Reducing Poverty and Inequality of Opportunities through Reforms in Social Transfers and Social Services

Project facts

Project promoter:
Institute for Market Economics
Project Number:
BG-ACTIVECITIZENS-0009
Status:
In implementation
Initial project cost:
€193,541

Description

Even at times of economic boom, the level of poverty and dire poverty in particular remains high: the share of poor people exceeds 20% and IME’s analyses show that the share of people in dire poverty remains a stable 10%. The main yardstick for the success of the social policy is the extent to which the policy reduces dire poverty and inequalities especially of opportunities. Social transfers in Bulgaria result in minimum reduction of inequalities. Even though a reform of the policies on people with disabilities and personal assistance has been launched recently, there are no outlooks at present for a fundamental change in the social field and durable results. The project entails analytical skills that will facilitate advocacy activities to change the social policy and will achieve a specific goal, namely carry out research to facilitate decision-making, formulation of public policies and a debate. The project envisages contributing through specific proposals to the planned development of a map of the needs of social services. The analytical activities include 7 in-depth analyses with recommendations and efficiency and impact evaluation and the advocacy activities include participation in the working groups and parliamentary committees in the National Assembly, active work with the media, preparation of articles and opinions, involvement of civil society organizations and the government in discussions and round tables, polls and visits to municipalities and youth involvement. Some of the project efforts will aim at analyzing and formulating recommendations. The other more important part of the efforts will be targeted at advocacy, partnerships and pressure for reforms. The expected results are (1) raised awareness of inequality of opportunities, efficiency of the social policy and the needs of municipalities of social services; (2) supported stakeholders; (3) better social policy; (4) activated and informed debate and consulted local authorities.