The views and opinions expressed in this interview are those of the individual interviewed and do not necessarily reflect the official policy, position, or views of the World Bank or its affiliated organisations.
You are working for the World Bank – what work do you do to enhance and sustain special protection?
As a Health Economist at the World Bank, I contribute to strengthening social protection in the Europe and Central Asia region primarily through work on health, long-term care, and disability systems, and their integration within broader social protection frameworks. My work focuses on supporting governments in designing and reforming systems that better protect vulnerable populations – particularly older persons and people with disabilities. I do this through a combination of analytical and advisory work, policy dialogue, and operational support – helping countries identify system and service delivery gaps, provide policy recommendations, design reforms and projects, and implement solutions.
What role does the World Bank play in helping governments set up or strengthen sustainable social care and support systems?
The World Bank supports governments in building and strengthening sustainable social care and support systems through a dual role as a financier and knowledge partner — and the balance between those two roles depends on where a country is and what it actually needs. In the Europe and Central Asia region, countries are at very different stages of system maturation. Some countries are focused on foundational investments: developing service infrastructure, expanding coverage, and putting the basic institutional architecture in place. Many countries in the region have well-established social service systems and are focused on modernising what exists by improving quality, shifting from institutional to community-based models, closing persistent coverage gaps, managing the fiscal pressures of rapidly ageing populations, and strengthening the workforce that delivers care. For countries where financing is part of the equation, the World Bank provides financial support in the form of loans and grants to help governments invest in social care and support systems. That might mean capital investment in new service infrastructure in one context, or supporting a deinstitutionalisation reform, or a performance-based financing pilot in another. Across the full spectrum, the World Bank offers technical expertise to support countries in designing reforms that are not only effective but also fiscally sustainable in the long term. This can include analytical and advisory work on service gaps, financing flows, workforce needs, governance structures, etc. It can also include operational support – such as through implementation support and policy dialogue – to help governments implement reforms, pilot new approaches, and scale up services. In all cases, the World Bank aims to support country-led reform — bringing technical depth and international experience to the table, while the shape of the solution remains grounded in each country's own context and priorities.
In your upcoming presentation, you argue that countries need better statistics on social service financing. What kinds of data are currently missing or unreliable, and why does this matter for policy decisions?
A core challenge in social service financing is that data are often fragmented and incomparable, both within countries and across them. Within countries, financing is often fragmented across institutions and levels of government, particularly in decentralised systems. This fragmentation can make it difficult to trace how resources are ultimately used once funds are transferred from central to local authorities. Where local reporting is weak or inconsistent, even basic questions about spending at the frontline level can be difficult to answer. At the same time, international comparability remains a challenge. Although broad categories exist to harmonise data across countries, they often mask important differences in how services are defined, delivered, and organised. This is especially true in areas such as long-term care and disability, where national definitions and service models can vary widely. As a result, even standardised data categorisation can obscure meaningful distinctions and limit opportunities for cross-country learning. Moreover, some of the most important components of financing are not well captured. Private and out-of-pocket spending – especially in areas like long-term care and disability –can be substantial, yet are often missing or underestimated in official data. This leads to an incomplete picture of both the true cost of services, where public financing is missing, and the financial burden on individuals and families. These gaps matter because strong and fiscally sustainable policy decisions depend on reliable and complete data. Without credible financing data, governments cannot assess efficiency, identify inequities, plan reforms, or cost new policies, nor can they make a compelling case for increased investment. If financing flows are not visible and well understood, systems cannot be managed strategically or improved sustainably. Similarly, without robust and comparable data, countries cannot effectively learn from one another’s experiences. One example of efforts to address these comparability challenges is the European Social Services Index, which compiles annual national data on legislation, expenditure and coverage of social services across EU Member States. Prior to joining the World Bank, I had the pleasure of contributing to the analysis and drafting of the 2025 edition. While the SSI does not fully resolve all data limitations, it demonstrates the value of bringing together fragmented data in a structured way to better understand the situation of social services and to support more informed cross-country learning and policy dialogue, including in the context of the European Semester.
