LAUSR

Let me start this time with the topic of this issue’s Forum: targeting. Are we revisiting a discourse from the past? Far from that! The World Bank (Grosh et al., 2022) just published a new report entitled ‘Revisiting Targeting in Social Assistance: A New Look at Old Dilemmas’. In this issue’s Forum section, the authors of that report showcase the report’s main findings and arguments. This is critically discussed by Razavi et al., a team from the International Labour Organisation (ILO). The discussion is opened and framed by an introduction written by part of the editors of this journal, and the two Forum pieces show different connotations and perspectives on targeting in social protection. Even though not explicitly and purposefully, some of the articles in this issue challenge certain core arguments made in the debate on targeting indirectly or add complexity to it. Those concern the articles by Künzler on Middle Africa, among other things regarding the limits of cash transfers; Greener and Yeo’s critique of East-Asian developmentalism; and Bruzelius and Shutes claim of including concepts of mobility in social policy research. Künzler focuses on a group of African countries (Middle Africa) characterised by authoritarian regimes. By means of paired comparisons, he seeks to identify patterns in the provision of social services among these countries. One interesting aspect related to targeting is that Künzler finds, countries of the region in which regional elites were included (thus not a focus only on the poor and vulnerable groups of the population) in social services performed better – why? The elites were more willing to politically support to such programmes if they also benefitted themselves. At the same time, as the author shows, social policies did not appear as important electoral issues. Looking at a completely different group of countries – East-Asian ‘developmentalist’ welfare states – Greener and Yeo focus on reproduction, discipline and inequality illustrated with Singapore’s Central Provident Fund. This Fund uses a ‘forced savings’ approach for social provision in housing, healthcare, education and retirement. Eligibility criteria are tied to ‘desired social behaviour’ related to heteronormative familial