Most mandatory social security programmes are created by legislation, decree or some official act of government, to define the mandate of the institution that is responsible for the implementation of the programme. The mandate often draws a distinction between the “board” and “management”, with the board as the governing and policy-making body of the institution and the management as the body that administers the programme and implements the resolutions of the board.

The concept of governance is understood in many ways by different people. Its definition often depends on the goals to be pursued, the entities involved, and the socio-political environment within which these goals are to be achieved.

The diversity in governance practices around the world is a reflection of differences in the political, social, economic and cultural histories of countries. There is common recognition, however, that good governance is aimed at delivering what is mandated and ensuring that what is delivered is responsive to the evolving needs of the individual and society. Improved education and new technologies have increased the expectations of the public for accountable and transparent administration, including constant improvements in the delivery and performance of social services.

Good governance is central to the effective delivery of social security and is a priority of the International Social Security Association (ISSA), which has the constitutional mandate to promote and develop social security worldwide through technical and administrative improvement.

The ISSA Guidelines for Social Security Administration were prepared by the ISSA General Secretariat with the ISSA technical commissions.

The ISSA Guidelines on Contribution Collection and Compliance were produced under the auspices of the ISSA Working Group on Contribution Collection and Compliance. The Guidelines were prepared by a team at the ISSA General Secretariat led by Raúl Ruggia Frick with the involvement of Octavio Jiménez Durán. Expert support and contributions were provided by Louis Enoff and Ian McDonald.

The institution designs and implements permanent evaluation mechanisms for the contribution collection and compliance system.

Permanent and systematic evaluation should be based on performance indicators and service quality evaluation involving the main stakeholders and the public. Using a standard model increases the institution’s ability to compare its performance against institutions in other countries with similar contribution collection schemes.

The institution manages and fosters the maturity of the contribution collection and compliance system through a continuous improvement plan.

Contribution collection and compliance systems are usually complex and developed over several years. Moving from one development stage to another depends on a number of factors (administrative, economic and social) and also on several external actors.

Building effective and efficient contribution collection and compliance systems involves long-term political and administrative projects. A large number of success and risk factors can be identified only during these processes. Furthermore, experience and institutional capacity are obtained mainly through practical projects. Successful social security systems rely strongly on acceptance and adoption by society overall, whatever the country.

The institution implements public awareness campaigns on its anti-fraud policies, based on risk profiles, to reduce evasion and fraud and increase confidence in the system.

The aim of such campaigns is to inform public opinion on the meaning and social impact of contribution evasion and fraud, and on measures to counter fraud.

The institution implements specific information dissemination campaigns to generate awareness of programme changes and specific information about members’ responsibilities.

The aim of such campaigns is to foster a sense of responsibility in every stakeholder about the contribution process.