Accessibility Tools

Web Accessibility plugin by DJ-Extensions.com

GI-ESCR Blog series

The COVID-19 Pandemic And Its Impact On Economic, Social And Cultural Rights

Now, more than ever, human rights considerations are vital for social protection responses to COVID-19

Alexandra Barrantes

 

Never has the need for a human rights-based approach to Social Protection been more urgent as in times of COVID-19. This approach entails framing social protection debates and policy decisions around entitlements rather than charity or handouts.

The rights to social security[2] and a minimum standard of living are enshrined in both universal and regional human rights frameworks.[3] As such, States become duty-bearers and individuals are understood as rights-holders entitled to enjoy this right.  So, beyond the unavoidable fact of human rights being legally binding, why are human rights considerations fundamental to building inclusive and lifecycle social protection systems, in particular given our current circumstances of a pandemic?

Guiding principles and standards

 

Human rights provide a framework for the design and implementation of social protection programmes, services and policies through human principles and standards. Some of the principles and standards that social protection policy-makers should bring to the table when designing, assessing and implementing programmes and policies are included in figure 1[4].

Given the current COVID-19 crisis, it is key that technological solutions at the service of social protection responses take into consideration human rights principles such as the right to privacy and confidentiality of data.

 

Lifecycle perspective

 

An inclusive lifecycle social protection system (see figure 2) requires governments to base their policy design and programme implementation on human rights principles and build national legal and regulatory frameworks that acknowledge the right to social protection and the right to an adequate standard of living. Since individuals of all ages are rightsholders and vulnerable to shocks and risks of different types (including pandemics), governments need to ensure that people are covered throughout their lifecycle, making sure dignity is at the core of any social protection system.

Inclusivity

 

As the evidence from several low and middle income suggests, poverty targeting instruments are still very arbitrary and are not able to achieve the very objective they were created for: identifying the poorest in a society; as they leave most of those intended beneficiaries behind.  There also seems to be an over-focus on inclusion errors instead of concentrating on addressing exclusion. The latter is much more serious from a human rights standpoint. As such, and unlike a social protection approach that focuses primarily on issues around fiscal austerity and the “efficient” allocation of scarce resources by targeting the “poorest of the poor” (which is, in reality, impossible) or “the other,” a rights-based investment in social protection requires Governments to push for the use of the maximum resources available and for a progressive realization of the right to social protection for all (as illustrated in figure 3). This allows for inclusive social protection systems for all, not leaving anyone behind and not just providing for the “deserving” or “the other”. Given the current context of a global pandemic, the inclusivity of social protection systems becomes key.

 

Shock-responsiveness

Inclusive social protection can build resilience to idiosyncratic risks that affect all of us at different times across the lifecycle.  Due to the inclusive nature of universal lifecycle schemes, and the fact that they usually have larger coverage among a certain population (old age, children, persons with disabilities), they are also a more effective response to widespread covariate shocks as support can be rapidly increased to large numbers of the affected population. Universal lifecycle programmes reach a higher proportion of vulnerable households and offer up to date information, hence making a rapid scale-up of transfers possible. The best way to develop shock-responsive social protection programmes is to strengthen the national core social protection system by developing an effective, lifecycle system that guarantees all citizens regular and predictable income transfers. Moreover, within the context of a pandemic, the “deservingness” issue of who should receive government income or some other kind of support, is highly questionable. Many segments of society beyond those that poverty-targeted programmes consider “the poor” or “ultra-poor” are being pulled into income insecurity and vulnerability by losing their jobs as their employers close down. So, what is the best solution? Rights-based, inclusive and universal social protection is the best way forward since pandemics do not choose who falls sick depending on an abstract construct of deservingness. As a matter of fact, pandemics are the consummate ghastly case to show that we are all in the same boat and that everyone is at risk of shocks, crises, diseases and poverty. Hence the need for inclusive lifecycle support from Government.

