Social safety net

According a report in this newspaper the government has expanded the coverage of its safety-net programme and increased allocation for it to provide financial support to additional 10 lakh extreme poor, according to the social welfare ministry. Most developed nations have what is called a ‘social safety net’ — a combination of legislation and tax-funded government initiatives aimed at protecting the weakest and most vulnerable members of society. A few are all-encompassing, and some Scandinavian countries have what is known as ‘womb to tomb’ care for their citizenry. Nowhere that such systems exist are they cheap. All demand a substantial input via direct taxation from the wider populace. In broad terms, the concept does not adapt well to developing nations — but it can be more than merely inspirational. Bangladesh is beginning to have an outline of a social safety net. The various elements are not yet joined up but the potential is there.

The government pumps in sizeable funds through different ministries on this score in addition to efforts by non-government organisations (NGOs). But, as the ground realities bear out, most such resources including cash and food transfers do not reach the target groups. In this context, it is not difficult to appreciate why a recently-held public hearing on vulnerable group development (VGD) at Thakurgaon has sought more transparency and accountability in selection of beneficiaries and distribution of food assistance under it. Pleadings were strongly made at the same hearing for increased participation of small and marginal farmers in social safety-net activities, related governance arrangements and policy-making process to help improve livelihoods and ensure food security of the extreme poor.

A well-thought-out national strategy for identifying  beneficiaries and implementing agencies of the social protection programmes can go a long way towards dealing with the problems that have been highlighted at Thakurgaon in the country's western zone. Drainage can, in the process, be averted as far as possible while ensuring coordination. The existing social protection programmes are mostly rural-focused. But their coverage and resource allocation pattern call for a critical review. This is more so in a situation where a fragmented bureaucratic set-up, coupled with corruption and irregularities, takes its toll on the related programmes and schemes. About 2.0 per cent of the country's gross domestic product (GDP) are now spent on about 90 social protection programmes that are operated by 20 ministries. Though budgetary allocation for social safety net projects has gone up over the years, the outcome has not yet been up to the mark. The authorities need to find out the reasons behind this, in order to help achieve the desired level of success. Remedial steps brook no further delay.

 

Social safety net

According a report in this newspaper the government has expanded the coverage of its safety-net programme and increased allocation for it to provide financial support to additional 10 lakh extreme poor, according to the social welfare ministry. Most developed nations have what is called a social safety net a combination of legislation and tax-funded government initiatives aimed at protecting the weakest and most vulnerable members of society. A few are all-encompassing, and some Scandinavian countries have what is known as womb to tomb care for their citizenry. Nowhere that such systems exist are they cheap. All demand a substantial input via direct taxation from the wider populace. In broad terms, the concept does not adapt well to developing nations but it can be more than merely inspirational. Bangladesh is beginning to have an outline of a social safety net. The various elements are not yet joined up but the potential is there. The government pumps in sizeable funds through different ministries on this score in addition to efforts by non-government organisations (NGOs). But, as the ground realities bear out, most such resources including cash and food transfers do not reach the target groups. In this context, it is not difficult to appreciate why a recently-held public hearing on vulnerable group development (VGD) at Thakurgaon has sought more transparency and accountability in selection of beneficiaries and distribution of food assistance under it. Pleadings were strongly made at the same hearing for increased participation of small and marginal farmers in social safety-net activities, related governance arrangements and policy-making process to help improve livelihoods and ensure food security of the extreme poor. A well-thought-out national strategy for identifying beneficiaries and implementing agencies of the social protection programmes can go a long way towards dealing with the problems that have been highlighted at Thakurgaon in the countrys western zone. Drainage can, in the process, be averted as far as possible while ensuring coordination. The existing social protection programmes are mostly rural-focused. But their coverage and resource allocation pattern call for a critical review. This is more so in a situation where a fragmented bureaucratic set-up, coupled with corruption and irregularities, takes its toll on the related programmes and schemes. About 2.0 per cent of the countrys gross domestic product (GDP) are now spent on about 90 social protection programmes that are operated by 20 ministries. Though budgetary allocation for social safety net projects has gone up over the years, the outcome has not yet been up to the mark. The authorities need to find out the reasons behind this, in order to help achieve the desired level of success. Remedial steps brook no further delay.