Friendly Observer
By Arthur Keefe
The creation of a social assistance programme for the poor in the Philippines has been praised by the IMF and the World Bank. Its popularity amongst the poor is not in doubt, as evidenced by the hundreds of claimants working outside Landbank on pay days!
However, my conversations with others in San Carlos show much more divided opinion.
Those not eligible claims in an appropriate handout probably linked to electoral considerations. It is one of the Arroyo administrations which has been enthusiastically supported by Pinoy, and recently extended. (The fact that these opponents fail to declare their true income for tax purposes, is rarely considered alongside the 4Ps programme!)
The more serious debate and one which occurs in many other countries, including the USA and the UK, in whether the poor should receive something for nothing or something for something. The title of this article summarizes the many options. Either payment can be based only on need, or it can also be based on a requirement that the recipient contributes something back to the society. Usually, this is in the form of work or community service of some kind. In fact, the 4PS programme is not unconditional, as it is linked to good-parenting.
Evidence that your child attends school regularly, which health measures (e.g. vaccinations) are undertaken, are required before payment is approved. These are inevitable disputes over the administration of these requirements, but at least most do comply. This is in the interests of families themselves, but is also one way the Philippines can invest in its human capital, providing a healthy educated work force for the future.
However, for the doubters, this is not enough. A more direct return is proposed in the form of socially useful activity.
It is not always clear what form this should take, as the street cleaners, the day care workers, and other temporary jobs are already undertaken for wages higher than the 4Ps programme. Additional work on cleaning and beautifying the city may be possible. Perhaps readers can suggest the kind of roles the programme recipients could undertake. Some recipients, such as pedicab riders are already working. The main objection to workfare in other countries is that it can lead to an army of underpaid exploited workers. For this reason, Trader Unions are often very wary of such schemes.
It is not so much as the principle on which such scheme was founded as on the difficulty of implementing them.
Social assistance in developed countries is of course paid for from a much larger budget, and many of its recipients are temporarily receiving aid, either because of unemployment or sickness. The bulk of the beneficiaries are elderly retired people without adequate pensions, or people too disabled or long term sick to work.
The position in the Philippines is different, with many more very poor people, and a much smaller national income. Couple this with the low level of wages for many workers, including the underemployed, and the problems are much greater, which many explain the hostility I meet with when I discuss the programme.
I am persuaded that there is a case for moving many recipients from welfare (for nothing) to workfare (for something). Those excluded would be elderly people and those unfit to work, and perhaps those single parents with care responsibilities.
The younger able-bodied could be required to work, and indeed they might ever make useful suggestions themselves for the type of work they could perform. They underemployed might perhaps contribute a day a week for their benefits.
It will be important to ensure they do not take jobs otherwise available for proper wages, but add something to the community not otherwise available. Implementing such a scheme will not be easy, but could give social assistance the wider public support it does not appear to have at present.
