Introduction

Social protection refers to policies and programmes designed to reduce and prevent poverty, vulnerability, and social exclusion throughout the life cycle of the beneficiaries.^[1] Since the last century, such programmes have expanded globally and emerged as key instruments to address inequality and poverty. Social protection acts as a redistributive mechanism, enabling the transfer of resources, such as cash, goods, and services, to the poor and the vulnerable, and provides protection against contingencies including sickness, maternity, unemployment, disability, and old age. Effective and widespread social protection measures have increasingly become key markers of state capacity and responsive governance.

Social protection is integral to promoting development resilience and inclusive growth.^[2] It serves as a driver and an enabler to achieve the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly no poverty (SDG 1), zero hunger (SDG 2), good health and well-being (SDG 3), quality education (SDG 4), gender equality (SDG 5), decent work and economic growth (SDG 8), and reduced inequalities (SDG 10).^[3] Research indicates that countries with stronger social protection have lower levels of poverty and vulnerability and are more resilient to social and economic change or shocks.^[4] According to the International Labour Organization (ILO)’s World Social Protection Report 2024–26, more than half of the global population is covered by some form of social protection.^[5] Social protection played an important role during the COVID-19 pandemic—between March 2020 and May 2021, 222 countries and territories rolled out 3,333 social protection measures to safeguard incomes and livelihoods.^[6] In the aftermath of the social and economic disruption caused by the pandemic, social protection provisions expanded across countries, underlining the need to invest in robust systems to mitigate future shocks.

Amid rising insecurity and inequality—driven by the intersecting effects of climate change, economic uncertainty, and conflict, as well as contested globalisation and declining development assistance—the need to integrate social protection into broader national strategies for development and inclusive growth has intensified.

Figure 1: Share of Population Covered by At Least One Social Protection Benefit (2025) (%)

Source: SDG Labour Market Indicators (ILOSDG), ILOSTAT.^[7]

 Social protection systems have developed along markedly different trajectories in the Global North and the Global South. In the Global North, their expansion was catalysed by the aftermath of the Second World War, whereas in the Global South, their evolution was shaped by postcolonial legacies and domestic political economy imperatives. Across much of the Global South, these systems continue to exhibit structural weaknesses—notably, their limited capacity to cover large segments of the population, such as those employed in the informal economy. These constraints reflect long-standing challenges like weak implementation, uneven levels of benefits, disparities in quality of services, clientelism, and corruption.^[8] In the last two decades, however, social protection systems have expanded in low- and middle-income countries and their coverage has more than doubled, driven by economic growth and increased fiscal capacity as well as political incentives, democratic pressures, and welfare state aspirations (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Expansion of Social Protection between 2010–22

Source: World Bank Group.^[9]

This paper analyses the social protection systems in three countries—India, Brazil, and South Africa—to study how such systems evolved under conditions of demographic pressure, informality, limited fiscal space, and institutional diversity. These countries represent distinct pathways for expansion of social protection, shaped by their political economies, labour markets, and welfare models. They have adopted innovative policy approaches, ranging from rights-based social protection in Brazil to grants-based redistributive models in South Africa and large-scale but fragmented approaches in India. All three have pioneered the use of cash transfers for income support and poverty alleviation. Even though they have not achieved universal coverage, their social protection systems are among the largest and most advanced in the Global South, making them critical for understanding the progress and limitations of social protection architecture. Figure 2 reveals that social protection coverage has, in the recent decades, more than doubled in low-income countries, but still remains inadequate.

India, Brazil, and South Africa are linked through their participation in various multilateral groupings such as the G20; Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS); and India, Brazil, and South Africa (IBSA). Through these platforms, they have advanced the concerns of the Global South and promoted South–South cooperation frameworks on important development issues. In recent years, social protection has emerged as a key area of mutual cooperation within these groupings, reflecting growing recognition of its pivotal role in poverty reduction and inclusive growth.^[10],[11] This was evident when the G20 presidency under South Africa in 2024–25 emphasised the role of cooperation in a ministerial statement, calling on all G20 members and other countries “to support the adoption and progressive implementation of universal social protection systems, at the national level, and through international cooperation to support other countries, particularly low-income countries, to implement them.”^[12]

Framework and Methodology

Social protection is commonly conceptualised around three core pillars—social assistance, social insurance, and labour market programmes, a framework widely adopted by international organisations such as the International Labour Organization (ILO), World Bank, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).^[13],[14] Social assistance, which emphasises poverty reduction, is the most prevalent form in the Global South, along with labour market programmes that promote employment. Social insurance, which is designed for risk pooling, has been more successful in the Global North. Since India, Brazil, and South Africa engage with all three pillars, this paper analyses their social protection systems through this framework.

This paper is structured into six sections. The next section examines the intersectionality of social protection, social insurance, and labour market reforms in the three countries, and how this relates to democratic governance and weak state capacity. The third section analyses each pillar through selected programmes. The shortlisted programmes, while not exhaustive, have been selected for being national-level initiatives (along with a few state-level insights) with broad coverage and reach, in order to make a wide and inclusive assessment of the social protection architecture of the three countries.

