Moving away from isolation?

A qualitative study of welfare and social cohesion in Sri Lanka

Presentation prepared for the workshop on

‘Measuring the social, economic and political effects of social protection’, Bonn, 15-17 April 2015

Catherine Agg

Measuring the social and political effects of

social protection

• The material, socio-economic benefits of both targeted and universal social protection initiatives have been widely studied

• However, these approaches are often quantitative and focus on poverty, health and education indicators

• There is a need for more qualitative research on the social and political effects of social policies

Qualitative approaches • Qualitative research interested in dynamics,

relationships, experience, perceptions • Assumes subjective perspective on social world • Participants and researchers as actors, creators • Takes an interpretivist position, which prioritises

subjective values and beliefs of the research participant

• Epistemologically, not searching for objective ‘truth’ (opposed to positivist scientific research methods)

Limits to qualitative analysis

• Critics argue limited use in evidence-based policy approaches

• Does not provide the scientific rigour required to isolate cause and effect

• Aims for internal validity and reliability • Does not purport to be generalizable • Therefore still shy of attribution

Mixed method research

• Attempts to bridge the ‘epistemological divide’ • Argues that understanding of social dynamics

limited by bias towards measuring outcomes that are easily quantifiable

• Policy research needs to take account of subjective and complex

• “by coupling the power of the general with the insight of the particular, such research illuminates people’s lives and the larger contexts in which they are embedded” (McLafferty )

Sri Lanka case study

• Sri Lanka research part of a mixed method study in which the qualitative component makes up larger part (unusually)

• Looks at the extent to which young Sri Lankans associate social protection policies with social justice in the context of social citizenship

• Aims to explore the lessons that may be learnt regarding the role of social protection in contributing to social cohesion in the country

Relevant here because

• Attempts to move beyond common, input-output measures of material outcomes to look at more amorphous impacts in the social and political realm

• Takes a qualitative approach, placing voices of young people, and their relationship with the state, at its centre

• Aims to avoid isolation by looking at the impact of social protection within the framework of the wider welfare system

Sri Lanka’s social citizenship paradox

On one hand: • Widely regarded as a successful example of a welfare state in developing

world – Universal free education, including university – Universal healthcare, free at point of delivery – Poverty-targeted social assistance

• Strong social indicators (education, health, gender equality) relative to per capita income (UNDP Human Development Index)

On the other hand: • The last 25 years have seen serious inter-communal violence and the

contestation of citizenship along ethnic lines • Led to prolonged civil conflict between two main ethnic groups: Sinhalese

majority and Tamil minority, in which the Muslim minority was also caught up

• Young adults perceived as playing a central role in the breakdown in social cohesion in the country

Methods

• 30 semi-structured in depth interviews with young adults aged 19-29 yrs

• A balanced proportion of respondents by ethnicity, age, gender, education and income from different parts of the country

Carried out in four locations: • Colombo (urban, most mixed ethnically and socially) • Kandy region (rural, majority Indian Tamil) • Galle (urban, majority Sinhalese community but also

an important Muslim minority) • Jaffna region (rural, majority Sri Lankan Tamil,

conflict-affected)

To what extent do young people associate social protection with social justice?

• Around half the respondents generally supportive of the principle of social assistance

• However, support was qualified based on the groups considered deserving of support

• These included the old and the disabled, but not the young and able-bodied.

“Let’s say that there are people who can’t do anything - like the old, deaf, blind or the deformed… Maybe for them this is a good thing” (M, 21, student, Sinhalese, Colombo).

Social assistance and social injustice

“I have found out, that poor people doesn’t get much help from the government. But there are families they are not poor but they get help from the government” (M, 23, student, Sinhalese, Colombo) “Sometimes people who have money get it, at times people who don’t have anything doesn’t get anything at all. It is not divided properly amongst the people” (M, 21, student, Sinhalese, Colombo)

Social assistance and stigma

The poor are often considered alien in these discussions of social protection • Expressions and vocabulary used are particularly

strong: • welfare ‘damages’ the poor, it makes them ‘lazy’; the

poor are unmotivated by the need to ‘develop’ themselves; welfare recipients are ‘peculiar’ and would prefer to ‘starve’ than lose benefits.