It is also about the process, not just the policy outcomes

A rights-based approach allows us to look at the entire policy process instead of just the desired outcomes of social protection public policies. As such, “states’ obligations also apply to the content of their social protection policies, as well as in the process by which they implement them.” This includes the design, regulation, and implementation of social protection programmes and systems, from high-level decision-makers through to social workers, street-level bureaucrats and local government officials tasked with on-the-ground implementation. Human rights principles must be applied to the entire process and not concentrate only on the outcome (which might be focused on human development outcomes, income security or poverty reduction, among others). The crux of the matter is for the whole process to incorporate principles such as dignity and non-discrimination, instead of just focusing on the efficiency in reaching the intended outcomes.

If governments and development partners providing policy advice to low and middle-income countries base their social protection provision on negative narratives around poverty and the “deserving and undeserving poor”, instead of focusing on inclusive lifecycle systems, ultimately they are fragmenting service delivery systems based on different audiences (services for the poorest, the non-poor, those more prone to shocks and risks, etc.), and are bound to fail in their endeavour to comply with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and “leave no one behind.”

This holds true particularly in the midst of the COVID-19 social protection responses countries are trying to grapple with. Leaving no one behind can only be achieved by inclusive systems that incorporate human rights principles and standards, commit to respecting the inherent dignity of every human being, and invest in sound and inclusive systems instead of a palliative poverty-targeted approach.

Alexandra Barrantes is a Senior Social Policy Specialist at Development Pathways and an international development practitioner with more than 20 years of experience in social protection, poverty reduction, inequality, economic, social and cultural rights,  and governance. She has experience in high−level policy advice in the social protection and poverty field across Latin America, the Caribbean and Africa. She has formed part of several International technical Working/Advisory Groups on poverty, social protection, SDGs, and social rights with key international stakeholders (including UNICEF, ILO, UNRISD, ECLAC, WB, OPHI, CGAP, among others). She has extensive publications in her field of work.

 

 

[1] This blog is a shortened version of a paper by the author published by Development Pathways.

[2] As per Sepúlveda (2014) for this work the concepts of the right to social protection and social security are considered as synomys based on the work of the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR).

[3] Including the following universal instruments: Universal Declaration of Human Rights articles 22, 25; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights articles 9, 10, 11; Convention on the Rights of the Child article 26; International Labour Organisation Social Protection Floors Recommendation, No. 202, and regional human rights instruments.

[4] All illustrations used in this article were designed by Picture Human Rights in a collaboration between them and Development Pathways in November of 2019.

Related Articles

Re-building resilient education systems: three lessons on the privatisation of education emerging from the COVID-19 pandemic

Re-building resilient education systems: three lessons on the privatisation of education emerging from the COVID-19 pandemic

GI-ESCR
Litigating for social justice with ‘one armed tied behind your back’: Why economic and social rights must be incorporated into UK law

Litigating for social justice with ‘one armed tied behind your back’: Why economic and social rights must be incorporated into UK law

GI-ESCR
BHR Symposium: Corporate Accountability, COVID-19 and the Right to Health

BHR Symposium: Corporate Accountability, COVID-19 and the Right to Health

GI-ESCR

SITEMAP

TAKE ACTION

NEWSLETTER

Don´t miss any updates!
SUBSCRIBE
Image

Social Media:

Log in

Climate and Environmental Justice

We have advanced rights-based and gender-transformative transition frameworks through research that centres the lived experiences of women and marginalised communities on the frontlines of extractive energy policies, promoting climate and energy frameworks attentive to the social and care-related impacts of transition pathways. We have developed a clear vision for a gender-just transition, firmly rooted in gender and human rights norms, establishing both the legal basis and the direction for the transformative changes our planet and societies urgently need. In particular, the ‘Guiding Principles for Gender Equality and Human Rights in the Energy Transition’, a collective effort built through online consultations, an in-person workshop and multiple rounds of revision with activists, practitioners and experts from around the world, outline a transformative vision for reshaping global energy systems through a human rights and gender equality lens.

Our work recognises that the climate emergency is both an existential threat and an opportunity to reimagine societies built on social, gender, economic and environmental justice. We ground our advocacy in feminist and intersectional principles, prioritising the agency and perspectives of communities in the Global South who have contributed the least to the climate emergency yet face its most devastating consequences. Central to our approach is the understanding that energy is not merely a commodity but a fundamental human right; essential for dignity, health, education, work and the realisation of countless other rights. We challenge approaches to the energy transition that risk replicating the harmful patterns of fossil fuel extraction and, instead, advocate for transformative policies that ensure human rights and gender equality as central to building climate-resilient societies rooted in dignity, justice and planetary well-being.

