Stakeholder perspectives on social protection arrangements in Tanzania

by Winnie C. Muangi

as part of the CSGD-facilitated Overcoming colonial continuities in the area of social protection research project

February 2026

Social protection is often framed as a forward-looking policy tool to reduce poverty and protect citizens from shocks, yet its present form reflects more than policy design and is best understood through the historical forces that have shaped its evolution. Drawing on stakeholder perspectives analyzed in recent study, this blog explores how colonial legacies, postcolonial influence, and domestic political economy dynamics continue to shape social protection in Mainland Tanzania.

Why adopting a coloniality lens matters

Coloniality describes enduring patterns of power and inequality rooted in colonial rule that continue long after formal independence. Applying a coloniality lens highlights that social protection is not merely technical policy design, it shapes who is entitled to support, who is excluded, and which forms of solidarity are recognized.

Although many African countries gained independence in the 1960s, their social protection systems were shaped earlier through resource extraction, imported administrative models, labor hierarchies and externally driven agendas. As a result, contemporary systems often carry colonial footprints without colonial presence, echoing both what was imposed and what was marginalized. 

Tanzania’s experience is marked by German and British colonial rule, the post-independence Ujamaa welfare vision, and the expansion of large-scale programs such as the Productive Social Safety Net (PSSN). It illustrates how contemporary systems reflect layered histories and ongoing power relations rather than purely technical policy choices.

To unpack coloniality in Tanzania’s social protection, we distinguish between:

1. Colonial legacy: institutional, legal and policy arrangements introduced during colonial rule that persisted after independence and continue, either in part or in full, today.
2. Postcolonial influence: enduring power imbalances between Western countries and former colonies that continue to shape social protection arrangements decades after independence.
3. Domestic political economy dynamics: including ideology, elite incentives, civil society mobilization and implementation capacity

Colonial legacies leave deep footprints

Stakeholders differed in how central they consider colonial history for understanding Tanzania’s present. While some viewed it as foundational, others downplayed its relevance compared to later reforms. Nevertheless, three recurring patterns emerged.

1. Economic dependency and constrained fiscal space

Stakeholders linked today’s constrained fiscal space to economic structures formed during colonial rule, oriented around extraction and low-value commodity production. German colonial governance prioritized infrastructure and labor control over social provision, leaving little foundation for inclusive welfare systems.

Senior government officials and policy experts drew parallels between colonial extraction and contemporary donor dependency, describing current debt and aid relationships as reinforcing reliance on external financing. These dynamics, they argued, continue to limit the state’s ability to finance inclusive welfare systems. In this view, a political economy built for extraction remains poorly suited to financing universal social protection.

2. Formal-sector bias in institutional design

British colonial rule introduced early formal social protection schemes for a narrow group, notably civil servants and armed forces – the Government Employee Provident Fund in 1942. Stakeholders across government and research institutions highlighted how this institutional template continues to shape present-day systems. Statutory entitlements remain disproportionately anchored in formal employment, while informal workers and rural populations rely on fragmented or residual arrangements.

Despite post-independence reforms and recent efforts to extend coverage to informal workers, practitioners acknowledged that perceptions of social security as ‘for formal employees’ remain deeply entrenched. The result is a persistent dualism: structured coverage for those within formal systems and fragmented arrangements for the majority outside them. A benefits administration manager described ongoing struggles to shift this legacy:

“[...] contributory insurance fund which initially was geared towards formal workers, not informal. […] From 2018 the law was passed [...] to ensure it extends its coverage of social security to the informal economy. We are still struggling [...] because of the understanding that social security is for formal workers only not for the informal [...]”

3. Marginalization of informal welfare systems

Stakeholders repeatedly emphasized the depth and resilience of informal and community-based protection in Tanzania, including kinship support, savings groups, religious provision and collective solidarity mechanisms. Yet formal social protection systems often treat these arrangements as residual or peripheral. Several civil society actors stressed that sidelining informal systems risks disconnecting formal policy from the lived realities through which many Tanzanians organize social security. Rather than replacing these mechanisms, they argued, policy could engage more constructively with them.

The dominant nature of postcolonial influence

Across interviews, stakeholders generally perceived postcolonial influence to be more decisive than colonial legacy in shaping contemporary social protection arrangements. Their accounts highlighted how global paradigms and development cooperation practices continue to shape what is prioritized, financed and legitimized.

• First, structural adjustment reshaped the welfare trajectory

Many stakeholders described the 1980s and 1990s as a major turning point. Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) linked to IMF and World Bank lending curtailed public spending and promoted market-oriented reforms and privatization as primary pathway to development. Social protection specialists recalled how this shift weakened universal provisioning, introduced user fees and replaced guaranteed access to education and social services with loan-based systems or targeted access. These shifts, they argued, contributed to increasing exclusion among poorer households and redefined the state’s role in welfare provision – narrowed the scope of social policy.

• Second, donor agendas shape priorities and instruments

Stakeholders consistently highlighted that development cooperation influences not only financing but also policy instruments, narratives and governance arrangements. Tanzania’s position as a major aid recipient makes donor relations a central arena for social protection policymaking.

Local practitioners expressed concern that donor priorities sometimes conflict with national visions, particularly when programs are designed through funding conditionalities, technical assistance, training programs and the diffusion of ‘best practice’ templates. Several noted that projects are frequently structured through international tenders managed by consulting firms from donor countries, limiting local ownership and control over resources and decision-making. Describing how this influence manifests in practice, a civil society representative explained:

“We often find ourselves implementing donor-designed frameworks that do not fully reflect the realities on the ground.”

