Social assistance and social welfare in Brazil: Social assistance and social welfare in Brazil: Social assistance and social welfare in Brazil: Social assistance and social welfare in Brazil: challenges and perspectives challenges and perspectives challenges and perspectives challenges and perspectives

ProfaProfaProfaProfa. Renata Bichir. Renata Bichir. Renata Bichir. Renata BichirProfaProfaProfaProfa. Renata Bichir. Renata Bichir. Renata Bichir. Renata BichirEACH/USP EACH/USP EACH/USP EACH/USP

Centro de Centro de Centro de Centro de EstudosEstudosEstudosEstudos da da da da MetrópoleMetrópoleMetrópoleMetrópole (CEM)(CEM)(CEM)(CEM)(renatabichir@gmail.com)

Rethinking State Capacities, Public Policies and the Brazilian CrisisRethinking State Capacities, Public Policies and the Brazilian CrisisRethinking State Capacities, Public Policies and the Brazilian CrisisRethinking State Capacities, Public Policies and the Brazilian CrisisPolitics and Social Policies under the State Crisis.Politics and Social Policies under the State Crisis.Politics and Social Policies under the State Crisis.Politics and Social Policies under the State Crisis.

Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, DecemberDecemberDecemberDecember 2016201620162016

“(...) the emergence of social assistance has not

been a linear progression: it has been as much a

political process as an epistemic one, leading to two

separate components, one focused on ‘vulnerable

groups’ and the other on persistent poverty.”

(Barrientos, 2013, p. 893)

• Moving beyond Bolsa Família: in order to understand the

recent trends in non-contributory social protection, a larger

perspective is necessary

• Social assistance as a social policy: building a national

system (SUAS)

• Complex relations between cash transfer programs and

social assistance: differences between the federal level

(macro policy decisions and regulations) and the municipal

level (implementation)

• New political context: challenges for Bolsa Família and SUAS

• Federalism, decentralization and social policies (Rodden,

2005; Almeida, 2005; Gomes, 2009; Arretche, 2012)

• Implementation (Arretche, 2001; Menicucci, 2006; Faria,

2012)

• Policy decision-making and policy making; public

responsability (provision, regulation and funding –

Kersternetsky, 2012)

• State capacities (Skocpol, Evans, Mann)

• Governance patterns (Marques, 2013;Lascoumes & Le

Galès)

• State capacity: “the overall capacity of a state to realize

transformative goals across multiple spheres” (Skocpol,

1985, p.17); infrastructural power (Mann, 1986)

• Not only planning and formulation, but also

implementation implementation

• Variation across policy areas (Skocpol & Finegold, 1982)

• Different agendas, different constrains: building state

capacities for redistribution is a great challenge

(Edigheji, 2010)

• MainMainMainMain dimensionsdimensionsdimensionsdimensions::::

• Administrative dimensionsAdministrative dimensionsAdministrative dimensionsAdministrative dimensions: bureaucracies, resources

• Political dimensionsPolitical dimensionsPolitical dimensionsPolitical dimensions: support coalitions, social pacts

(Pires e Gomide, 2014)

• Relational dimensionsRelational dimensionsRelational dimensionsRelational dimensions: interactions between state • Relational dimensionsRelational dimensionsRelational dimensionsRelational dimensions: interactions between state

and non-state actors (governance patterns in social

policies); relations between policy areas

• Decision-making arenas: more or less insulated; patterns of

intergovernmental relations

• Human and finance resources at federal, state and municipal

levels

• General norms and rules: national system of social policies

• Mechanisms for inducing local implementation• Mechanisms for inducing local implementation

• Instruments of public policies (tools and technologies)

• Modes of implementation and service delivery (public units,

territorial capillarity)

• Evaluating and monitoring strategies

• Unequal access to social rights, associated with formal position in the

labor market - ‘regulated citizenship’ or ‘Stateship’ (Carvalho, 2008;

Santos, 1979); social rights granted by the state + family, church and

community as important sources of welfare

• Since 1988’s Federal Constitution: expansion of social rights

(education, health, social assistance, social pensions, social housing)

based on citizenship (and not in the labor market position) and

increasing role of the state + private and civil society actors

• Decentralization in the 1990s: some level of neoliberal reforms +

state role not only in the regulation, but also in service provision

• From 1990s onward: institutional participatory arenas in the social

policies (policy councils, conferences, participatory budgeting)

• National systems of social policies – health (SUS), social assistance

(Unified System of Social Assistance – SUAS); participatory

institutions; co-funding (Federal government/States/municipalities);

national parameters and municipal implementation

• Unequal development of state capacities: federal level X local level;

great heterogeneity among municipalities – territorial inequalities

• Decreasing levels of poverty and inequality (2003 onwards) – labor

market, minimum wage, social programs (Bolsa Família)

