Social Safety Net Features from a Global Perspective: Evidence from the Model Family Approach

A full list of co-authors: The co-author list

Introduction: While poverty reduction is a primary objective of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), our understanding of how countries differ in designing social safety nets remains limited. Previous international comparative studies have largely focused on either advanced economies (Gough et al., 1997; Natili, 2020; Nelson, 2012; Marchal & Marx, 2024) or developing countries (e.g., Barrientos, 2013). However, as developing countries rapidly expand their social protection systems and societal challenges increasingly converge across regions, cross-regional comparisons that bridge the Global North and South offer valuable opportunities for mutual learning. This study examines key features of social safety nets in 50 countries across continents. Using newly collected model family data, we compare the generosity, coverage, work incentives, and poverty reduction capacities embedded in social safety net design.

Methods: We use the model family approach to collect income package data for 86 hypothetical household profiles in each of the 50 countries. These profiles vary in income level (e.g., no income, minimum wage, national average wage, and dual earners) and family composition (e.g., single adult, two adults, single parents, and two-parent households with children). Each income package includes labor earnings, welfare benefits, taxes, and social security contributions. Welfare benefits span several categories, including social assistance, housing support, child-related benefits (e.g., child allowances, childcare, and education subsidies), and other targeted subsidies. Data are compiled based on policy rules and government reports in each country. To classify countries, we conduct k-means cluster analysis using six indicators across three policy dimensions: the generosity, coverage, and performance of social assistance (protective function); the effectiveness of child-related benefits (productive function); the strength of work incentives; and poverty gap reduction.

Results: Our findings suggest that a five-cluster solution provides the optimal classification. The first cluster, comprising 21 percent of countries, shows strong performance across all indicators and includes Japan, Hong Kong, Thailand, and Brazil. The second cluster, representing 29 percent, performs well in social assistance but has weaker work incentives; it includes Sweden, Denmark, Chile, Turkey, and Korea. The third cluster, covering 25 percent, excels in child-related benefits but has lower work incentives; countries include Belgium, France, Germany, Spain, Russia, and Georgia. The fourth cluster, 6 percent of the sample—namely Iran, Ghana, and Argentina—is characterized by strong work incentives but limited generosity and coverage. The final cluster, accounting for 19 percent, performs lowest across all domains and includes South Africa, Uganda, Kenya, Bulgaria, Romania, and Lithuania.

Conclusion: This study reveals distinct configurations in the design of social safety nets that differ from previous typologies focused on social insurance or family policy. Notably, the classification of countries does not follow traditional geographic boundaries as suggested in the global welfare regime literature (Wood & Gough, 2006). By identifying key safety net patterns, this study contributes to theoretical debates on welfare state variation and provides practical insights for policymakers aiming to evaluate and reform their national safety net systems.