There are a number of safety net programmes currently underway in the country. These are meant for the benefit of the old, disadvantaged and poor men and women. Some programmes are specifically designed for the poor while some are targeted on the temporarily distressed. Though the coverage of the programmes does not include 100 per cent of the target population their operation indicates acknowledgement of the government about its obligation to take care of the indigent population. For a developing country like Bangladesh it is no mean achievement to take up social welfare schemes which usually are seen in developed countries.
Laudable as they are, the safety net programmes, however, are yet to come off with flying colours in implementation. There are loopholes and inadequacies in the way they are being implemented. This has been revealed in a social audit conducted by Government Coalition and People's Alliance, two non-government organisations which jointly carried out a survey in 14 union parishads from seven upazilas in seven districts. According to the findings, the benefit of social safety net programmes often do not reach the right people because of wrong targeting, leakages and due to lack of co-ordination. More than 66 per cent of those covered by Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) said the beneficiaries were selected correctly but the rest were not picked following proper procedure. On the other hand, 68 per cent of beneficiaries belonging to Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) expressed satisfaction with this selection process while the rest were dissatisfied. About 58 per cent from a third group, the Employment Generation Programme for the Poorest (EGPP), were of the opinion that proper procedure was followed in selection while 32.05 per cent remained unhappy. A total of 1008 beneficiaries from the VGD, 1002 from the VGF and 504 from the EGPP were included in the survey.
VGD provides monthly ration support to those women who are absolutely poor for two years. VGF offers food support to both poor men and women during natural calamities and EGPP provides cash support to both during lean season. The three programmes account for half of the budgetary support provided to social safety net programmes. Besides these there are programmes for old age pension for the poor but its coverage is not comprehensive. There is criticism about selection of beneficiaries of this programme.
About 29 ministries are implementing 99 social safety net projects at the moment. According to the audit report, there are lack of co-ordination and overlapping in the implementation of the projects. This causes wastage and deprivation. It was revealed in the survey that people who need the support most do not get it while there are cases of an individual getting multiple assistance. This is happening either by design or default. The study found weaknesses in policies and management of the implementing agencies which gave rise to irregularities.
It is felt that more responsibility should be given to union parishads to select the beneficiaries. They should be given enough time as proper selection requires fact finding and scrutiny. Most of the times when the union parishads are involved they are given little time and asked to submit list of target group members within a very short time.
Between 73 and 77 per cent of the respondents said they were selected by the authorised committee but the rest were not picked by any committee. About 70 per cent VGF beneficiaries, 70 per cent VGD recipients and 63 per cent EGPP beneficiaries were of the opinion that the selection procedure was not biased and influenced by vested quarters. It was revealed that among these programmes, EGPP fared worst in terms of implementation. About 35 per cent of respondents said selection was influenced by local elite, specially politicians who were guided by partisan considerations.
The incidence of corruption involving monetary transaction was found to be low in all three programmes. Only 10 per cent in the EGPP alleged they had to pay money to get assistance. However, the case of underpayment was reported under the VGF; all the respondents said they did not receive support according to the provision of the programme. According to the study, cases of corruption were less where cash support was sent through bank to the account of the beneficiaries. About 36 per cent of VGD and 62 per cent of VGF beneficiaries complained they did not get food grain or cash support according to the provision of the programme.
More than 55 per cent of VGD and 90 per cent of EGPP beneficiaries said their programmes brought positive change in their lives while 63 per cent in the VGF group said they did not experience significant impact in their lives. This indicates that employment generation programme is more successful in changing the life of the poor than those that give assistance in kind.
From the survey it appears that selection procedure is more or less satisfactory except in the case of EGPP where external interference was reported. The inefficiency in the selection of VGF and VGD beneficiaries appears more due to hasty work rather than malfeasance. If committees are given enough time the loopholes in selection can be rectified. A system of rechecking by a second group can also ensure proper selection. The problem of leakage is more where disbursement is made without the involvement of bank. This is unavoidable where assistance is given in kind like food grains. Disbursement in the presence of committees may reduce the incidence of corruption.
The wastage resulting from multiplicity of implementing agencies can be addressed through reform in implementation. The number of agencies involved in safety net programme should be reduced as far as possible. Regular co-ordination among implementing agencies can prevent beneficiaries from receiving multiple benefits.
It is seen that the perception of benefit from the safety net programmes varies among the beneficiaries of different groups. Beneficiaries who receive assistance for a longer time feel their economic condition has improved in contrast to those who receive assistance for a limited period. For instance, beneficiaries of VGF and VGD do not have the feeling that the programmes bring sustainable change in their life. While relief type of assistance can be of short duration welfare benefits for the poor has to be more or less on a continuing basis. If the beneficiaries are properly selected most of them can graduate out of poverty.
The budgetary allocation for safety net programme is still very limited. The government has allocated Taka 250.34 million for the programme in the current fiscal which is 11.4 per cent of the budget and 2.13 per cent of the gross domestic product (GDP). As GDP increases the allocation under this head should be raised. More attention should be given on employment generation type of programmes which not only have more impact on the lives of the poor but also contribute to GDP growth.      Â
hasnat.hye5@gmail.com
The state of safety net programmes
Hasnat Abdul Hye | Published: March 19, 2015 00:00:00 | Updated: November 30, 2024 06:01:00
Share if you like