However, stakeholders noted that donor influence varies across domains, with some areas more externally steered than others.

• Third, knowledge and models continue to travel from North to South

Stakeholders also reflected on whose knowledge counts in shaping social protection. They highlighted that ideas of ‘good practice’ often travel from the Global North to Tanzania, sometimes with limited attention to local histories and social organization. Moreover, smaller local actors often face barriers to participation in global policy discussions due to limited resources and technical capacity, while larger international organizations dominate agenda-setting.

At the same time, stakeholders acknowledged that external partnerships have supported innovation, particularly around adaptive social protection and administrative strengthening, underscoring the ambivalent nature of postcolonial influence – as a social protection specialist remarked:

“Then you start getting support from development partners, with bilateral and UN technical support, to help deliver those big visions, missions and plans.”

Domestic political economy: reinforcement and resistance

Stakeholders were clear that Tanzania is not passively shaped by external forces. Domestic political economy dynamics can reinforce or resist coloniality, often producing a complex interplay.

• Ujamaa remains a welfare reference point

Many stakeholders framed Ujamaa era as a domestically anchored welfare vision that sought to redress colonial exclusions through expanded public provisioning in education, health and rural development. They describe the Arusha Declaration as embodying a broad commitment to social welfare, emphasizing equal access to schooling, employment and essential services as collective rights rather than market-based entitlements. Several policy experts characterized the socialist orientation as a deliberate effort to correct the structural imbalances inherited from colonial rule. Although Tanzania’s policy direction later shifted toward market-oriented reforms, stakeholders noted that the values associated with Ujamaa and Kujitegemea (solidarity, self-reliance and collective responsibility) continue to influence how justice, inclusion and the role of the state are understood and articulated as moral and political reference points.

• Political will and elite agency

Stakeholders emphasized the role of domestic elites in shaping social protection priorities, even within donor-influenced contexts. Political will was repeatedly identified as a decisive factor in determining whether governments adapt, negotiate or resist externally preferred agendas. Several respondents stressed that the expansion of social protection programs depends not only on financial resources or technical design, but on committed leadership willing to champion reform. At the same time, stakeholders pointed to instances where the government has asserted its own priorities in the face of external pressure, particularly in politically (and culturally) sensitive areas. These dynamics illustrate that domestic political agency remains significant, that is, external influence may shape the policy environment, but national leadership ultimately mediates how far such agendas are embraced, adapted or resisted.

• Implementation constraints

Across stakeholder groups, concerns about capacity, coordination, uneven oversight, and corruption were widespread because they undermine program effectiveness and public trust. They noted that such implementation challenges impede effective program design and delivery, even when financial resources are available. The most recurring issue identified was the shortage of trained personnel, particularly social workers and frontline staff at local government level. Stakeholders noted that public service recruitment has not kept pace with the growing demands of social protection delivery, resulting in gaps in supervision, monitoring and service provision at the grassroots. Capacity constraints at council level, including limited extension officers, inadequate tools and overstretched personnel, were seen as significant barriers to expanding or effectively managing programs. These constraints, stakeholders argued, can blunt reform efforts regardless of whether initiatives are externally supported or domestically driven, highlighting that institutional strength is as critical as financing in shaping outcomes.

Disrupting patterns of coloniality

Stakeholders identified several strategies to disrupt colonial influence and strengthen Tanzania’s ability to pursue inclusive and locally grounded social protection.

• First, strengthening domestic financing, reducing structural dependency and deepening government ownership are essential. Financing constraints were widely seen as rooted in deeper political–economic structures. Expanding domestic resource mobilization, improving accountability and strengthening coordination across ministries were identifies as prerequisites for sustainable and coherent social protection.
• Second, stakeholders emphasized the importance of recognizing and building with informal and community-based systems, which remain the primary source of security for many households. Rather than displacing these mechanisms, policy could engage with and strengthen them.
• Third, expanding South–South cooperation in ways that are locally led and contextually grounded. Rather than replicating Western policy models, such collaborations were considered opportunities to exchange lessons among counties facing similar social, economic and institutional conditions. Through regional research partnerships and peer learning initiatives, policymakers can examine what has worked elsewhere and adapt those strategies to their own priorities and constraints. These forms of cooperation were viewed as more likely to align with national policy frameworks, strengthen local ownership and foster approaches that resonate with domestic realities rather than externally imposed templates.

Therefore, Tanzania’s social protection system is not merely a collection of programs, it reflects layered colonial exclusion, postcolonial power imbalances and domestic political negotiation. These forces continue to shape who is protected, how resources are mobilized and which policy models are legitimized. Applying a coloniality lens makes one point clear, reform is not only about expanding coverage or refining instruments, but about reclaiming authority over priorities, knowledge and financing. If Tanzania is to move beyond inherited hierarchies and persistent dependency, social protection must be built not only for inclusion, but on its own terms.

References

Lambin, R., & Muangi, W. C. (2025). Social protection and coloniality: Learning from the past and present. Tanzania case study (IDOS Discussion Paper 20/2025). German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS). https://doi.org/10.23661/idp20.2025

Acknowledgement

This blog was first posted by socialprotection.org.