Regrounding Finance For Development» Band Aid Solution Conditional Cash Transfers in the Philippines Band Aid Solution Conditional Cash Transfers in the Philippines By Algely Bayhon Comia In the Philippines, the new government’s “reformist” fiscal program for 2011displays some signs of a renewed push to reduce poverty and meet the country’s Millennium Summit commitments. President Benigno Aquino III approved an astounding PhP1.64 trilli The government’s 4Ps program is the Philippines’ version of the conditional cash transfer (CCT) program. The long term goal it claims is to reduce poverty through enhancement of capabilities obtained by the conditioning of the cash transfer, and reducing poverty in the short run through cash transfers. Some 300,000 households in the country is hoped to meet certain human development goals as CCTs provide money to extremely poor households. [1] Under the 4Ps program, beneficiary households will receive P500 ($11.5) per month upon complying with the health conditions, and P300 ($6.9) per child per month, up to a maximum three children, for the education conditions. A household with three qualified children can potentially receive P1,400 ($32) per month during the school year or as much as P15,000 ($344) annually. The 4Ps program drew significant media attention of late due to opposition from many progressive groups criticizing the effort as no more than government dole-outs. Among those who have thrown their weight behind the program is celebrated anti-globalization activist and member of Philippine Congress Walden Bello, who defended Mr. Aquino’s 4Ps in a recent polemic against critics. [2] The concept of cash transfers is not new. According to the Asian Development Bank, similar programs are operating in 20 countries, including Brazil, Columbia, Mexico and Turkey. [3]In these countries, relative success has been achieved including increased nutrition rates among infants, improved health status across age groups, and increased school enrolment. According to the World Bank, CCTs are programs designed to give out cash to poor households as these households comply with a set of conditionalities, most notably school attendance of children, regular visits to health centers and maternal care. However, what works in other countries does not necessarily mean that it would work here because context matters. Features across countries vary and these include social and economic policy settings in which CCTs are embedded in. It is hard to imagine a family not accepting cash transfers since even a small amount augments their monthly income greatly. The poorest Filipinos are undoubtedly in need of immediate financial relief. According to the latest Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES) of the National Statistics Office, the poorest 10% of Filipino families earn a monthly income of P2,700 ($60); the next poorest 10% earn about P4,200 ($96), and the next earn P5,400 ($124). P1,400 from the 4Ps program could increase monthly incomes of the poorest families by as much as 52% or more. Cash isn’t a bad thing considering the circumstances most Filipinos face. Transfers of cash to the poorest may indeed increase income and lift people above the poverty line. But it forces us to question both how this government is going to address poverty sustainably. According to IBON, there are currently 4.6 million unemployed Filipinos. Among them, 87% are reasonably educated –44% are high school undergraduates or graduates and 43% are college undergraduates or graduates. [4]Such a high rate of unemployment even among the country’s educated suggests in the context of a foundering economy that is unable to grow at a pace and manner that can provide appropriate and remunerative jobs for a growing and skilled workforce, higher school or hospital attendance are unlikely to translate to improved living standards for the poor. Moreover, while conditional cash grants infuse income to the poorest to expand their access to public services, there appears to be no equivalent effort from the government to improve the country’s decrepit and underfunded public services system. Philippine public investment in education and health is low and even declined between 2000 and 2006. [5]According to the National Union of Students of the Philippines, the government spends the equivalent of 2.7% of the country’s GDP on education, which pales in comparison to other developing countries in the region,[6] and far short of ... This routine disregard of public services puts into question the government’s commitment to address poverty. Against the backdrop of a social policy that is demonstrably weak and wanting in pro-people character, the government’s cash grants program appears less part of a strategy to seriously pursue poverty reduction and long-term development, and more like a dole-out or a band aid solution. President Aquino ran for the presidency on a message of change. The son of two of the country’s democracy and anti-dictatorship icons—Corazon and Ninoy Aquino–Mr. Aquino rose to power riding public disdain over the corrupt and pro-globalization Arroyo administration. However the very evident neglect of major social services as manifested in his budget proposals, alongside his choice of economic advisers and many pro-FDI policy pronouncements, suggest that neo-liberal forces are still in play. The unequalled reduction to education among others has put the 4Ps in context of a flagrant disguise for public support. The 4Ps act as a smokescreen to keep the message of change intact while the administration is free to pursue the same type of anti-poor programs of the past. In a manifesto signed by thirty-seven lawmakers, most of whom allies of the president, they expressed formal opposition to the budget allocation that meant a two- fold increase from P10 billion to the same program in 2010 and asserted a realignment of funds towards construction of schools, health centers, housing programs, agriculture and other long term strategies that addresses the root causes of poverty through asset redistribution and job generation. [9] In an interview withBayan Muna(People First) Representative Teddy Casino, one of the thirty- seven lawmakers who opposed the CCTs budget allocation, he reiterated that “CCT is not sustainable. Its own evaluation report (from DSWD - done by Ateneo for World Bank) shows that besides the money given, “their (beneficiaries) sources and level of income have not changed.” Even studies in different countries point out that increased school attendance did not lead to higher academic performance, and there have been mixed results in terms of overall public health. They are just playing up the increase in statistics (increased education and health utility) but disregard the fact that it does not bring about substantial change in the quality of health and education. It is also not sustainable because it does not give livelihood. Basically, a dole out because it does not teach people to be self-reliant.” [10] Algely Bayhon Comiais a program assistant forIBON/Reality of Aid- Country Outreach Team. [1]“The Benefits of Conditional Cash Transfers,”Business World Online, retrieved from bwordonline [2]Walden Bello, “The Conditional Cash Transfer and the Coalition Against the Poor,” 2 November 2010, retrieved from focusweb.org/content /conditional-cash-transfer-debate-and-coalition- against-poor [3]Bloom, Karen Schelzig. 2010. Teaching people to fish: Conditional cash transfers in the Philippines. Asian Development Bank. Philippine Star. philstar(accessed 10/12/10) [4]IBON Foundation, Inc. “Conditional Cash Transfers and the Persistence of Poverty,” 25 October 2010. [5]Social Watch Philippines. Position paper on the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps). Manila: IBON Foundation, Inc. October 7, 2010 [6]Malaysia allots 6.2%, Thailand has 4.2% and even Laos has 3%. [7]National Union of Students in the Philippines. Briefer/ Discussion Guide on Education Situation 2010.Diliman, Quezon City May 23, 2010 [8]Crisostomo, Vencer. Cutting Through The Lines:Examining Aquino’s Statement on Education Budget Cuts.13 November 2010.. retrieved from kabataanpartylist [9]“37 Solons Oppose Aquino’s Cash Transfer Program,”GMA News, retrieved from GMANews.TV. [10]Teddy Casino. October 12, 2010. Interview.
Posted on: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 09:03:12 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015