Providing Income Security and Active Labour Market Policies for informal economy workers Learning from existing experiences Experts Meeting on social security and Social Protection Floor, 13 December 2011, Jakarta Celine Felix ILO Social Protection Consultant

Agenda 1.A major challenge: vulnerable employment 2.Defining our target 3.Guiding questions 4.Key lessons learnt from international experiences 5.Take away messages

A major common challenge: vulnerable employment Fact 1: Vulnerable employment accounts for a high proportion of total employment in our region Ex: 3/5 of all workers in Indonesia are classified as own account or contributing family workers

A major common challenge: vulnerable employment Fact 2: Most jobs created are low quality jobs Ex: In Thailand, decrease of the level of formal wage earners while the number of own-account and contributing family workers increased by 4.5%.

Target: The vulnerable workers Street vendors, Domestic workers, Agriculture workers in seasonal employment … Evolve in an economy which has low entry and exit costs Vulnerable, underemployed and working poor rather than unemployed  continuous variable “workers cannot afford to be jobless” Low income (no minimum wage, irregular income) Low skills and low productivity No protection in case of loss of income because of “contingencies” (sickness, work injury…)  Limited risk taking Lack of decent working conditions

Ensure income support to support those in active age groups who cannot earn sufficient income - Key guiding questions - 1.What factors influence (positively or negatively) successful operation of program? 1.How to adjust design and implementation of programs? (coverage, eligibility, benefit amount, M&E, incentives)

Countries’ schemes covered by the study Assessment of national schemes: Legal /effective coverage Effectiveness of the scheme = Income protection it provides + impact on labour outcomes (graduation and resilience building) Efficiency of the scheme Redistribution effect Contribution to the SPF Continuum of programs: Social assistance programs, Unemployment Assistance, Public Work Programs and Employment Guaranteed Programs (risk mitigation), Unemployment Insurance, Employment insurance, ALMPs, minimum wage (risk prevention)

Objective: Review performance and Assess impact for individuals and the society/economy Consumption smoothing, graduation and resilience building for individuals / Reduce income inequalities and increase efficiency for the society Efficiency effects Job search Impact on labor market Restructuring and mobility on the market Income protection effects Coverage Adequacy of coverage Effect on income distribution

Some Lessons learnt Relying on self-insurance is not the only option (Chile, Jordan, Iran with the UI savings accounts and solidarity/ borrowing funds) Make sure that work always pays (France with the Revenu de Solidarite Active) Get inspiration from informal mechanism to build your scheme and use as a step towards formalization (Senegal with the Mutuelle Transvie) Think outside of the box and link transfers (Argentina with the Asignacion Universal por hijo para proteccion social)

Take away messages Message 1: Experiences are not shared for copy/paste purposes Message 2: Important to look at schemes targeting IE workers but need to also consider transfers targeted at other members of the household (ex: CCT in Brazil, child grant in South Africa)  Need for integration Message 3: It is not an « either/or » option Working in parallel on UI allows to reduce the number of people joining informal economy Message 4: Once we have the vision & political will, experimentation can help! 1- to test operational issues (ex: IT system) 2- To show policy target  Need involvement of the « Triangle »