Social protection is seen as a solution to many problems of development, including poverty, food insecurity and access to services. But we also know that social protection has its limitations. So how do we justify getting Governments to invest in social protection programmes rather than investing in infrastructure or job creation or other services like health and education?
Listen to this episode on your favourite podcast provider:
Acast | Spotify | Apple | YouTube | Soundcloud
In this episode of the IDS Between the Lines podcast, IDS Research Fellows, Kate Pruce, Stephen Devereux and IDS Director of Research Nick Nisbett talk about their new report titled: Social Protection for Food Security and Nutrition: a Business Case published by the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) and World Food Programme (WFP).
Listen to the podcast
The discussants argue that while social protection – especially cash transfers – clearly reduces hunger and food insecurity, it does not automatically improve nutrition, which is more complex and requires coordinated action across sectors. Therefore, they put forward a business case for investing in food security – and nutrition‑sensitive social protection.
Why a business case is needed
Despite social protection being a right, policymakers face constrained budgets. The business case shows why investing in nutrition‑sensitive social protection is both economically smart and politically necessary, and highlights the high costs of inaction.
Strong evidence shows social protection improves food security and diets. Nutrition impacts are more consistent when programs are well designed, adequately funded, targeted at nutritionally vulnerable groups (children, pregnant and lactating women, adolescent girls), and combined with services such as health care and social and behaviour change communication (“cash plus”).
What needs to change
Scale up coverage and adequacy, design programs explicitly around nutrition, strengthen multisectoral coordination (social protection, health, education, WASH), invest in data and delivery systems, and move from fragmented projects to coherent, country‑led systems.
- Design matters: The biggest impacts come from well‑designed, adequately funded, and well‑targeted “cash‑plus” programmes, combining cash with nutrition, health and behaviour‑change services.
- Food security v nutrition security: Nutrition outcomes depend on health care, childcare, breastfeeding practices, water and sanitation—not just access to food.
- Target the most vulnerable: Stronger nutrition gains are seen when programmes focus on children under five, pregnant and lactating women, and adolescent girls.
- High costs of inaction: Malnutrition carries huge human and economic costs, including lost productivity, higher health spending and avoidable child deaths.
- High returns on investment: Nutrition‑sensitive social protection—especially school meals—delivers very high economic returns.
- Fragmentation holds progress back: Weak coordination across social protection, health, education and WASH systems limits impact.
- Systems approach needed: Move from stand‑alone projects to coordinated, nutrition‑sensitive social protection systems, led by countries and informed by data.
In conclusion
The speakers say that social protection delivers large returns for poverty reduction, food security and human capital, but to achieve nutrition security, it must be adequate, nutrition‑focused, and embedded in coordinated systems linking cash and services across sectors. In a world of rising shocks and constrained budgets, nutrition‑sensitive social protection is both the right thing -and the smart thing to invest in.
About the speakers
Nicholas Nisbett is Director of Research at IDS and a Professor of Global Public Policy, Nutrition and Health Equity at the University of Sussex. With over 20 years of international development research and policy development experience, he has published and worked extensively on food and nutrition policy and politics. His recent work has focused on nutrition equity: he co-authored the introductory chapter to the 2020 Global Nutrition Report and is currently a member of the UN Committee on Food Security’s High Level Panel of Experts for a report on inequalities in food systems.
Kate Pruce is a Research Fellow in the Rural Futures cluster, working on the politics of social protection. Her research interests also include social justice, gender and developmental leadership. She has contributed to large-scale, multi-country research programmes in sub-Saharan Africa and the Asia-Pacific region. Her fieldwork has focused on Zambia and Timor-Leste, including qualitative and mixed-methods approaches.
Stephen Devereux is a development economist working predominantly on food security, famine, rural livelihoods, social protection and poverty reduction issues. His research experience has mainly been in eastern and southern Africa, especially Ethiopia, Malawi and Namibia.
About the Between the Lines podcast
This podcast series explores ground-breaking ideas in development for positive social and environmental change. Each month we feature an interview with an expert in international development who will talk about their latest research and ideas.
Episodes content could feature authors of new books, IDS research or interviews with special guest stars.
The discussions give an insight on the themes covered, exploring the challenges and discoveries, and why the issues matter for progressive and sustainable development globally.
Send your comments and episode suggestions to [email protected]
Key contacts
