1. Module 4 Institutional Set-up Thursday October 10, 2013

2. Agenda Who will be responsible for what in the implementation of integrated unemployment protection systems? Session 1: Presentation on the need for coordinating social protection and employment policies; Session 2: Presentation on institutional set-up of an unemployment benefit system; Session 3: Practise Session: Mapping existing programmes and institutions providing support to the unemployed; Session 4: The need for and integrating the delivery of unemployment protection services through the single window service; Session 5: One-stop shop experience in Mongolia.

3. Need for Coordination Three reasons for the need of policy coordination while implementing unemployment protection schemes: 1) unemployment protection is part of nationally defined social protection floors and comprehensive social security systems; 2) many policy makers involved in the design and implementation of an integrated system of unemployment and underemployment protection; 3) unemployment protection has clear linkages with economic development strategies.

4. Need for Coordination (continued) At delivery level, a one-stop shop or single window service approach increases synergies between unemployment benefits, employment support services and training opportunities; Linkages are created by sharing some of he administrative functions (e.g. Registration, payment etc) and by integrating the information systems (e.g. Smart card technology, database of beneficiaries).

5. Institutional Set-up Essential: good governance; Convention 102, article 71: countries assume responsibility for sound governance – consultations with and involve employers and workers in the operation of a UI scheme; Sound management: requires effective development and overall monitoring of a new UI/EI programme.

6. Institutional Set-up (continued) Need to select an appropriate ministry with a history of sound management and usually involved with social insurance affairs or ministries of labour; Canada: Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) is the department responsible for developing, managing and delivering social programs and services; Service Canada reports to HRSDC and is mandated to administer EI claims for benefit; Viet Nam: Ministry of Labour, Invalids and Social Affairs (MoLISA) assumes overall responsibility and management of UI system with the Bureau of Employment in charge of processing UI claims for benefit.

7. Institutional Arrangements World Wide Three main functions of contributory or non- contributory schemes: 1)Collection of contributions for UI schemes and taxes for non-contributory schemes; 2)Receiving and processing applications for benefit (including participation in ALMPs); 3)Payment of unemployment benefit and other services (e.g. training and employment support);  One size doesn’t fit all – depends on country how to handle administration.

8. Institutional Arrangements World Wide Collection of Contributions Tax authorities or social insurance bodies (some are involved in payment of benefits (e.g. Viet Nam and Bahrain) Processing applications for benefit Government ministries of social insurance and/or labour will be responsible for receiving and processing of claims (some are also involved in the payment of benefit (e.g. Argentina, Canada, France and the Republic of Korea). MongoliaThree separate entities involved : Social Insurance General Office for collections, Labour and Social Welfare Service Office for processing claims and Ministry of Social Welfare and Labour for payment. DenmarkUI coverage and benefits provided by private funds (fees charged are low); The National Labour Market Authority responsible for UI regulations and The Danish Pensions Agency monitors UI.

9. Establishing UI Fund and Board of Administration UI fund established and funds received from: – Collection of contributions; – Administrative penalties; – Investments; – Government Should be administered by members representing: government, employers, workers, other participating ministries/departments (job matching, training etc), other stakeholders (members of academia and social insurance experts)

10. Who Does What? Institutional mapping or analysis is an important procedure in any feasibility study for a proposed UI/EI scheme or non-contributory scheme; provides strategic and tactical purposes; Provides an inventory of institutions/agencies involved in social assistance; Identifies key players; Assesses potential support or opposition; Highlights the relevant institutions’ roles and inter-institutional linkages.

11. Who Does What? (continued) Identifies any potential risks or negative issues which could adversely impact on the project to implement UI; Identifies institutions/agencies which can be relied upon to provide support for a new UI/EI system; Once the mapping process has been completed, conduct stakeholders meeting to discuss results and ensure information complete for decisions on most effective method of delivering benefits.

12. Who does What? (Continued) Next step: compare the inventory of institutions to the various functions required of administer a UI scheme or non-contributory scheme; process highlights which institutions could be considered to accept responsibility for specific functions of the UI/EI delivery system and AMLPs.

13. Exercise Provide Handout 4-1 and 4-2 to participants and review. Objective: compare inventory of institutions in your case study with the UI functions listed in your handout. There’s only room for three potential institutions but if you wish to add more, that’s fine; Some institutions can perform more than one function and please list all functions for each institution; Handout 4-1 deals with all the functions in the administration of UI claims while 4-2 deals with the UI Fund and the overall leading ministry to provide policy and guidance; List all functions and potential institutions on a flip chart; Choose spokesperson for your group to present your findings.

14. Results of Exercise Spokesperson for each group presents their findings on flip chart; 5 minutes allowed per group to present findings; Questions at end of presentation.