Search

Since Brazil's re-democratization in 1985, the country's system of social protection has become more focused on the neediest population groups while at the same time emphasizing universal access. In a context of severe inequality, the sub-national units of government have played a greater role in reaching the broader population. Yet Brazil's social protection model favours cash transfers over social services, and reduces inequalities in the context of a highly unequal labour market. Strategies based on cash transfers appear to have reached their limits, because they are not the most effective way to promote equality and generate opportunities, when compared to the outcomes obtained by social service provision. Furthermore, while much progress toward reducing inequality has been achieved, benefits and services continue to fall short of what might be considered as typifying a welfare state or ' Dynamic Social Security'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To achieve national goals defined by the 1988 Brazilian Federal Constitution, cash benefits alone are insufficient in the absence of more robust social services to reduce inequalities and improve social cohesion. The Constitution, albeit of national importance and international significance, has not addressed many institutional and administrative weaknesses in the design of the national pension system. Although coverage has been increased and inequality reduced, these measures are not sufficient. Brazil's ambitions to further develop social policies (and, indeed, to live up to its accorded international status as a social policy leader) may be constrained by an over-reliance on conditional cash transfers such as those provided under the Bolsa Família programme. Brazil faces a major political-economy challenge in addressing all these issues because the policy reform process is difficult, and, more importantly, because of the embedded role of vested interests. Moreover, Brazil must tackle these issues in the face of growing fiscal pressures, which could weaken the current political legitimacy of social policy and undermine important recent successes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]