Beyond periphery : dynamics of indigenous social protection systems in dealing with covariate shocks in Southeastern Nigeria

Abstract

This study illustrates how indigenous social protection systems deal with covariate shocks in Southeastern Nigeria. It emphasises the dimensions, functions, and potential of these indigenous systems in managing the risks and adverse impacts of natural covariate shocks, with emphasis on flooding, a recurring shock in the region. This is in the context of low formal social protection coverage and indigenous social protection systems as the main source of risk management for many Nigerians. Specific objectives of the study were to map the different indigenous social protection systems that exist in Nigeria with a focus on their types and dimensions; to explore the key functions of the main types of indigenous social protection systems, including the extent to which they include and exclude different vulnerable groups within communities; to examine how the most dominant indigenous social protection systems mitigate the risk and impact of flooding; to explore the opportunities that indigenous social protection systems present with regard to handling covariate shocks; and to recommend plausible models for establishing linkages between formal and indigenous social protection systems. The study drew on the social risk management framework that distinguishes between idiosyncratic and covariate risks, and that uses three main strategies to deal with risks other than simple insurance, namely risk reduction, risk mitigation, and risk coping strategies, using formal and informal arrangements, respectively. This study explored the potentials of informal arrangements in relation to covariate shocks. It further drew on data collected in two communities, namely Umueze-Anam and Nzam in Anambra state, Southeastern Nigeria, which were selected purposively because they are flood-prone. A qualitative approach was adopted, and the data were derived from four sources, namely key informant interviews with staff of relevant state ministries and entities mandated with the provision of social protection; in-depth interviews with community members; focus group discussions with community-based associations; and participant observation of activities of community-based associations. Data analysis was done using Braun et al.’s six-phase reflexive thematic analysis. A key finding that emerged was that in addition to kinship and community-based systems, indigenous religious mandates and women’s organisations constitute forms of indigenous social protection in Nigeria. In this regard, age grades are the most common arrangements because membership is based on age or age cohort, which makes it rare for an adult in the study communities not to belong to an age grade. The least common forms of social protection are accumulated savings and credit associations because of the typical long time that members need to wait before they can access their benefits, particularly in the context of widespread poverty. Contrary to widely held views that indigenous social protection systems are mostly risk coping strategies, their functions are complementary and encompass risk reduction, mitigation, and coping, which are the three dimensions of social risk management. Furthermore, although these indigenous systems are unable to prevent natural covariate shocks such as floods, they can enhance ex-ante mitigation and coping, which nullifies arguments that they are only effective in managing idiosyncratic risks and unable to withstand pressures from covariate shocks. It further emerged that unlike formal systems that ii address only the material dimensions of wellbeing, indigenous social protection systems have a dynamic character that enables them to address material and psychosocial wellbeing. The study findings also affirm previous findings on lack of linkages between formal and indigenous social protection systems and proffers plausible models for such linkages based on four preconditions, namely proper understanding of indigenous systems, compatibility of systems, retaining underlying principles of indigenous systems, and ensuring that linkages guarantee autonomy. The overall contribution of the study is that it used empirical evidence to illustrate not just how indigenous social protection systems in sub-Saharan Africa remain the major source of managing idiosyncratic risks but also how they are able to handle covariate shocks vis-à-vis formal systems because of their dynamic processes. Specifically, the ability of these indigenous systems to address risks and adverse impacts of floods, a major climate change-related adverse weather issue, as illustrated by the thesis highlights how they align with shock-responsive social protection. This validates emerging arguments that indigenous social protection systems have the potential to address covariate shocks and supports calls for linking formal and indigenous systems to extend social protection coverage and contribute to actions to combat climate change and its impacts. Based on the foregoing, the key recommendation made for policy improvement is explicit recognition of indigenous social protection systems in Nigeria’s social protection policy and its’ supporting legislative and policy instruments, acknowledging in details, what these indigenous systems entail, their potentials and how they can be linked with formal systems and not just be given a peripheral position. For practice, the study suggests collaborative ventures between the two main systems, for example, through state provision of subsidies through banks where mutual aid associations operate bank accounts and exchange of ideas on development programmes and processes between state and community groups. Finally, future research can explore indigenous social protection systems that may have emerged in response to other covariate shocks in various regions of Nigeria for a wider picture of these systems to appropriately guide social policy. Three covariate shocks in particular that are widespread are suggested, namely drought, a major natural shock; HIV/AIDS pandemics, a major health shock; and terrorism-related violence, a major social shock. This will provide wider and stronger evidence based on the potentials of these systems in relation to covariate shocks.