Various countries in the last years have worked on digitalising their social protection schemes. Such efforts significantly reduce the bureaucratic burden on authorities and have, in some instances, improved the accessibility of the schemes. In this article we present four lessons learnt, with examples from different regions, and we draw some preliminary conclusions on how digitalisation of social protection systems impacts informal economy workers who are in most cases excluded from social protection provisions. The key lessons and reflection that can be drawn from our own observations of activities of our affiliates, as well as from other research papers.

#1 Strong and reliable digital infrastructures are key

Public investment in reliable infrastructure is a cornerstone of any digitalisation strategy. That helps people, even in remote areas, access connectivity and internet – based services. If we look at connectivity in West Africa, for example we see that internet infrastructure lacks presence and quality.

According to the World Bank: “Despite progress in mobile broadband coverage, West Africa still faces significant gaps in digital connectivity, access, and usage. The adoption of mobile broadband services remains below 40%, primarily due to high retail prices acting as a barrier. Infrastructure deficits, especially in international connectivity and resilient fiber optic backbone, remain major obstacles to meeting the growing demand for data and online services”.

This is true both at the country – macro level and to the individual level. Access to infrastructure for workers in rural areas is particularly hard. According to a study of the Institute of Development study, in Nigeria: “Beneficiaries of cash transfers are often required to have an active phone number and handset, both to register for and receive their cash benefits. In some schemes, cash transfers are made to beneficiaries’ bank accounts; beneficiaries use ATM cards to withdraw their money. These systems have been plagued by problems such as poor or absent connectivity, and the lack of ATMs, especially in rural and hard-to-reach areas”.

#2 Digital literacy and disability issues should be taken into account

Digital services are not accessible unless a proper digital literacy strategy is extended to all workers. Services can be designed to be accessible and simple for all types of people, especially those with low literacy levels. We observed such implied discrimination during our research work in Zambia.

The study we undertook focuses on Zambia’s efforts to digitize its social protection systems, particularly for informal economy workers, in both urban and rural areas. The government has transitioned from traditional, manual systems to digital social protection platforms to deliver social benefits such as Social Cash Transfers (SCTs).

These benefits are delivered through mobile phones and bank transfers, supported by a broader national strategy to improve public service delivery through digital technologies. Digitalization was driven by the Zambian government’s national ICT policy and the need to prevent corruption following a 2017 scandal involving the theft of SCT funds. The process aims to improve the efficiency, transparency, and accountability of social protection, with beneficiaries receiving cash transfers directly via mobile money services or bank accounts.

The findings highlight that several communities, in practice, do not have access to the social protection benefits through digital means. This is true for the older people, the severely disabled, for the people living in rural areas, affected by lack of electric power and quality internet connection, or those who cannot afford a digital device. Digital literacy is also generally lower for women than for men, excluding women workers from the access to transfers, or making their husbands, fathers and brothers the “gatekeepers” of their money transfers.

#3 Workers organizations should be involved in the policy design

StreetNet champions the inclusion in social dialogue of informal economy workers’ representatives. The example of our affiliates’ inclusion in research projects and policy design shows how the needs of workers can be accurately represented only when they are able to speak for themselves. Cambodia’s digital social protection system has been extending coverage to workers in the informal economy, such as domestic workers and tuk-tuk drivers, who have historically lacked comprehensive protection. The extension has been a victory of the advocacy efforts of our affiliate IDEA: the union has successfully held dialogue with the government in recent years.

For what concerns digitalisation, some challenges remain. Informal economy workers in Cambodia are only covered by an insurance scheme under the National Social Security Fund (NSSF). Initial registration for this scheme was launched in 2018 through a mobile app, but the process proved too complicated. By April 2023, the government switched to manual registration, with over 1,000 members having joined in 2023 alone. Participation in this universal social protection scheme, which isn’t exclusive to informal economy workers, costs $4 per month per individual. However, the system currently only covers hospitalization, as there is no pension scheme in place yet.

In the case of Cambodia the digitalisation strategy was not successful due to the over complication of the process, especially for the most marginalized and vulnerable workers. The road to extend social coverage is still long. But the role of the workers’ organizations was central in shaping a welfare system that takes into account the needs of the most vulnerable.

#4 Privacy and security should be built in the systems

Digital social protection systems should be designed with the privacy of the recipients as a key feature. The systems should also be secure and not vulnerable to cyber attacks. Workers’ data can be collected by states, giving therefore way to unlawful surveillance and other human rights violations. Collection of large amounts of data and “datafication” of people’s lives gives way to what experts call “welfare surveillance”.

Here is how Amnesty International, that compiled an extensive report on the topic of digital social protection, explains it: “Marginalized people often face higher levels of data collection and analysis from the state and furthermore, their data acts to reinforce their marginality when it is used to target them for suspicion and extra scrutiny. Welfare surveillance can be understood as using these means to monitor and track applicants and recipients of social protection. Welfare regimes that introduce a “means test” to determine an individual’s eligibility for social assistance are particularly prone to welfare surveillance”.

In the context of this approach, data collection from the state’s apparatus is yet another way for the governments to reinforce a division between deserving and undeserving workers, a division that informal economy workers’ representatives have been fighting against for decades.