“I think they should stop providing welfares like Samurdhi because most people who are getting it, around our houses where I live, they are not working!!!” (F, 21, student, Sinhalese, Colombo)

Social assistance and identity

• Social protection is also linked to perceptions of ethnic discrimination by those from minority groups

“Most of the welfare goes to Sinhalese people not to Tamil people” (F, 29, cook, Indian Tamil, Kandy) “Social welfare is available for Sinhala poor people and it is given to the (Samurdhi) officer’s relatives. Only 5% Tamil people get the help ” (M, 28, plantation worker, Indian Tamil, Kandy)

Isolation? • If social protection is taken in ‘isolation’ , findings

suggests young Sri Lankans have low levels of support for welfare

• And low levels of social solidarity, concern for poor

• In addition, social protection appears associated with perceptions of ethnic discrimination and exclusion from state services

• In other words, research indicates low levels of social citizenship and trust in government amongst young Sri Lankans

A wider perspective • However, if levels of social citizenship are

measured through a wider, social policy lens … • Young Sri Lankans express strong support for

government provision of free health and education

• Support for universal social policies couched in language of social solidarity

• They are opposed to greater private or NGO involvement in social service delivery

• … Young people express relatively high levels of social citizenship and trust in government

Support free universal health provision

• Health provision is perceived by the majority of respondents as an essential social right that should be made equally available to all

• Service valued and appreciated “if it is privatized we won’t be able to get any health service and have to die without medication” (Male, 28, plantation worker, Indian Tamil, Kandy).

Support for free education provision

• free education is not only “a great help to everyone” (F, housewife, 25, Muslim, Colombo)

• it means “everyone can benefit from it” (F, 29, housewife, Sri Lankan Tamil, Colombo)

“getting things without fees is much nicer because everyone can get the health service if there isn’t a fee. If there was a fee some people might get and some people might not get” (F, 20, college student, Muslim, Galle)

Universal services and expressions of social solidarity

“there are so many poor people in Sri Lanka. So this free service is very important for them” (M, 23, data entry clerk, Sinhalese, Kandy) “It is better to have free … people live in such poverty. (Those who) cannot afford even food won’t be able to pay for medicine” (M, 22, sales rep, Sinhalese, Kandy)

State v alternative providers

• Only two respondents in favour of more pluralistic approach, justified on the grounds of improved quality

• NGOs in particular criticised for lack of long-term accountability

“Better government gives help. Government is here and won’t move. NGOs help but come and go, (help) stops when they leave the country”

(F, 23, garment factory worker, SL Tamil, Jaffna)

“I have to say the government service is the better. If any problem occurred there will have somebody to tell, but other organizations, they can hide and escape if any problem arise. So government service is better”

(F, 26, machine operator, Muslim, Galle)

• This suggests that support for welfare and perceptions of the level of welfare that is socially just varies between social service

• May be linked to young people’s experience of the institutional system of provision

• Universal services more likely to be associated with expressions of social solidarity than targeted ones

• This is line with growing evidence about the unintended negative effects of targeted social protection on social cohesion, which suggests that:

- Targeted welfare appears to be associated with greater stigmatisation of the poor - Targeted welfare is also associated with the question of identity, which may accentuate perceptions of ethnic difference

Benefits of more holistic approach • Larger study suggests that many factors come into play

in understanding impact of social protection on perceptions of social cohesion

• Wider political picture in Sri Lanka is relevant, its history of social democracy and support for universal approaches

• Possible that targeted welfare out of line with embedded understandings of social justice

• Also possible that the introduction of targeted social protection is associated with welfare retrenchment in context of structural adjustment

• Lack of national autonomy undermines social citizenship in developing country context?

Conclusions

• Highlights the complexity of attempting to measure social and political impact of social protection

• Sri Lanka good example of why important to embrace complexity, and take wider political and institutional context into account when assessing social impact of social protection policies.

• Success of policy might depend on extent to which it fits with existing understandings of social justice

• But also why a focus on isolation may miss the intersection between social protection and other welfare policies

• Importance of seeing social protection as part of a wider welfare system