Volume 25, Issue 96 (In press 2025)
refahj 2025, 25(96): 0-0 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Bagheri Y. (2025). Discursive Shortcomings of Social Protection in Iran. refahj. 25(96), : 5 doi:10.32598/refahj.25.96.4248.1
URL: http://refahj.uswr.ac.ir/article-1-4344-en.html
URL: http://refahj.uswr.ac.ir/article-1-4344-en.html
Keywords: Social Protection, Social Welfare, Critical Discourse Analysis, Comprehensive Social Welfare System of Iran, Social Security, Social Assistance
Full-Text [PDF 505 kb]
(226 Downloads)
| Abstract (HTML) (661 Views)
Full-Text: (41 Views)
Extensive Abstract:
Introduction
This study begins with the observation that, despite the adoption of numerous concepts in the field of social welfare in Iran, the country’s approach to social protection significantly diverges from global norms. While the dominant international perspective equates social protection with social security—or even considers it a more comprehensive replacement—in Iran, experts often interpret social protection merely as social insurance, rather than a broader concept. As a result, Iran’s social security system has been divided into insurance-based and non-insurance-based (protection or assistance) categories.
This division, widely taught in universities and reinforced in institutions related to social insurance, is considered so fundamental that its adherence is often seen as a contributing factor to the instability of pension funds. Many experts and social policy practitioners have continued to emphasize this conceptual divide and the necessity of formulating separate policies accordingly.
Thus, the primary question of this research is to understand the nature and reasons for the dominance of a particular interpretation of social protection in Iran, which contrasts with the descriptions in international texts and leads to the fundamental separation of social protection from social insurance. In line with this issue, the present research seeks to deconstruct the existing articulation of concepts in the field of social welfare, reveal the relationship between the current arrangement and power relations, and pave the way for a change in discourse in this field.
Method
This is a qualitative study using Norman Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) as its core analytical method. In the first phase, written and oral interviews were conducted to assess the dominance of the current discourse. In the second, discourse analysis was performed through document reviews and interviews with key informants, followed by qualitative content analysis.
The initial research population consisted of graduate students and researchers in social welfare and social security. A total of 20 participants were selected using convenience and snowball sampling. Of these, 11 responded in writing, while the rest participated in oral interviews.
In the next phase, supplementary data for discourse analysis was gathered through email and other social media interactions with various individuals involved in social welfare and social security, particularly those who contributed to the comprehensive social security system. However, given the passage of time and the two-decade gap since the drafting and approval of the structural law, limited information was obtained from them.
Findings
Following Fairclough’s four stages (2012), the study identifies key elements of the dominant discourse in Iran and explores possibilities for discursive change.
Stage 1: Conceptual Misunderstandings of “Social Protection”
In Iranian discourse, social protection has been so closely equated with social assistance that the translation of global texts on social protection often leads to confusion. This misunderstanding has hindered alignment with contemporary international social welfare debates.
Stage 2: Hidden Obstacles
One central barrier is the “Structure of the Comprehensive Welfare and Social Security System Law,” which categorizes the welfare system into insurance, protective/rehabilitative, and emergency services. This structure places protective services on par with insurance, entrenching their separation. Another key obstacle is the continued production of literature—mainly by institutions linked to pension funds—that equates social security with social protection.
Stage 3: Institutional and Strategic Functions of the Discourse
Interview data suggests that concerns over the financial sustainability of insurance funds have driven efforts to clearly separate insurance from protective responsibilities. This separation served as a tool to shield fund resources from political interference. Under this discourse, protective services are defined as a government responsibility, distinct from insurance—where the government plays only a supportive role. The strategic function of this distinction has been to protect the assets of insurance funds from being appropriated by state actors.
Stage 4: Opportunities for Discourse Change
- Since many supporters of the existing discourse are pension fund experts, addressing their concerns could pave the way for reform.
- Their primary tools are knowledge production—through data, academic texts, and translated materials—so universities could challenge this dominance by exposing inaccuracies and encouraging alternative discourses.