The fourth and fifth sections reflect on existing challenges and delve into the lessons for Global South countries. In the concluding section, the key arguments of the paper are briefly reiterated. This analysis is based on a review of secondary literature, including government reports, news reports, books, and research articles.

Intersecting Dimensions of Social Protection and Welfare Governance

Within the broader framework of the welfare state, social protection systems have become increasingly important across nations, transcending variations in governance models, constitutional arrangements, institutional architecture, and leadership mandates. This arises principally from rising economic inequality across the world,^[15] which has made targeted redistributive interventions crucial to safeguard the vulnerable and the marginalised.

Marginalised groups constitute a significant share of society, and their alienation from state support can undermine the latter’s legitimacy, particularly in electoral democracies where public support is essential for political stability. As a result, democracies have expanded social protection systems to support vulnerable populations and maintain public confidence. In response to persistent socioeconomic insecurity, especially in the Global South, social protection has been expanded to include maternity benefits, subsidised healthcare and education, social insurance, and employment guarantees. This has led to the establishment of a broad yet targeted social security architecture in the Global South involving ‘cradle-to-death’ interventions that aim to ensure a life of basic dignity for all.

The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the importance of having social safety nets during times of unprecedented health and livelihood exigencies. Amid this crisis, the state’s role as a provider of care and support became evident, reinforcing the importance of welfare and developmental governance for national resilience and socioeconomic equity. While a range of measures from social assistance and insurance to labour opportunities have been introduced, it is important to assess their individual nature and impact in Global South countries. At the same time, these interventions are often interlinked and difficult to isolate. For instance, an employment guarantee scheme for the poor, while a labour market reform, also performs direct social assistance and insurance. Hence, while this paper discusses social protection initiatives under three categories, their overlapping and cross-cutting implications cannot be overlooked.

Another caveat is that despite India, Brazil, and South Africa being electoral democracies, there are perceptible differences in their political and governance structures. India is a federal parliamentary democracy with three tiers of government—central, state, and local. Its federation consists of 28 states and eight Union Territories (UTs) (including the National Capital Territory). All states and three UTs have elected legislatures and governments with constitutionally mandated powers and jurisdictions. The remaining five UTs are directly ruled by the Centre through appointed administrators.

Brazil has a federal presidential political structure with three levels of government: the central or Union government; 26 state governments and the Federal District government; and over 5,500 municipal governments. Its 26 states have substantial powers under its Constitution, promulgated by the Constitutional Assembly in 1988, which ushered in a process of fiscal and political decentralisation.

The Republic of South Africa, in the post-apartheid period since 1994, functions as a parliamentary representative democratic republic. It follows a hybrid system, combining elements of both a unitary and federal system, best described as quasi-federal. It is divided into nine provinces sub-divided into metropolitan and district municipalities, with district municipalities further divided into local municipalities.

Across all three countries, national, sub-national, and local governments collectively or distinctively plan, implement, and innovate multiple aspects of social protection initiatives, ensuring their reach to the grassroots. These differences in political context play a critical role in shaping social protection structures.

Analysing the Three Core Pillars of Social Protection

As mentioned earlier, this paper examines the social protection regimes of India, Brazil, and South Africa through three dimensions—social assistance, social insurance, and labour markets (see Figure 3). This tripartite framework enables a holistic assessment of social protection regimes. It not only covers traditional poverty alleviation measures, but also captures mechanisms related to risk pooling, household stability, employment generation, and socioeconomic empowerment that collectively have a positive impact on quality of life, facilitating a basic standard of dignity for all. The later sections draw on key measures undertaken by these countries to analyse the dynamics, impact, and reach of their social protection regimes.

Figure 3: Three Pillars of Social Protection

Source: Authors’ own.

Social Assistance: The Foundation of Welfare Governance

Social assistance should be understood as a life-cycle support system that protects individuals from developmental setbacks caused by circumstances beyond their control. Such policies must be carefully designed in terms of beneficiaries, delivery mechanisms, and developmental objectives, while reflecting domestic economic realities. Several countries have, over the years, drastically expanded their social assistance coverage (see Figure 4). Figure 5 reveals that cash transfers and school feeding programmes have the highest rates of coverage among social assistance programmes across several countries. India, Brazil, and South Africa have developed extensive social assistance frameworks.

Figure 4: SDG Indicator 1.3.1 on Effective Social Protection Coverage by At Least One Cash Benefit (2023 or Latest Available Year) (%)

Source: World Social Protection Report 2024–26, ILO^[16]

India

India has one of the most extensive and continuously expanding social assistance architectures, aimed at the vulnerable sections of its population. Both the central and state governments have, over the years, introduced a wide array of social assistance initiatives covering a diverse beneficiary base. This analysis, however, is confined to a few notable national-level schemes, with brief references to the state-level landscape. For instance, the National Social Assistance Programme (NSAP) in India, as a centrally sponsored scheme, operationalises the Directive Principles of State Policy mentioned in Article 41 of the Constitution to extend public assistance in cases of old age, disability, unemployment, sickness, and poverty, calibrated to fiscal capacity and developmental priorities. Initiated in 1995 to safeguard destitutes (individuals lacking reliable subsistence from personal or familial resources), it has evolved through targeted expansions, universalising Below Poverty Line (BPL) coverage in 2007.