What's next?

We will continue to challenge approaches that treat energy transition as merely a technical shift, instead positioning it as an opportunity to reimagine economies and societies rooted in dignity for all, with particular attention to communities in the Global South who have contributed least to the climate emergency yet are most exposed to its worst effects.

We will connect community-level evidence and the lived experiences of those on the frontlines of extractive policies to national reform and global norm-setting, breaking down silos between human rights, gender, and climate movements, and advancing a shared vision that recognises just transitions as not only fundamental to achieving climate-resilient and sustainable societies, but as transformative pathways that advance social and gender equality, redistribute power and resources equitably, and ensure that energy systems serve the public good rather than profit.

We will mainstream rights-based and genderjust transition priorities in key multilateral spaces (particularly, within the Just Transition Work Programme and the to-be-developed Just Transition Mechanism, within the UNFCCC) to guarantee that just transitions are advanced at all levels.

We will also translate our work, through strategic advocacy, into at least two concrete policy wins, whether promoted, adopted, implemented, or scaled, in priority countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Colombia, South Africa, or Kenya), ensuring these policies align with human rights standards, centre gender equality, and reflect the needs and views of affected communities.

We will build momentum for the progressive recognition of the right to sustainable energy to shift dominant narratives away from purely extractive solutions that sideline gendered impacts, community participation, and Global South perspectives.

Economic Justice and Climate Finance

Our work has transformed the global discussion on fiscal policy in a more just, emancipatory and sustainable direction. Our approach has combined both high-level, expert contributions within decisionmaking circles, with bold, impactful work on narrative change with the general public.

We have been instrumental in the inclusion of human rights as a guiding principle of the future United Nations Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation, a multilateral instrument with the potential of raising approx. USD 492 billion per year in public revenues currently foregone to global tax abuse. In the process leading to the ‘Compromiso de Sevilla’ decided at FfD4, we proposed and succeeded in creating a specific human rights workstream within the Civil Society Financing for Development Mechanism, which was critical to ensure that explicit commitments on the matter were included in the negotiating outcome. In a context of cutbacks in multilateral institutions, we have amplified the capacities of technical experts, providing rigorous technical support and leveraging our influence to ensure the enactments of groundbreaking standard-setting instruments, such as the 2025 UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Statement on Fiscal Policy and Human Rights, and the first ex oficio hearing on the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights on Fiscal and Economic Policies to Address Poverty and Structural Inequality, leading to an upcoming thematic resolution on the matter. We have also bridged the silos between multilateral tax discussions and climate finance debates, promoting ambitious financing commitments to increase international and domestic resource mobilisation during COP 28, 29 and 30.

At the regional level, our engagement with fiscal cooperation platforms such as the Platform for Fiscal Cooperation of Latin America and the Caribbean (PTLAC), where we are member of its Civil Society Consultative Council, and the African Anti-IFFs Policy Tracker, for which we participated in the pilot mission in Ivory Coast together with Tax Justice Network Africa (TJNA), have been critical in cementing a growing engagement between tax administrations and ministries of finance with international legal experts, exploring actionable and transformative initiatives, such as the taxation of high-net-worth individuals, beneficial ownership registries and corporate countryby-country reports, to be implemented at the international level.

At the local level, our interventions in fiscal reform debates in Chile, Brazil, Colombia and Nigeria have contributed to shaping legislative outcomes in a more progressive, rights-compliant direction.

