Explore the vast range of titles available.

This study reviews the role and workings, with their strengths and weaknesses of last-resort income support (LRIS) programs in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. It draws on a combination of household survey and administrative data for a large group of countries and detailed case studies for a smaller number of countries that span the spectrum of the income range in the region. It thus combines the value of wide, comparable multi-country work with that of in-depth, country-specific probing on key themes. The experiences of LRIS programs in Eastern Europe and Central Asia have demonstrated the te

Most countries in the world aspire to protect poorest and most vulnerable families from destitution and thus provide some type of income support to those who are very poor. These programs are often layered into social policy along with other transfers, subsidies, or services. The way to best provide such last-resort income support (LRIS) and its role in wider social policy is a matter of some complexity, much experimentation, and much study. In Eastern Europe and Central Asia, 28 of 30 countries operate LRIS programs. This study examines the experience of LRIS programs in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. It documents the outcomes of such programs throughout the region in terms of expenditure, coverage, targeting, and simulated effects on poverty and inequality. For a subset of countries, the study documents and draws lessons from the design and implementation arrangements - institutional frameworks and administrative structures, eligibility determination, benefits and conditions, governance mechanisms, and administrative costs on the basis of information gleaned during in-depth country engagements that have extended a decade or more (Albania, Armenia, Bulgaria, the Kyrgyz Republic, Lithuania, and Romania) and other detailed work available from newer or more specific engagements (Croatia, the Russian Federation, Serbia, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan). The report is organized as follows: chapter one gives introduction. Chapter two provides an overview of the role of LRIS in the wider social assistance policies of Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Chapter three looks into the institutional and financing arrangements of the LRIS programs in the case study countries. Chapter four covers one of the two most charged issues in narrowly targeted LRIS programs - how eligibility is determined. Chapter five takes up the other charged issue in these programs - the benefit formula and how labor disincentives can be held in check with the guaranteed minimum income design. Chapter six focuses on two key elements of control and accountability systems in LRIS programs - modern management information systems and strategies to reduce error, fraud, and corruption. Chapter seven examines the administrative costs of the LRIS programs in the case study countries. Chapter eight highlights and summarizes the lessons.

Economic, labor, and social policy developments in formerly Soviet-bloc countries since 1991 have brought about significant insecurity for income protection. Social policy has, for most of eastern Europe, become increasingly selective and therefore increasingly discretionary. Means-tested programs such as those in place in 1997 have become ways to control the lives of the poorest and least-informed people.

It is argued that given existing resources & their limitations in Central & Eastern European countries, an effective & sensible social safety net can be achieved. In order to convert savings of up to 3% of collective gross national product into revenues for underwriting increasing unemployment benefits & social assistance expenses, several strategic policies are proposed. Specifically, it is suggested that the poverty line be shielded against inflationary spirals, while limiting the entitlement period for unemployment benefits. In addition, requests for disability & retirement pensions should be screened, & amounts paid in family benefits should be reduced. Finally, general income support should be phased out, & payments into social security funds should be shared equally between employer & employee. 3 References. J. Sadler