Another key initiative, the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana (PM-GKAY), part of the Atmanirbhar Bharat package, delivers free foodgrain to migrants and the poor, and benefits over 813.5 million individuals. It supplements routine entitlements under the National Food Security Act, 2013 (NFSA).^[a]

Another flagship initiative of the Government of India, under the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA), is the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana-Urban (PMAY-U), launched in June 2015, that addresses urban housing deficits for economically weaker sections, including slum dwellers, aiming to deliver pucca (concrete) houses. The PM-KISAN scheme is a Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) for agricultural households that bypasses intermediaries to bolster rural liquidity for those with uncertain incomes. The Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) Scheme focuses on enhancing nutritional and health outcomes for children under six years, pregnant women, and lactating mothers. Delivered via a six-component package—supplementary nutrition, immunisation, health check-ups, referral services, pre-school non-formal education, and nutrition/health education—it operates across 1.36 million Anganwadi centres.^[17] It ensures preventive social protection, complementing other initiatives by addressing intergenerational poverty traps in rural and semi-urban areas.

Beyond central schemes, a prominent feature of India’s welfare landscape is the growing emphasis by state governments on cash transfer schemes. Several states have rapidly expanded unconditional cash transfer programmes targeting women, widows, female students, and unemployed youth. Women-focused cash transfer schemes have grown substantially, now covering nearly 100 million beneficiaries across several states, recognising women’s unpaid domestic and care work in line with SDG 5.4. According to think-tank PRS Legislative Research, these states are projected to allocate INR 1.68 lakh crore to such programmes in 2025–26, a sharp rise from just two states implementing such schemes three years earlier.^[18]

Given its scale, diversity, and layered architecture, India can act as an important reference point to strengthen social protection systems across other Global South countries.

Brazil

Brazil stands out among Latin American countries for its sustained expansion of social assistance, which has improved the living conditions of the vulnerable. Its Bolsa Família initiative, launched in 2004, is the most prominent welfare initiative that transfers conditional cash transfers to millions of low-income families, contingent on compliance with education and health mandates, such as antenatal care with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening for pregnant women. The scheme targets households with per capita monthly earnings of US$18–36, providing benefits from US$17–41 via direct transfers. Apart from direct socioeconomic benefits, the programme has led to substantial health gains, with a Lancet study linking it to reductions of up to 15 percent in AIDS mortality, 14 percent in AIDS hospitalisations, and 5 percent in new cases among vulnerable groups in 2004–2018.^[19]

Families receive the cash only if they adhere to core responsibilities, such as taking their children for necessary medical check-ups and ensuring that they attend school, inspiring social behavioural reforms. The scheme connects the beneficiaries to complementary services, such as employment training. Bolsa Família stands out as a global benchmark for conditional cash transfer (CCT) programmes. By consolidating four prior CCTs upon its 2003 launch, it absorbed 8 million beneficiaries, expanding to cover one in four Brazilian families (46 million people) across all 5,570 municipalities via 176,000 local operators.^[b],[20] This makes it the world's largest CCT initiative, with proven impact across access, poverty and inequality reduction, and hunger mitigation, and boosting health education metrics.

Brazil’s Unified Health System (Sistema Único de Saúde or SUS), established in 1990, is the world’s largest public healthcare network, providing near-universal coverage to almost all of the country’s 220 million population. Enshrined in Article 196 of the Constitution, which recognises health as a universal right and a state responsibility, SUS offers free healthcare services ranging from primary care to advanced treatment, along with vaccines, medicines, and public health oversight. Emerging from Brazil’s re-democratisation and the Sanitary Reform movement, SUS played a critical role in reducing inequality while decentralising health governance and expanding citizen participation in health policymaking. Its impact encompasses infant mortality decline (53.4 to 12.7 per 1,000 live births, 1990–2023), rise in life expectancy (65 to 76.8 years, 1985–2025), polio elimination (in 1989), measles eradication (in 2000), and broadening of medicine and vaccine access, especially to the vulnerable.^[21]

Brazil’s healthcare and cash transfer initiatives stand out as some of the most impactful and far-reaching social assistance programmes in the country.

Figure 5: Rates of Coverage among Social Assistance Programmes

Source: Based on Atlas of Social Protection Indicators of Resilience and Equity (ASPIRE) household survey data, World Bank.^[22]

Note: The figure shows coverage of both direct and indirect beneficiaries for 2022, or the most recent year for which data is available, and is based on 68 observations, which include 62 low- and middle-income countries and six high-income countries monitored by ASPIRE.