As for our leadership in narrative change, we have a measurable track record in delivering tailored, innovative campaigns which have decisively expanded economic justice constituencies by appealing to a broader tent. In Latin America and the Caribbean, we created the ‘Date Cuenta’ campaign, coordinating over 40 organisations across civil society to deliver plain language, innovative messaging connecting progressive fiscal reforms to the financing of health, education and social protection. ‘Date Cuenta’ generated over 55 original campaign messages that were tailored to the realities of seven priority countries (Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru and Honduras) and disseminated in Spanish, Portuguese and English. In doing so, we convened more than 65 online co-creation workshops with partners, coordinating a unified communications strategy which combined digital outreach, press and media coverage, and collaboration with influencers. Ultimately, ‘Date Cuenta’ resulted in more than 60,000 interactions on social media, coverage in major regional and international media outlets, including El País, Deutsche Welle, Bloomberg and France 24, and the participation of at least 63 social media influencers through 58 dedicated publications. In collaboration with Fundación Gabo and the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, we also organised a two-day workshop in Bogota with 20 journalists from 13 countries, building a regional network trained in a human rights-based approach to fiscal policy that has since generated published media coverage on outlets such as La Diaria, Ciper, El Diario Ar and Milenio. Through ‘Date Cuenta’ and our regional advocacy, we strengthened civil society engagement in key processes, including the Financing for Development track and FfD4, co-organised highlevel dialogues with states and civil society from Latin America and Africa.

What's next?

We will shape the UN Tax Convention and its Protocols so they embed human rights principles, and we will stay engaged through follow-up processes (including the expected Conference of the Parties) to support effective implementation. We will keep linking tax and climate finance so that new resources mobilised through fiscal cooperation are channelled to adaptation, mitigation, and loss and damage, in line with UNFCCC commitments.

Public Services for Care Societies

We have translated participatory research into accountability and policy outcomes.

In Ivory Coast, our work with Mouvement Ivoirien des Droits Humains and affected communities since 2023 exposed how privatisation and lack of accountability restrict access to quality healthcare. It contributed to the closure of 1,022 illegal private health centres, an executive instrument strengthening the regulation of private hospitals across the country, and the creation of a permanent complaints management committee in healthcare through a bylaw issued by the prefect of Gagnoa. Partners engaged through this process also advanced concrete improvements at facility level: members of the Gagnoa Midwives Association who took part in the participatory action research pooled resources to renovate the neonatal unit of the Regional Hospital, and the Director of the Gagnoa General Hospital launched an action plan to expand services and improve patient reception, with the facility receiving the award for best hospital in the country in 2025.

In Kenya, our research with the Mathare Education Taskforce documented the absence of public schools and the expansion of private provision, evidencing impacts on households and caregivers and strengthening demands for free, quality public education. This work contributed to stronger community agency and collective organisation, alongside ongoing strategies ranging from communications to litigation to secure a public school in the area, some involving GI-ESCR and others led independently.

Across Africa, this work is complemented by a multi-country study examining the human rights implications of austerity in education and health, including how regressive fiscal policies, rising debt burdens and persistent underinvestment undermine the financing and delivery of public services.

In Latin America, from 29 November to 2 December 2021, over a thousand representatives from over one hundred countries, from grassroots movements, advocacy, human rights, and development organisations, feminist movements, trade unions, and other civil society organisations, met in Santiago, Chile, and virtually, to discuss the critical role of public services for our future. Following the meeting, the Santiago Declaration on Public Services was adopted to demand universal access to quality, gender-transformative and equitable public services as the foundation of a fair and just society.

We are currently advancing work on care systems, linking public services and fiscal justice through integrated research, advocacy and communications, including a regional campaign framing care as a collective responsibility requiring sustained public investment.

What's next?

In Ivory Coast, we will evaluate and strengthen the complaints management committee and position it as a replicable model for other health facilities. In Kenya, we will support the Mathare community to co-design a model public school for Mabatini and Ngei wards, grounded in human rights standards. Building on our multi-country austerity study, we will drive national advocacy on financing for education and health: advancing reforms in Ghana; launching a fiscal policy and public services financing agenda in Kenya through the CESCR process and targeted coalition work; and, in Nigeria, using the new tax acts in force since 1 January 2026 to catalyse a national accountability campaign for adequately funded, quality public services. In Latin America, we will amplify locally led care pilots across 8 countries and turn lessons into influence—advancing care policies that strengthen care organisations, protect care workers’ rights, support unpaid caregivers, include disability and family networks, and redistribute care more equitably.