30,6 30,3

22,522,9 22,6

21,5

22,8 23,1 23,0 23,2

21,1

19,9

31,131,6 31,3

23,323,7 23,4

22,3

23,6 23,9 23,8 24,0

21,9

20,7

20,0

25,0

30,0

35,0

13,0 12,9

8,28,9

8,47,7 8,0

8,67,9 7,8

6,76,1

5,04,5

3,9 3,7 3,52,7 2,9

2,3

13,5

2,5

14,0 13,9

9,09,7

9,28,5 8,8

9,48,7 8,6

7,56,9

5,6 5,34,5 4,3

3,93,1 3,3

2,7

19,9

16,0

14,7

13,0

11,9

10,0

7,8 7,66,8

7,0

16,6

15,5

13,6

12,5

10,4

8,2 8,07,2

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

YearYearYearYear PoorPoorPoorPoorFamiliesFamiliesFamiliesFamilies

%%%% Poor Poor Poor Poor FamiliesFamiliesFamiliesFamilies

Extremely Extremely Extremely Extremely PoorPoorPoorPoorFamiliesFamiliesFamiliesFamilies

% Extremely % Extremely % Extremely % Extremely Poor Poor Poor Poor FamiliesFamiliesFamiliesFamilies

1996 10.916.988 28,16 4.586.086 11,83

2004 13.433.494 26,38 4.937.374 9,692004 13.433.494 26,38 4.937.374 9,69

2008 9.706.286 17,16 5,9

2012 7.535.059 12,29 2.847.021 4,64

2014 6.450.482 9,97 2.277.971 3,52

Brazil’s population: 200 million people in 2013

Source: IpeaData

• Historically provided by philanthropic organizations, in a charity

model; recognized as a social policy only by the 1988 Constitution

• Based on services for vulnerable families (violence, drug addiction,

age-related, disabilities) and on benefits (social pension for extremely

poor and deficient people – BPC – and Bolsa Família): different

concepts, different agendasconcepts, different agendas

• Since 2003 (Lula’s government): increasing levels of social expending,

expansion of the public units, national parameters for service delivery,

expansion and qualification of human resources

• But still great dependence on private provision of social assistance

(with regional variation)

• Federal level: responsible for the general decision-making process of

national social policies; regulation and coordination; co-funding

(federal negotiation in social assistance and centralized patterns in the

case of Bolsa Família)

• Municipal level: implementation of Bolsa Família and other national

social assistance policies (registration – CadÚnico – and service

delivery) + municipal social assistance policies – some leverage for

decision making

• Municipalities: expansion of social assistance units (CRAS) in

vulnerable territories; spatial and local political dynamics

� Federal Constitution of 1988.� LOAS – Social Assistace Organic Law – 1993.� PNAS – Social Assistance National Policy – 2004. � “Lei do SUAS” – Law on the Social AssistanceUnified System – 2011.Emulation of the health system:� Emulation of the health system:

� Basic units of social assistance (prevention ofvulnerabilities and risks): Social AssistanceReference Centers (CRAS)

� Higher complexity (drug adiction, violence, etc): Specialized Centers of Social Assistance (CREAS)

• Definition of normative parameters X legacy of fragmentation

and discretion

• More resources and federative co-funding (FNAS)

• Federative decision-making process (CIT; CNAS)

• National expansion of the public units of social assistance at

basic level (CRAS) and more complex level (CREAS)

• Human resources: expansion and qualification (CapacitaSUAS)

• Monitoring and evaluation, information systems (SAGI; Censo

SUAS)

• Largest conditional cash transfer, reaching 14 million families

(target at poor people; below R$ 154 per capita – approx. US$40,5

per month)

• Health and education conditions

• Centralized decision-making process + municipal implementation

Loose regulation (normative acts and not laws)Loose regulation (normative acts and not laws)

• Coordination mechanisms (Cadastro Único; IGD)

• Territorial capillarity through the social assistance units

• Regular evaluation (SAGI and external evaluation)

• Good indicators of coverage and targeting

• Lula’s agenda: expansion of services and benefits; instruments

of public police, normative acts

• Dilma’s agenda: integration of different social policies and

programs target at the extreme poor – Brazil Without Extreme

Poverty Plan (Plano Brasil Sem Miséria) – 2011Poverty Plan (Plano Brasil Sem Miséria) – 2011

• Temer’s agenda: increased Bolsa Família benefits value; fiscal

adjustment (PEC 241/55); moving from welfare to workfare;

focusing on inclusion errors and not on exclusion ones; social

assistance policies coordinated outside this policy community

(“Criança Feliz”); liberal vision of social protection