South Africa

South Africa’s social assistance regime has evolved in recent years, resulting in a largely inclusive and effective social security architecture within the Global South. An estimated 18 million people received some form of social grant provided by the government, as of 2019.^[23]

To mitigate the historical injustices and socioeconomic marginalisation under the apartheid rule, the post-apartheid regime introduced the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) in 1994, leading to the formation of a committed social welfare system in post-apartheid South Africa. The current social welfare framework encompasses cash assistance, unemployment insurance, medical provisions, and housing subsidies. Cash assistance is administered by the South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) on behalf of the Department of Social Development (DSD). Its programmes include the Child Support Grant (CSG), old-age pension, disability grant, care dependency grant, Social Relief of Distress, and war veterans’ grant.^[24]

Introduced in 1998, the CSG provides cash support to poor children up to the age of 18. According to South Africa’s National Treasury, it is among the largest social assistance programmes, reaching 11.2 million children in 2012–13 or approximately 59 percent of all children.^[25] Complementing this initiative is the National School Nutrition Programme (NSNP), launched in 1994, which mandates free lunches in all non-fee-charging schools (quintiles 1–3^[c] under the national classification).^[d] It exemplifies targeted in-kind nutrition support for educational equity, akin to India’s highly effective Mid-Day Meal programme.

There are many other welfare schemes as well. The old-age pension takes up the largest share of government expenditure.^[26] The Department of Social Development delivers income support through disability grants, administered via the SASSA. The Care Dependency Grant is for parents, guardians, foster parents, or primary caregivers of children with severe disabilities requiring full-time care. The Unemployment Insurance Act 63, amended in 2001, entitles contributors to the Unemployment Insurance Fund (UIF), during periods of unemployment, through which they will receive one day of benefits for every six days they had worked, up to 238 days.

South Africa’s social assistance architecture appears to be evolving into a comprehensive and multidimensional framework for poverty alleviation and socioeconomic upliftment. It increasingly functions not just as a safety net but as a broader developmental instrument aimed at improving living standards, reducing vulnerability, and enhancing social inclusion. It prioritises support for the most vulnerable sections such as the poor, persons with disabilities, children, and the elderly, while addressing structural inequalities rooted in the country’s history. 

Social Insurance: A Bulwark for Socioeconomic Stability

Social insurance schemes—encompassing medical insurance, pensions, and life insurance—are key instruments for strengthening social protection systems, particularly in Global South countries with structural vulnerabilities. These mechanisms extend beyond financial risk pooling to enhance resilience against life's uncertainties, addressing challenges such as informal employment (often exceeding 70 percent of the total workforce), demographic ageing, climate-induced shocks, and rising inequality.^[27]

In contexts of limited fiscal space and weak contributory bases, social insurance supports the state’s redistributive mandate by smoothing consumption, stabilising livelihoods, and strengthening human capital creation thereby mitigating intergenerational poverty. In the health sector, universal health coverage through insurance bridges access gaps, reducing catastrophic out-of-pocket expenditure that pushes nearly 100 million people worldwide into poverty annually.^[28] Pensions provide old-age income security and counter labour market exit risks amid rising life expectancy and shrinking family support systems. Life insurance safeguards dependants from poverty due to the primary earner’s premature mortality, preserving household stability in the face of unforeseen catastrophe. However, Figure 6 reveals that outside Europe and Central Asia, few people contribute to social insurance programmes.

Figure 6: Contribution to Social Insurance Programmes

Source: Administrative data from ASPIRE, World Bank.^[29]

India

India has a widespread and diverse social insurance ecosystem. Three flagship micro-insurance schemes largely targeting unorganised sector vulnerabilities are discussed here.

The Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana (PMJJBY), a renewable one-year life insurance, provides coverage against death from any cause for individuals aged 18–50 at a modest annual premium.^[e] The Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana (PMSBY), also renewable annually, offers accident coverage for ages 18–70 through similar enrolment channels.^[f] The Atal Pension Yojana (APY), administered by the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority (PFRDA) under the National Pension Scheme, targets non-taxpaying bank account holders aged 18–40 to guarantee minimum monthly pensions post 60 years of age. It has a provision for the spouse to continue as a beneficiary after the subscriber’s death. The scheme received a remarkable public response, crossing 5 crore subscribers by April 2023.^[30]

Another key social insurance scheme is the Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (AB-PMJAY), launched in 2018 as the world's largest government-funded health assurance scheme. It extends universal health coverage for 55 crore vulnerable citizens annually. ^[g],[31] Its effectiveness comes from its robust digital architecture—seamless Aadhaar integration, biometric authentication, and real-time claim settlement via its IT platform—enabling 95 percent payments within 15 days and curtailing fraud through artificial intelligence (AI)-driven audits. As per data from November 2025, the scheme has ensured a 50 percent reduction in public sector out-of-pocket expenditure, a 40 percent dip in medical poverty among its beneficiaries, and improved preventive care uptake, evidenced by a 20 percent higher immunisation rate in covered cohorts.^[32]

India’s social insurance initiatives have been steadily expanding in the last decade, with impressive last-mile reach and effective socioeconomic impact.

