TARGETING OF SOCIAL PROGRAMS AT VULNERABLE GROUPS: SUSTAINABLE TRENDS AND POST-WAR PROSPECTS

Abstract

The main problem of Ukrainian social support system for many years was insufficient targeting of social programs at the most vulnerable sections of the population. Significant impoverishment of the country’s population and expansion of the range of vulnerable contingents as a result of the war exacerbates the problem of allocating limited resources to the most needy. Delaying the solution of this problem during the period of hostilities and post-war reconstruction will have a negative, and in some cases, a destructive impact on society, both in the context of observing the principles of social justice and effective support of people in difficult times, and in the context of the risks of slowdown in economic growth. The purpose of the article is to assess the pre-war system of social support in the context of its targeting at vulnerable sections of the population in order to find better ways and opportunities for post-war reform. The novelty of the work consists in the combination of assessments of the scale of diverse vulnerability with assessments of the targeting of active social programs at groups with higher vulnerability and/or larger numbers. Such an assessment will make it possible to determine not only to what extent this or that program reaches the target contingents or the poor, but also to what extent it reaches each vulnerable group. Such a tool would be more effective in determining the shortcomings of existing programs, developing ways to reform them, or making a decision to replace them with new ones. In addition, forecast estimates for 2023 regarding the introduction of the new universal social assistance planned by government officials were made in the work for the first time. Research methods. Along with the generally accepted methods of statistical analysis, the research used the micromodeling method to work with the micro-data of the survey of the living conditions of households in Ukraine and to forecast the parameters of social programs for 2023. To evaluate the indicators of the impact of social programs, a special program module ADePT, developed by the World Bank for unified methodical support of the analysis of the social support system, was used.

REFERENCES

1. Hoogeveen, J., Tesliuc, E., Vakis, R., & Dercon, S. (2004). A Guide to the Analysis of Risk Vulnerability and Vulnerable Groups. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238528462_A_Guide_to_the_Analysis_of_Risk_Vulnerability_and_Vulnerable_Groups
2. Kuran, C. H. A., et al. (2020). Vulnerability and vulnerable groups from an intersectionality International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. Vol. 50. November 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101826
3. Chisty, M. A., Dola, S. E. A., Khan, N. A., & Rahman, M. M. (2021). Intersectionality, vulnerability and resilience: why it is important to review the diversifications within groups at risk to achieve a resilient community. Continuity & Resilience Review.  https://doi.org/10.1108/CRR-03-2021-0007
4. Brigh, C. (2017). Defining child vulnerability: Definitions, frameworks and groups. Technical Paper 2 in Children’s Commissioner project on vulnerable children. https://www.basw.co.uk/system/files/resources/basw_83447-7_0.pdf
5. Lopez-Calva, L. F., & Ortiz-Juarez, E. (2011). A vulnerability approach to the definition of the middle class. Washington. DC: World Bank. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228268922_A_Vulnerability_Approach_to_the_Definition_of_the_Middle_Class https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-5902
6. Demographic factors of poverty (collective monograph) (2009). Kyiv: Institute for Demography and Social Studies of the NAS of Ukraine [in Ukrainian].
7. Makarova, O. V. (2017). Priorities for social vulnerability reduction policy. Demography and Social Economy, 2 (30), 102-111. https://doi.org/10.15407/dse2017.02.102 [in Ukrainian].
8. Semiv, L. K., & Mulska, O. P. (2022). Social vulnerability of the population of Ukraine: conceptual and spatial modeling. Regional Economy, 103 (1), 31-42. https://doi.org/10.36818/1562-0905-2022-1-3 [in Ukrainian].
9. Leaving no one behind. A UNSDG operational guide for UN country teams (2019). https://unsdg.un.org/sites/default/files/Interim-Draft-Operational-Guide-on-LNOB-for-UNCTs.pdf
10. What does it mean to leave no one behind? A UNDP discussion paper and framework for implementation (2018). http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/poverty-reduction/what-does-it-mean-to-leave-no-one-behind-.html
11. Poverty, Inequality, and Vulnerability in the Transition and Developing Economies of Europe and Central Asia (2014). UNDP Regional Bureau for Europe and CIS, UNDP Bureau for Policy and Programme Support. https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/migration/eurasia/8a1ce330aa163f92d15f97c374b1b8a1c441c121d288aa2edefe5b293c8f315d.pdf [in Russian].
12. Neubourg, C., Milliano, M., & Plavgo, I. (2014). Lost (in) Dimensions: Consolidating progress in multidimensional poverty research. UNICEF Office of Research Working Paper. https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/718-lost-in-dimensions-consolidating-progressin-multidimensional-poverty-research.html
13. Libanova, E. M. (2008). Poverty of the population of Ukraine: methodology, methods and practice of analysis: monograph. Kyiv: National Economic University named after Vadym Hetman [in Ukrainian].
14. Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2003). Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. 7th Edition. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://digitallibrary.tsu.ge/book/2021/may/rideri/Rossi-Evaluation-A-systematic-approach.pdf
15. Braithwaite, J., Grootaert, C., & Milanovic, B. (1998). Determinants of Poverty and Targeting of Social Assistance in Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. Washington, C.: World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-1942
16. Neubourg, C., & Castonguay, J. (2005). Ranking orders: performance indicators for social protection systems. International Cooperation in Social Security: How to Cope with Globalisation? https://books.google.com.ua/books?hl=en&lr=&id=wUom4YH4e1sC&oi=fnd&pg=PA93&dq=info:uGyNu7UcKqoJ#v=onepage&q=Castonguay&f=false
17. Neubourg, C., Castonguay, J., & Roelen, K. (2007). Social safety nets and targeted social assistance: lessons from the European experience. Social Protection Discussion Papers and Notes. http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2007/11/20/000020953_20071120120538/Rendered/PDF/415290Safety0nets0SP0071801PUBLIC1.pdf
18. Libanova, E. M., Makarova, O. V., & Cherenko, L. M. (2011). Methodology and practice of assessing the impact of social policy and individual social assistance programs on poverty indicators in Ukraine. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].
19. Cherenko, L. M. (2011). The estimation of the influence of the state social support upon the inequality and poverty. Demography and Social Economy, 2 (16), 118-127. https://doi.org/10.15407/dse2011.02.118 [in Ukrainian].
20. Cherenko, L. M., et al. (2020). Evaluation of the effectiveness of social support programs based on the data of a special survey of the population (collective monograph). Kyiv: Ptoukha Institute for Demography and Social Studies of the NAS of Ukraine [in Ukrainian].
21. Sarioglo, V. G. (2013). Evaluation of State Social Programs’ Results: Relevance, Methodology, Tools. Demography and Social Economy, 1 (19), 57-66. https://doi.org/10.15407/dse2013.01.057 [in Ukrainian].
22. World Social Protection Report 2020-22: Social protection at the crossroads - in pursuit of a better future (2021). ILO Flagship Report. 377 p. https://globalplatform.undrr.org/sites/default/files/2022-02/ILO%20-%20World%20Social%20Protection%20Report%202020-2022.pdf
23. Influential Evaluations: Evaluations that Improved Performance and Impacts of Development Programs (2004). Washington: World Bank. https://www.oecd.org/countries/uganda/36483470.pdf [in Russian].