“This pandemic is arriving in Latin America and the Caribbean amid high inequality, vulnerability, and social weakening.”
(Transcription of Karina Batthyány's Column)
in InfoCLACSO – 28 (April 2021)
The issue of social protection in Latin America during these times of COVID-19 had remained pending, stemming from a question you asked in the last column, and of course, in light of reports that have come out in recent weeks on the subject.
Let's address this issue, then, by first establishing—as we've mentioned in other columns—that the COVID-19 pandemic is having profound effects on health and on issues related to economic growth and social development in our region. The pandemic arrived in Latin America and the Caribbean precisely within a context of low growth, as we've said, high inequality, and vulnerability, where increasing trends in poverty (and extreme poverty) were already being observed, trends that have, of course, worsened during the year and a half of the pandemic. Furthermore, there has been a weakening of social welfare. And let's remember that, even before the pandemic, there were significant demonstrations of popular discontent, which have continued, albeit with less intensity, over the past year and a half as a result of lockdown and anti-crowding measures.
Latin America and the Caribbean, as we know, is the region that has registered the greatest reduction in working hours worldwide during this period. To give you an idea: this reduction is approximately 20%. That means 55 million full-time jobs have disappeared in our region, according to a 2020 report by the ILO (International Labour Organization). Furthermore, in 2019, 77% of the region's population, some 470 million people, belonged to low-income or lower-middle-income brackets. This means they experience a degree of economic insecurity, with per capita incomes up to three times the poverty line. Therefore, they lacked the savings to cope with a crisis like the one we are currently experiencing.
These social and economic impacts once again highlight the matrix of social inequality in our region. We have addressed this topic in other columns, but let us recall that the structuring dimensions of this matrix of social inequality are precisely belonging to different socioeconomic strata or social classes, gender, stage of the life cycle, ethnic and racial background, and territorial location. To these we can add other dimensions such as immigration status, homelessness, disability, and so on.
What is happening? These inequalities obviously accumulate, reinforce each other, and interact, causing disparities in the exercise of human rights in Latin America and the Caribbean. So what has happened to social protection measures—short, medium, and long term—to address the effects of this pandemic that caught us in this situation? First, it must be said that this social protection must incorporate the concept of well-being for the entire population (for everyone), and especially for those groups that suffer from this accumulation of inequalities or experience different forms of exclusion and discrimination, and therefore suffer the impacts of this crisis more acutely.
Our Latin American and Caribbean countries have responded differently from a social protection standpoint. According to data available from ECLAC (Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean) and the ILO (International Labour Organization), approximately 400 social protection measures had been announced by August-September 2020 in response to the pandemic crisis in Latin American and Caribbean countries. Most of these measures involved new programs or, more accurately, new benefits (more than half, 56%, were indeed new benefits), followed by adjustments to existing social protection programs or benefits (24%), and then adjustments to social spending (approximately 11%). As mentioned, almost half of these measures consisted of new benefits or new forms of assistance, primarily related to food, nutrition, health, and, in some cases, employment protection measures. These types of measures have also been complemented, in some cases, by the suspension of payments for what we call basic or essential services such as water, electricity, and internet connectivity – let us remember the importance of this point, for example, during times of teleworking and tele-education – as well as the increase in the amount of monetary transfers that already existed but which increased their amount.
So, we have new cash transfers, which are the most common practice in the region (23 Latin American and Caribbean countries have implemented them), increases in the amount of existing transfers (11 countries have implemented them), advances in some cases to the delivery of existing transfers (they were brought forward), and increased population coverage of these transfers. In other words, transfers that already existed but with an increased number of recipients. If we measure this in numbers, this is where we again find significant inequality or disparity among our Latin American and Caribbean countries, since the coverage of these packages (let's call them social protection programs) varies widely across our countries, from 0.7% to over 10% of GDP, depending on the country. For example, at the extremes, we find the Dominican Republic and Uruguay—my country—with 0.7% of GDP allocated to social protection in the context of the pandemic. And at the other extreme, we find El Salvador with 11% of GDP. Chile with 6%; Peru, Brazil, and Paraguay, all around 4%; Argentina also with almost 4%. On average, if we look at the entire region, Latin America and the Caribbean allocated 3.2% of its Gross Domestic Product to support the population in this situation.
It's also important to mention (because the scale matters in all of this) that these extraordinary measures I mentioned, or measures that expanded benefits, also have significant inequalities in terms of the specific amount provided, ranging from $40 to $345 in different Latin American countries for households and individuals. And I'll leave this for last—perhaps we can analyze it in another column—but we're also observing a very recent trend in some of our Latin American countries regarding the need to demand something in return from the population for these types of measures. What do I mean by that? I'll use the example of Uruguay again, where there's talk of asking people for "something in return"—let's put it simply—for these benefits the government is providing. And I ask myself: Did the President of Uruguay consider the reciprocal obligations for women (and men, but we know the majority are women) who are at home trying to work remotely or are unemployed, but caring for young children who aren't attending school or early childhood education because in-person classes are closed due to the pandemic? When discussing this reciprocal obligation, how would it be possible for a woman with two children—let's say—at home without school, without education, and obviously in a vulnerable socioeconomic situation, to have anything but time to fulfill those obligations? Let's pay attention to that too, because it's a discussion that's starting to emerge in all our countries as a result of this supposed increase in aid or social protection benefits.
What makes your column today so valuable is that you present a regional overview of what's happening in different places, trying to understand… But I'm left with the feeling that all this isn't generating fundamental changes; it seems like just patchwork solutions to try and get through the situation. Even if, in these cases, they don't really become a support for the same capitalist logic…
-Indeed, in none of our countries was there a discussion from a structural point of view. That is, what are the structural elements that we need to modify to avoid reaching this situation, not because of the pandemic, but because of the pre-existing inequalities I mentioned at the beginning of the column, which increased and were exacerbated by the pandemic, but which already existed. That is the fundamental structural discussion that once again leads us to the discussion of what models of well-being and development we want for our countries. This discussion is clearly absent from the reflection, and that is why I also made my comment at the end: precisely because there is no change in the logic of the approach, it can lead to absurd situations where a woman, in exchange for receiving a benefit, is required to perform some kind of community service, some kind of "repayment," for the help she is receiving when she is in an unsustainable situation with her children, at home, without schools, without early childhood education, and without any other kind of support. Clearly, the structural discussion is not present in these situations.
If you would like to receive more information about CLACSO's training programs:
[widget id=”custom_html-57″]
to our email lists.