Brazil

Brazil has made notable progress in social insurance in recent years, achieving near-universal old-age coverage through a combination of contributory, semi-contributory, and non-contributory pension schemes. This framework has provided strong poverty protection for senior citizens, who are less represented among low-income groups, by compensating for the loss of labour income in old age.^[33] Complementary measures, such as income tax exemptions and incentives for ongoing employment and education under the Statute of the Elder, further elevate elderly living standards, along with additional benefits such as modest financial perks (for example, half-price cultural access and complimentary public transit rides) and non-monetary advantages (for example, priority service counters in public/private venues).^[34]

Brazil also operates specialised pension schemes for specific groups. The Regimes Próprios de Previdência Social provides a separate pension system for civil servants, while the Previdência Rural grants minimum-wage-equivalent pensions to eligible rural workers—men aged 60 and above and women aged 55 and above with at least 180 months of rural work experience. Pension benefits remain relatively generous compared to working-age incomes, with the Constitution mandating that the minimum pension cannot fall below the minimum wage. As a result, the real value of minimum pensions has risen over the past decade. With nearly two-thirds of pensioners receiving this benefit level, it has placed considerable fiscal pressure on the state.^[35]

Beyond income support for vulnerable unemployed workers, unemployment insurance contributes to counter-cyclical macroeconomic stabilisation. Brazil's unemployment insurance operates within the Public Employment, Work, and Income System (SPETR), which integrates active and passive labour market policies by providing dismissed workers with financial aid, job intermediation, training, and microcredit access.^[36] Its disability insurance or ‘Auxílio-Doença’ offers temporary or permanent financial support to individuals unable to work due to illness or injury.^[37]

 Brazil has a widespread and targeted social insurance safety net catering to a cross-section of vulnerable groups, offering key lessons for other Global South nations.

South Africa

South Africa’s social insurance system has evolved in recent years with a stronger focus on protecting vulnerable populations. The UIF provides short-term financial support to individuals facing unemployment, maternity or parental leave, illness, or those unable to work, while also assisting the dependants of deceased contributors. Governed by the Unemployment Insurance Act 63, 2001, it proved critical during the COVID-19 pandemic, disbursing R$63 billion to around 5.4 million workers and helping prevent widespread economic hardship. This marked the largest government payout to date, supporting workers, businesses, and building overall economic resilience during the lockdown.^[38] The UIF also supports economically stressed sectors and working groups. For instance, in November 2025, the government announced an R$381-million allocation from the UIF to the post office to prevent the loss of about 6,000 jobs, as the post office was struggling to pay off debts and staff salaries.^[39]

Another key initiative, the Compensation Fund, governed by the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act (COIDA) of 1993 (amended in 1997), offers no-fault compensation to employees who are injured or contract diseases through the course of their employment.^[h] These programmes are responsible for the payment of compensation, covering medical expenses and other pecuniary benefits to employees (or on their behalf) where no other person or organisation is liable.^[40] They act as shields for vulnerable sections and ensure economic stability in the light of unforeseen circumstances.

Labour Market Protection: Driver for Economic Empowerment

Labour market interventions aim to protect individuals against risks such as unemployment, income loss, and job insecurity. In the Global South, labour markets are characterised by informal work, low wages, rural–urban migration, unemployment, underemployment, and precarious self-employment.^[41] Over 60 percent of workers—approximately 2 billion people—are employed informally, with their share exceeding 80 percent of total employment in some regions.^[42] They are also under pressure from demographic shifts, including growing youth populations with higher rates of unemployment,^[43] as well as structural transformations wrought by technology and climate change.

Current labour market protection in India, Brazil, and South Africa can be understood as a response to the broader structural shifts that took place when these and many other Global South nations transitioned to neoliberal market-oriented models and deeper globalisation between the 1980s and 1990s.^[44] Against this backdrop, the state has a dual role: as a promoter of market reforms and a provider of social protection.^[45] Across all three countries, programmes have been most effective in providing opportunities at scale when they are context-specific, multifaceted, and embedded within the broader social protection system, enabling them to address multidimensional barriers to employment and income security.^[46]

Figure 7: Share of Informal Employment in Total Employment by Country, 2024 (%)

Source: Statista^[47]

India

Out of the three countries, India, with its youthful labour force, faces the strongest challenge in providing inclusive and resilient labour market protection. The high degree of informality constrains the reach of social insurance models, leading to a focus on income support and public employment. India’s flagship public works programme, the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), provides a case study. The programme, which guarantees 100 days of employment per year, is among the world’s largest—in 2025–26, around 105.6 million people worked under the programme, roughly 1.3 percent of the world’s population.^[48],[49] It functions as an ‘employer of the last resort,’ as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic when it provided essential income support to workers during lockdowns.

