senior Social Protection Specialist at Development Pathways, with contributions and arguments put forward by Abdul Alim, Social Policy Advisor at UNICEF South Asia, Alexandra Barrantes, Senior Social Protection Specialist at Development Pathways, and Simone Cecchini, Senior Social Affairs Officer at ECLAC. 

More broadly, the conversation focused on the potential to use the COVID-19 crisis to reshape and design the current social protection paradigm. Abdul Alim suggested that the pandemic has not only been an “economic crisis, but a crisis of economics” as he provided data and research pertaining to the emerging impact of COVID-19 in South Asian states. He also outlined the role that an improved social contract—between the state and the citizen—could have in creating better investments and more social cohesion regarding social protection.  



Alexandra Barrantes argued that in a time of greater uncertainty and vulnerability for many there is a need to “take the global pandemic as a time to rethink and reframe social protection responses”. She suggested governments should “avoid fragmenting service delivery programmes” and “focus on inclusive lifecycle social protection systems” that centre on the process, and not just outcomes. 

She highlighted five key considerations human rights bring to the social protection response to COVID: human rights provide principles and standards that can be applied to social protection; given the current context of a global pandemic, the inclusivity of social protection systems becomes key (versus poverty targeted approaches); since individuals of all ages are rightsholders and vulnerable to shocks and risks of different types (including pandemics), governments need to ensure that people are covered throughout their lifecycle; due to the inclusive nature of universal lifecycle schemes, and the fact that they usually have larger coverage among a certain population, they are also a more shock-responsive and effective response to widespread shocks and risks; and rights-based approach allows us to look at the entire policy process instead of just the desired outcomes of social protection public policies.


Simone Cecchini suggested that whilst COVID-19 could ultimately result in the worst economic recession in living memory, it has already exposed structural problems, especially within social protection and health care systems, increased poverty and made millions of more people vulnerable. He argued, however, through analysis of Latin American countries, that the introduction of more expansive social protection programmes would allow countries to strengthen their welfare states and reverse these trends.  



Overall, the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the reality that whilst everyone is vulnerable to life’s “shocks” and “risks”; those on lower incomes and/or with existing health issues are even more vulnerable. This has been exacerbated by the gaps and exclusion that exists in many social protection systems around the world. The panellists concluded that it is now crucial therefore to use this opportunity to redesign social protection programmes in order to be more universal, with lifecycle inclusive systems.

Post–COVID-19, this would not only support broader human rights and development agendas but also demonstrate that lessons have been learnt. The narrative could move away from the regressive, “poor vs non-poor” dichotomy—of targeting and exclusion—towards more progressive systems—based on universalism and entitlements—that better protect everyone against vulnerability across the lifecycle for any potential, future socio-economic crises.


The webinar concluded with an interesting Q&A session, accessible here. You can also join the Q&A discussion here.



This blog post is part of the Social protection responses to COVID-19 webinar series. The series is a joint effort initiated by the IPC-IG, GIZ on behalf of the German Federal Ministry of Economic Development and Cooperation (BMZ), and the Australia Government's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) collaboration with the platform, and in cooperation with partners from different organisations.

Join our online community ''Social protection responses to COVID-10 [Task force]" to learn more about the initiative and future webinars.

Social Protection Programmes: 
  • Social assistance
    • Subsidies
      • Service subsidies
        • Health benefits / reduced medical fee
Social Protection Approaches: 
  • Political economy
  • Social protection systems
  • Universal Social Protection
Cross-Cutting Areas: 
  • Human rights
  • Poverty reduction
  • Humanitarian assistance
  • Global
  • Latin America & Caribbean
  • South Asia
The views presented here are the author's and not's