You will emphasise that tracking financing flows is essential for strengthening accountability in social service systems. What do governments most often overlook when it comes to understanding where resources actually go?
One of the most common gaps is that governments track budgets and allocations, but have less visibility into how those resources actually translate into services and outcomes. There is often a disconnect between financial data and service delivery outcomes. So while spending is recorded, it is not always clear whether it resulted in expanded coverage, improved quality, or better outcomes for people. There may be no information on whether it reaches the intended target group, how it is used, and what it ultimately delivers. Without this level of transparency, it becomes very difficult to ensure accountability, identify inefficiencies, or make informed decisions on system improvements. Equally important is understanding not only where resources go, but also where they do not go. Financing flows are often fragmented across multiple actors – different ministries, municipalities, insurance schemes, and sometimes donors or non-state providers. When these flows are not brought together into a coherent, system-wide picture, gaps in coverage and unmet needs can remain hidden. Governments may then end up managing isolated parts of the system rather than steering it as a whole. Tools such as the European Social Services Index illustrate the value of bringing fragmented information together into a more coherent, system-wide perspective. By compiling data on legislation, expenditure, and service coverage – including information on population coverage of social services – it helps bridge the gap between how much is spent and what services are actually delivered.
In your experience across Europe and Central Asia, what practical steps can governments take to improve transparency and accountability in how social services are financed?
Improving transparency and accountability in social service financing looks different depending on where a country's system currently stands. For countries where foundational data infrastructure is still being built, the starting point is making spending more visible and interpretable. This means strengthening how expenditures are classified and reported nationally, so that social service spending is clearly identified and consistently tracked across ministries, governance levels, and programs. In decentralised systems, which are common across Europe and Central Asia, a significant share of service delivery happens at the municipal level, yet sub-national reporting is often unstandardized and uneven. Strengthening that reporting, introducing expenditure tracking tools, and, where feasible, linking financial management systems across levels of government, can meaningfully improve the traceability of public resources. For countries with more established systems and where basic expenditure reporting is largely in place, the bigger challenge is connecting financing data to service delivery and outcomes. Knowing how much was spent is not sufficient: what matters is whether that spending translated into services, who those services reached, and whether they improved outcomes for people. In more advanced systems, this means developing outcome-based frameworks, strengthening the accountability of mixed provider markets – where non-state actors deliver a significant share of services – and building the analytical capacity to assess value for money rather than just compliance with budget allocations.
What role do you see for data collection on social services expenses and impact for decision-making in public investment?
Data on social service expenditure and impact is not just a technical input. It can be a strategic and even political instrument for decision-making. When ministries can clearly demonstrate what a service costs, who it reaches, and its impact, they are in a much stronger position to justify, protect, and scale those investments. Without that evidence, social services often remain undervalued and vulnerable in budget discussions, because their impact is not expressed in terms that may resonate with finance ministries. Within the constraints of government budgets, data on expenditure helps governments understand what different services actually cost, how resources are distributed, and where inefficiencies or inequities exist. Data on impact helps them assess which interventions improve outcomes, for whom, and under what conditions. When those two types of information are brought together, governments are in a much better position to prioritise investments, scale what works, redesign what does not, and defend those choices in fiscal discussions. This is particularly important in social services, where benefits are often long-term and cross-sectoral. Better data can make visible that investments in prevention, early intervention, or community-based care are not simply costs, but rather drivers of future savings and improved outcomes across health and social protection systems.
Finally, what are you looking forward to at the ESSC 2026?
I’m especially looking forward to the exchange of ideas on how to make social service systems more accessible, sustainable, and responsive to evolving needs—particularly in the context of ageing populations. The European Social Services Conference is a great opportunity to connect policy discussions with real implementation challenges and to learn from diverse experiences across countries.