A key innovation is its demand-driven, universal rights-based approach, which makes it responsive to pervasive informality and employment volatility.^[50] By creating public assets, such as for water conservation and rural infrastructure, it reduces climate vulnerability and enhances rural living standards.^[51] Women, who have few avenues of work in rural India, constitute more than half of its workforce.^[52] Despite its relevance as a safety net, the programme has been undermined by budget constraints and delayed wage payments.^[53] Research has also shown that while public work programmes increase employment rates and earnings in the short term, these gains are not sustainable and skill acquisition tends to be low.^[54]

The Deendayal Antyodaya Yojana-National Rural Livelihoods Mission (DAY-NRLM), which promotes livelihood generation through women’s self-help groups in rural areas, focuses on self-employment and entrepreneurship as viable labour market interventions under social protection, where formal employment is limited. With more than 100 million women organised into self-help groups, the programme combines access to savings, credit, skills development, and market linkages, thus strengthening livelihoods and expanding economic participation.^[55]

While these two programmes constitute the core pillars of labour-market-linked social protection, other interventions have delivered mixed outcomes. Skill development initiatives such as the Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana (PMKVY), which focuses on low-income households, have been characterised by lower placement rates, high dropout levels, and demand–supply disparities, despite substantial investments from the state.^[56]

Brazil

Brazil has a higher share of formal employment than the other two countries, attributed to improvements in educational attainment and the absorption of unemployed workers into the formal sector.^[57] It also has a more effective minimum wage policy.^[58] Accordingly, it prioritises labour market intermediation, skills formation, unemployment insurance, and wage regulation over the direct employment generation seen in public works programmes in India and South Africa. The unemployment insurance programme Seguro-Desemprego, which provides benefits of up to two minimum wages over a period of three to five months following job loss, is one of the core interventions, along with Fundo de Garantia do Tempo e Serviço (FGTS) which provides severance protection. While both programmes have effectively provided income support to formally employed workers, they offer limited protection against sudden income loss to about 40 percent of the informal workforce.^[59] The large-scale formalisation incentive programme Microempreendedor Individual (MEI), aimed at micro-entrepreneurs and own-account workers, has been effective in addressing informality and prioritising formalisation by reducing registration costs and simplifying tax and social insurance systems. ^[60]

To facilitate labour market transitions, Brazil has also developed complementary active labour market programmes: PRONATEC (Programa Nacional de Acesso ao Ensino Técnico e Emprego) gives technical and vocational training to low-income youth and adults, including the unemployed and informally employed; and SINE (Sistema Nacional de Emprego), connects job seekers with employers, primarily focusing on placements within the formal labour market.^[61] Together, they reflect a formalisation- and employability-based approach.

South Africa

South Africa has one of the highest unemployment rates in the world, at close to 32 percent.^[62] This is attributed to structural factors such as mismatch between jobs and skills, rigid labour market policies, and inequalities rooted in the former apartheid regime. Unlike other emerging economies, in South Africa, individuals excluded from formal employment are more likely to stay unemployed than participate in informal labour markets. While the country has built extensive social assistance systems, its labour market interventions, combining public employment with social insurance, have been limited in scope. Similar to MGNREGA, its Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP), which provides income relief through temporary work, prioritises the most vulnerable groups—youth, women, and persons with disabilities. Since its inception more than two decades ago, it has created 14 million work opportunities.^[63] However, evaluations show that participants are “likely to return to unemployment” after the work opportunities end.^[64] Unlike MGNREGA, which is rights-based and demand-driven, EPWP is discretionary and supply-driven, constraining its effectiveness and scalability.

For formal sector employees, the UIF has been a critical social safety net, providing short-term relief to workers after loss of employment, or incapacity due to illness, maternity, or adoption. During the pandemic, the programme was scaled up to provide income relief to affected workers. However, the programme excludes about 34 percent of workers who are part of the informal economy.^[65] The Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant addresses this gap, especially for youth and informal workers, by providing income support through cash transfers to unemployed working-age adults. SRD has proved effective in reducing poverty.^[66]

Key Observations

The assessment of social protection regimes across these three countries reveals a few key aspects. Despite diverse contexts and institutional structures, focused and calibrated efforts to reduce poverty and uplift marginalised citizens remain the cornerstone of their social security efforts. More importantly, these systems go beyond poverty alleviation to promote holistic empowerment, durable capacity-building, and resilience, and guarantee a life of minimum dignity to all. However, despite some successes, these systems have to confront severe challenges including institutional weaknesses, bureaucratic bottlenecks, corruption, access barriers, exclusion errors, and societal challenges, which need to be overcome. The next section discusses the challenges and crucial lessons for the social protection regimes.

Unpacking the Challenges

The following are the main challenges that impede social protection in the Global South. Effective identification and better understanding of them are critical to further strengthen the social protection architecture.

Funding Inadequacies

Welfare spending has witnessed an exponential rise across the three Global South countries covered in this paper, but instances of gross underfunding and funding disruptions persist, following the launch of several social welfare programmes. India’s MGNREGA allocation, for instance, dropped to INR 73,000 crore in 2022–23 (a 25 percent reduction from the revised estimates), causing wage delays despite rising demand.^[67] Brazil’s Bolsa Família reached its R$158.6-billion budget cap for 2025, leaving 750,000 pre-qualified families on a waiting list and reducing beneficiaries from 20.5 million to 19 million.^[68] In South Africa, vital grants for 28 percent of poor households in the country are facing cuts amid fiscal pressures in 2025, straining complementary services.^[69] Without prudent and sustainable fiscal planning, smooth and uninterrupted social protection would face operational challenges.

