By Atieno Ndomo
The proposed cash transfer scheme to support the food needs of some of the most deserving urban poor has met quite some flak from commentators, including MPs.
This sort of controversy is not unusual in the consideration of schemes used as policy instruments to tackle poverty, vulnerability and exclusion.
A case can be made for immediately extending a form of tangible insurance to the poorest and most vulnerable of us, through a defined social safety net programme.
The food and other basic needs of the poorest are urgent and cannot be postponed. Even in the best case scenario where we adopt an acceptable democratic and just constitutional dispensation, it will take a considerable amount of time before the fruits of this framework transforms our polity and realities.
The long and uncertain process of agreeing a new constitutional dispensation and inculcating a culture of constitutionalism needs to simultaneously affirm the dignity of the marginalised majority in our populace. In our present state of fragile social cohesion, a well delivered social protection programme can improve the attractiveness of desired constitutional, policy and legislative reforms.
Since the costs of delayed fundamental reforms in our country have fallen with disastrous consequences on the lives of the poorest, cushioning them and affording them a helping hand can be viewed as a minimal form of compensation.
Contrary to the common knee-jerk criticism of such programmes as fostering dependency and amounting to wastage of scarce public resources, in the context of massive plunder of public resources and dubious expenditure, directing resources to cushion and support the livelihoods of citizens as a way of bringing them into the mainstream of community life is a meaningful spending choice and worthwhile investment in people.
A conscious re-allocation of public expenditure from areas such as non essential military spending; excessive parliamentary emoluments and other aspects of wasteful usage of public finances would free sufficient resources to cover the costs of such a scheme.
Our country has a history of social safety net programmes, albeit often sponsored by external funding partners. Examples of in kind transfers include the school feeding and cash/food for work schemes. There is evidence that these programmes provide a critical lifeline to vulnerable communities. Previous government attempts include the public works programmes (in roads and construction) and the recently piloted unga subsidy scheme.
The essence of social protection schemes cannot be denied merely on account of poor design and execution. If we appreciated the structural causal drivers of poverty, the need to cushion the most vulnerable from shocks that are beyond their control makes natural justice and equity sense.
The sort of inequalities that are alive in our country negate and retard our economic growth potential in a very real sense. The very poor caught in a vicious cycle of survival have limited or no investment options at their disposal. A well designed and executed social protection scheme can unlock possibilities in this sense by generating beneficial short term direct impacts on the lives of people.
The success of such programmes is most dependent on a sound design. Key here would be: One, anchoring on a rights framework to guard against a patron client orientation. It is crucial that recipients do not perceive the programme as a favour but an entitlement. This is important in avoiding creating a perception that recipients are beholden to a benefactor- thereby disempowering them further and fostering a sense of dependency.
Two, sound targeting of beneficiaries with the eligibility criteria being unequivocally based on poverty status. Such criteria must of necessity be cognizant of gender dimensions of poverty and guard against further marginalisation of women.
Three, a reliable transfer mechanism. Four, transparent execution to foster accountability and learning, minimise corruption and enhanced public understanding of how the programme works
Finally, instituting a formal accountability mechanism and continuous monitoring to ensure effectiveness such as through a complaints and feedback system.
Obviously, social protection programmes are not a magic bullet to the problems of poverty and inequality. They cannot be viewed in isolation of fundamental re-organisation of governance to enhance growth, responsiveness to people’s needs, accountability and equitable sharing of national resources.
—The (bndomo@hotmail.com) is a social and economic policy analyst
