Evaluating spending on social safety nets

The government has been spending increasingly greater funds in various social safety net programmes for some years in succession. But the spending on direct dole or cash hand outs is seen to be heavier than the programmes meant to help the poor to help themselves. And every year the size of such safety net programmes is seen to be higher than the year before. The proposed budget for fiscal year 2015-16 has also provisioned an increase in the funds that would be available to run the various social safety net programmes. Thus, progressively higher spending on these programmes is noted.
Spending for the poor can be supported for their sheer welfare benefits. But critics have been also questioning about the manner of such spending and whether the same actually contribute to the long term goal of sustainable poverty alleviation properly. A discussion meeting held sometime ago under the auspices of BRAC and the Bangladesh Rice Research Foundation discussed these aspects. It emerged from the discussion that the participants in it were in favour of not reducing the various official programmes for the poor. But they emphasised on running them transparently and efficiently, They stressed, more importantly, that the programmes must not create a sense of assured free support always for the poor. The poor should be oriented to work their way out gradually to depend less and less on these programmes.
The greater part of the safety net programmes presently are spent on direct dole which only feeds needs of spending on essentials such as food by the poor or very poor. Finding the system as useful, only a bigger and bigger number will likely try to be covered by it on the plea that there are no jobs or earnings.
Clearly, the need in the Bangladesh context, is to go for a hard evaluation of the impact of the safety net programmes on the poor-- so far-- and to take appropriate measures accordingly. Allegations have been made that the programmes in many cases are missing out the truly deserving ones ; there are many political beneficiaries. These angles need to be also seriously investigated. The main thrust of the programmes ought to be on micro credit and related activities to gradually self employ the poor so that at one point of time they have no need to be utterly dependent on dole.

 

 

Evaluating spending on social safety nets

The government has been spending increasingly greater funds in various social safety net programmes for some years in succession. But the spending on direct dole or cash hand outs is seen to be heavier than the programmes meant to help the poor to help themselves. And every year the size of such safety net programmes is seen to be higher than the year before. The proposed budget for fiscal year 2015-16 has also provisioned an increase in the funds that would be available to run the various social safety net programmes. Thus, progressively higher spending on these programmes is noted. Spending for the poor can be supported for their sheer welfare benefits. But critics have been also questioning about the manner of such spending and whether the same actually contribute to the long term goal of sustainable poverty alleviation properly. A discussion meeting held sometime ago under the auspices of BRAC and the Bangladesh Rice Research Foundation discussed these aspects. It emerged from the discussion that the participants in it were in favour of not reducing the various official programmes for the poor. But they emphasised on running them transparently and efficiently, They stressed, more importantly, that the programmes must not create a sense of assured free support always for the poor. The poor should be oriented to work their way out gradually to depend less and less on these programmes. The greater part of the safety net programmes presently are spent on direct dole which only feeds needs of spending on essentials such as food by the poor or very poor. Finding the system as useful, only a bigger and bigger number will likely try to be covered by it on the plea that there are no jobs or earnings. Clearly, the need in the Bangladesh context, is to go for a hard evaluation of the impact of the safety net programmes on the poor-- so far-- and to take appropriate measures accordingly. Allegations have been made that the programmes in many cases are missing out the truly deserving ones ; there are many political beneficiaries. These angles need to be also seriously investigated. The main thrust of the programmes ought to be on micro credit and related activities to gradually self employ the poor so that at one point of time they have no need to be utterly dependent on dole.