Weak Institutional Architecture

Weak institutional governance mechanisms impede welfare delivery in Global South countries. Fragmented policy planning, lack of adequate oversight mechanism, a culture of corruption, and complex patronage politics have created challenges for efficient implementation. For instance, India’s Public Distribution Scheme (PDS) that provides subsidised foodgrain to the poor has long been plagued by leakages. While use of digital technology, such as Aadhaar registration, has reduced the corruption level from 46 percent in 2011–12 to 28 percent, it still leads to annual substantial monetary loss.^[70] Brazil’s Bolsa Família faces operational disruptions from political transitions, slow beneficiary selection, and compromised targeting.^[71] The South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) has also been marred by corruption in recent years with the detection of multiple fraud cases involving officials and losses of R$50.5M in grants for disability and child support.^[72]

Exclusion Challenges

Ensuring effective targeting and coverage of all deserving beneficiaries remains a daunting task for the smooth implementation of welfare measures in the Global South, given the large populations, huge socioeconomic diversity, and lack of digital infrastructure. As a result, both under-inclusion and over-exclusion of deserving beneficiaries, especially from marginalised sections, limit programme effectiveness. For example, India’s Antyodaya initiative often doesn’t reach the poorest sections of society due to outdated beneficiary lists, with this issue persisting post digitisation.^[73] The Bolsa Família thresholds overlooked marginalised beneficiaries in 2025 reviews, amid registration lapses that led to the cancellation of than half a million families.^[74] South Africa’s grants have been found to exclude undocumented migrants, with fraud adding to improper payouts.^[75]

Concerns Over Inaccessibility

 Rural–urban and digital divides have also created implementation challenges for social protection systems in the Global South.^[76] For instance, in Brazil, registration bottlenecks in remote regions have increased the list of waitlisted beneficiaries for Bolsa Família. South Africa’s post office closures had blocked grant access in rural areas, with syndicates exploiting the marginalised.^[77] The massive informal sector in all the three countries remains underserved. India’s welfare schemes cover only a limited section of the unorganised sector workers despite the massive size of the informal economy.^[78] In South Africa, the social grants coverage of 18 million people bypasses many youth and informal workers due to changes in demographic trends.^[79]

Recommendations for Strengthening Social Protection

The Global South is not a homogeneous entity and includes countries at different stages of development. India, Brazil, and South Africa have robust social protection systems supported by relatively stronger economic and administrative capacity to design and implement these systems. However, for many countries in the Global South, building effective social protection systems remains a challenge (see Figure 8 ), due to constrained fiscal space, rising debt burdens, and heightened economic uncertainty.

Figure 8: Public Expenditure on Social Protection as a Percentage of GDP Across Country Income Groups

Source: ILO^[80]

The recommendations proposed can be adapted across different socioeconomic contexts. They are designed around four levers—financing, technology and information, international cooperation, and social norms—to build inclusive social protection systems.

Lever 1: Financing

Expand Fiscal Space

 With lower tax revenues, heavier debt burdens, and fiscal constraints, most Global South countries allocate a small share of GDP to social protection. Sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, spends less than 2 percent of GDP on social protection (excluding health).^[81] ILO research indicates that in low-income countries, the financing gap to achieve universal social protection amounts to an overwhelming 52.3 percent of annual GDP.^[82] To expand fiscal space, there are a range of actions countries can take domestically—leverage climate finance, broaden the domestic tax base, redirect subsidies. In India, for instance, the introduction of fuel subsidy reforms, such as the Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana (PMUY) that targets low-income households and promotes clean cooking fuels, has contributed to fiscal savings and reduced leakages.^[83]

Lever 2: Technology and Information

Leverage Digital Public Infrastructure and Data Systems

Digital public infrastructure (DPI) has become a critical instrument to enhance social protection delivery across the Global South. India’s DBT system illustrates how DPI can improve welfare delivery by reducing leakages, lowering administrative costs, and enabling efficient last-mile service provision. Brazil’s Cadastro Único highlights the value of digital social registries in improving beneficiary targeting. Across all three countries, AI-driven tools are increasingly being deployed to enhance fraud detection and target accuracy. As climate shocks and disruptions intensify, leveraging technology to develop shock-responsive welfare systems through dynamic social registries and interoperable databases will be essential. Investment in such systems can help developing countries build more scalable, adaptive, and resilient welfare architectures.

Lever 3 International Cooperation 

Strengthen South–South Cooperation

 In recent years, the Global South has taken the lead to place social protection at the centre of global development discourse. India, Brazil, and South Africa have proactively endorsed social protection during their G20 and BRICS presidencies. Under its G20 presidency, Brazil launched the G20 Social Policy Portal to promote global collaboration and knowledge-sharing for social inclusion and social protection.^[84] Similarly, India’s BRICS presidency in 2026 promotes inclusive growth, climate protection, and social well-being as priorities, along with digital public infrastructure as a transferable innovation. There is potential for South–South cooperation towards knowledge exchange, technology transfer and capacity building in social protection systems. Additionally, creating a dedicated Global South fund for social protection, supported by innovative financing mechanisms with contributions from emerging economies and development banks, could bridge coverage gaps and enhance fiscal space in low-income countries.