- Publishing in respected journals or organizing scholarly events could also foster discursive transformation.
Discussion
While the development of Iran’s Comprehensive Social Security System in the 1990s was initially progressive, the failure to engage with evolving international discourse led to a reliance on outdated (1950s) social security models. This outdated conceptualization—enshrined in the structure law—reduced social protection to social assistance and created barriers to adopting modern social policy frameworks.
This shift was shaped by active administrative actors in the welfare field, who played key roles in drafting the law. Instead of shaping national welfare policy, the discourse has focused on managing existing institutions. Although the law aimed to create coherence in welfare provision, it inadvertently emphasized institutional efficiency over service recipients and broader policy goals.
The absence of a guiding theoretical framework has resulted in a law that reflects power dynamics and entrenched organizational interests, obstructing the integration of newer global discourses. Consequently, the discourse has benefited institutions: social insurance bodies have distanced themselves from protective responsibilities, while non-insurance organizations have confined themselves to passive assistance. This has perpetuated—and even deepened—the fragmentation of welfare services.
The continued administrative separation of health insurance, social injury services, and emergency support is rooted in the structure law’s emphasis on organizational governance over policymaking. Critically, this discourse has failed to address structural causes of poverty and inequality, rendering Iran’s welfare system largely reactive rather than transformative.
Moreover, reducing social protection to mere social assistance—identified mainly with aid organizations such as welfare agencies and relief committees—has turned it into a limited safety net. As a result, vast portions of the population remain unprotected: neither covered by assistance programs nor included in insurance schemes.
Ethical Considerations
This research was conducted with full adherence to ethical standards in qualitative research. Participation in interviews was entirely voluntary, and informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection. Respondents were assured of the confidentiality and anonymity of their responses, and data were used exclusively for academic purposes. No sensitive or identifying personal information was collected or disclosed. The research design and analysis aimed to respect the dignity, perspectives, and intellectual contributions of all participants. Efforts were made to interpret the data fairly and transparently, avoiding bias or misrepresentation.
Introduction
This study begins with the observation that, despite the adoption of numerous concepts in the field of social welfare in Iran, the country’s approach to social protection significantly diverges from global norms. While the dominant international perspective equates social protection with social security—or even considers it a more comprehensive replacement—in Iran, experts often interpret social protection merely as social insurance, rather than a broader concept. As a result, Iran’s social security system has been divided into insurance-based and non-insurance-based (protection or assistance) categories.
This division, widely taught in universities and reinforced in institutions related to social insurance, is considered so fundamental that its adherence is often seen as a contributing factor to the instability of pension funds. Many experts and social policy practitioners have continued to emphasize this conceptual divide and the necessity of formulating separate policies accordingly.
Thus, the primary question of this research is to understand the nature and reasons for the dominance of a particular interpretation of social protection in Iran, which contrasts with the descriptions in international texts and leads to the fundamental separation of social protection from social insurance. In line with this issue, the present research seeks to deconstruct the existing articulation of concepts in the field of social welfare, reveal the relationship between the current arrangement and power relations, and pave the way for a change in discourse in this field.
Method
This is a qualitative study using Norman Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) as its core analytical method. In the first phase, written and oral interviews were conducted to assess the dominance of the current discourse. In the second, discourse analysis was performed through document reviews and interviews with key informants, followed by qualitative content analysis.
The initial research population consisted of graduate students and researchers in social welfare and social security. A total of 20 participants were selected using convenience and snowball sampling. Of these, 11 responded in writing, while the rest participated in oral interviews.
In the next phase, supplementary data for discourse analysis was gathered through email and other social media interactions with various individuals involved in social welfare and social security, particularly those who contributed to the comprehensive social security system. However, given the passage of time and the two-decade gap since the drafting and approval of the structural law, limited information was obtained from them.
Findings
Following Fairclough’s four stages (2012), the study identifies key elements of the dominant discourse in Iran and explores possibilities for discursive change.