Lever 4: Social Norms

Focus on Inclusivity and Women’s Empowerment

 Social protection systems in the three countries prioritise inclusivity and accessibility through participatory governance, federal coordination, and a balance between centralised planning and decentralised implementation. Their welfare frameworks are comprehensive, covering cash transfers; health, retirement, and disability insurance; and employment guarantees. An emphasis on women-centric welfare measures has helped advance women’s socioeconomic empowerment, especially in contexts marked by low female workforce participation and entrenched gender norms. Evidence shows that social protection programmes tend to report higher impacts on women and girls than men and boys and women are more likely to save, invest, and share the benefits.^[85]

The Bolsa Família, which designates women as primary recipients of cash transfers, is a well-documented example of a programme with multiple impacts like poverty reduction, improved school attendance, and better health outcomes.^[86] There is increasing realisation that gender-responsive design is pivotal for women’s empowerment and gender inclusivity. Substantial allocation in welfare budgets to women-specific unconditional cash transfers, as well as initiatives linked to skilling building and health and education services for women, are being stressed upon. Introduction of caregiver credits in pension systems and converting unpaid labour into contributory entitlements have been key elements of women-centric labour market and social security reforms.

Key Cross-Cutting Principles

The three cross-cutting principles outlined below are essential to ensure inclusivity and impact in social protection systems in developing countries.

A. Cash Transfers to Enhance Income Security and Reduce Poverty 

The experience of all three countries highlights the importance of cash transfers for enhancing social protection systems and reducing poverty. There are benefits other than income support; in South Africa, cash transfers have been shown to promote livelihood activities and enable beneficiaries to exercise ‘developmental agency’—that is, promote a strong sense of self and motivate them to improve their lives.^[87]

B. Decentralised and Participatory Governance

All three countries have massive populations and vast geographical expanse. Effective implementation of the social protection initiatives and ensuring last-mile welfare delivery will, therefore, depend on decentralised governance structures and participatory planning by involving local communities, institutions, and stakeholders.

C. Rights-Based Approach for Strengthening Participatory Development

Social protection regimes in these countries are making concerted efforts to go beyond poverty alleviation, with a transition from mere grants-based welfare delivery to rights-based participatory development. This will facilitate adequate capacity building, ensure holistic empowerment, and build economic self-reliance to help citizens live a life of minimum dignity.

Conclusion

This paper examined the emergence of a more responsive social protection regime across emerging economies of the Global South. Evidence from India, Brazil, and South Africa showed the role of social protection in reducing poverty and vulnerability,^[88] despite differences in the political, economic, and socio-cultural dynamics as well as shared structural constraints, including technological inadequacies, large populations, diverse and difficult terrains, institutional complexities, governance gaps, and socio-cultural issues.

Variations in political and administrative structures shape social protection in distinct ways. In India, a robust federal structure with central as well as state-led social protection has led to a multilayered developmental outcome shaped by state and regional priorities. Brazil’s decentralised federal model allowed municipalities greater implementation autonomy, enabling local responsiveness, but created regional disparities. South Africa’s comparatively centralised welfare administration leads to greater uniformity in delivery, with less local flexibility. These differences show how governance structures directly influence efficiency, equity, and reach.

Crucially, social protection systems in these countries go far beyond poverty reduction. They ensure better education and healthcare; enhance capacity and skill building for more economic resilience; and provide social insurance for the elderly, children, and persons with disabilities, thereby creating more inclusive and resilient social protection systems. Hence, social protection results in a life of dignity for vulnerable sections, expanding empowerment and self-reliance for youth and women, and contributing to socio-cultural transformation.

However, these systems are not entirely free of structural loopholes and procedural challenges. Greater policy coherence, sustained financing, and context-driven and technologically enabled reforms would play a pivotal role in further expanding the social protection architecture in India, Brazil, and South Africa, while offering lessons for other Global South countries.

---

Sunaina Kumar is Director, Centre for New Economic Diplomacy, and Senior Fellow, Observer Research Foundation.

Ambar Kumar Ghosh is Associate Fellow, Observer Research Foundation.

---

The authors acknowledge the use of ChatGPT to generate Figure 3, and Grammarly and Perplexity AI for language refinements prior to submission.

All views expressed in this publication are solely those of the authors, and do not represent the Observer Research Foundation, either in its entirety or its officials and personnel.

Endnotes

• International Affairs
• Social Inclusion
• Africa
• India
• south Asia
• Brazil
• cash transfers
• Global South
• inclusive growth
• India
• poverty reduction
• SDGs
• Social protection
• social safety nets
• social security
• South Africa
• universal social protection

The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.