Stage 1: Conceptual Misunderstandings of “Social Protection”
In Iranian discourse, social protection has been so closely equated with social assistance that the translation of global texts on social protection often leads to confusion. This misunderstanding has hindered alignment with contemporary international social welfare debates.
Stage 2: Hidden Obstacles
One central barrier is the “Structure of the Comprehensive Welfare and Social Security System Law,” which categorizes the welfare system into insurance, protective/rehabilitative, and emergency services. This structure places protective services on par with insurance, entrenching their separation. Another key obstacle is the continued production of literature—mainly by institutions linked to pension funds—that equates social security with social protection.
Stage 3: Institutional and Strategic Functions of the Discourse
Interview data suggests that concerns over the financial sustainability of insurance funds have driven efforts to clearly separate insurance from protective responsibilities. This separation served as a tool to shield fund resources from political interference. Under this discourse, protective services are defined as a government responsibility, distinct from insurance—where the government plays only a supportive role. The strategic function of this distinction has been to protect the assets of insurance funds from being appropriated by state actors.
Stage 4: Opportunities for Discourse Change
- Since many supporters of the existing discourse are pension fund experts, addressing their concerns could pave the way for reform.
- Their primary tools are knowledge production—through data, academic texts, and translated materials—so universities could challenge this dominance by exposing inaccuracies and encouraging alternative discourses.
- Publishing in respected journals or organizing scholarly events could also foster discursive transformation.
Discussion
While the development of Iran’s Comprehensive Social Security System in the 1990s was initially progressive, the failure to engage with evolving international discourse led to a reliance on outdated (1950s) social security models. This outdated conceptualization—enshrined in the structure law—reduced social protection to social assistance and created barriers to adopting modern social policy frameworks.
This shift was shaped by active administrative actors in the welfare field, who played key roles in drafting the law. Instead of shaping national welfare policy, the discourse has focused on managing existing institutions. Although the law aimed to create coherence in welfare provision, it inadvertently emphasized institutional efficiency over service recipients and broader policy goals.
The absence of a guiding theoretical framework has resulted in a law that reflects power dynamics and entrenched organizational interests, obstructing the integration of newer global discourses. Consequently, the discourse has benefited institutions: social insurance bodies have distanced themselves from protective responsibilities, while non-insurance organizations have confined themselves to passive assistance. This has perpetuated—and even deepened—the fragmentation of welfare services.
The continued administrative separation of health insurance, social injury services, and emergency support is rooted in the structure law’s emphasis on organizational governance over policymaking. Critically, this discourse has failed to address structural causes of poverty and inequality, rendering Iran’s welfare system largely reactive rather than transformative.
Moreover, reducing social protection to mere social assistance—identified mainly with aid organizations such as welfare agencies and relief committees—has turned it into a limited safety net. As a result, vast portions of the population remain unprotected: neither covered by assistance programs nor included in insurance schemes.
Ethical Considerations
This research was conducted with full adherence to ethical standards in qualitative research. Participation in interviews was entirely voluntary, and informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection. Respondents were assured of the confidentiality and anonymity of their responses, and data were used exclusively for academic purposes. No sensitive or identifying personal information was collected or disclosed. The research design and analysis aimed to respect the dignity, perspectives, and intellectual contributions of all participants. Efforts were made to interpret the data fairly and transparently, avoiding bias or misrepresentation.
Type of Study: orginal |
Received: 2024/05/14 | Accepted: 2024/11/20 | Published: 2025/04/5
Received: 2024/05/14 | Accepted: 2024/11/20 | Published: 2025/04/5
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Contact Information
Social Welfare Quarterly
Social Welfare Quarterly, Social Welfare Research Department, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation, Daneshjoo Blvd, Evin, Tehran, Iran, 19857-13834
Journal Tel: 02171732851
Website: http://refahj.uswr.ac.ir
Email: refahj@uswr.ac.ir
