Weaknesses in BISP

Initiated by the PPP government and continued by the PML (N) dispensation with high hopes of helping the poor, Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP) does not appear to be as useful as believed earlier. According to a survey-based study, titled "Conditional Cash Transfers: Safety Net or Welfare Trap" by Policy Research Institute of Market Economy, BISP has failed to provide social protection to the poorest households as 95 percent of the cash grant beneficiaries did not find the grants helpful in meeting their expenditures while 50 percent of the beneficiaries claimed that they had to spend money to get the cash grant. More importantly, the study concludes that instead of raising the living standards of the poor people, cash grants are increasing their dependence on the government funds. The survey of 1000 beneficiaries of BISP from Matta (Malakand), Mirpur and Neelam Valley districts of the AJK was conducted and the study was aimed at reviewing the design of BISP, its effect on private charity, attitudes of programme beneficiaries and gathering information regarding disbursements, procedural problems and overall impact on the living standards of households. The report recommended that in order to achieve poverty alleviation, BISP requires restructuring towards long-term and permanent solutions, such as replacing cash grants with programmes like increased educational facilities and vocational training through which human capital could be enhanced.
The results of the survey and findings of the study are extremely revealing and useful though it would have been better if the Policy Research Institute had covered more households across the country, rather than focusing its attention on a particular area. Of course, most of the governments in various countries have to provide for targeted interventions in the poverty-stricken and deprived sections of society. This is necessary to make their lives at least livable but the basic idea behind such a policy approach is generally to extend support till the time they are again able to become financially independent and rejoin the society as respectable citizens. In Pakistan, BISP has always been seen as the flagship among all the social safety net programmes, now consuming about Rs 100 billion of budgetary resources and widely appreciated even by the international organisations as a major policy instrument for alleviating absolute poverty. The World Bank, USAID, DFID and ADB all have appreciated BISP's performance and provided financial support. Since its inception, the World Bank, in particular, has generously provided technical assistance on different aspects of the programme. In fact, its operational design, expansion of functions and innovative technology-based working has inspired certain other countries like India, Ghana, Mongolia and Nepal to introduce similar programmes to improve the lives of the very poor in their countries.
In the glorifying background like this, the present study could only be viewed as an eye opener, if not an altogether anti-climax kind of assessment. The observations that instead of raising the living standards of the poor, cash grants are increasing the dependence of the poor on the government and rendering them more vulnerable, are highly negative and liable to raise pertinent questions about the value of the programme. The findings that almost half of the beneficiaries of the BISP had to spend money to get the grants are also serious and merit close investigation. Also, it needs to be mentioned that some of the analysts have insisted for long that there was corruption in the programme and budgetary resources were used to support party cadres and win political support. Such an allegation is supported by the fact that party loyalists are generally appointed to supervise the programme. Although we don't fully agree or disagree with such allegations but the instant study could serve as a basis for initiating a thorough investigation into all aspects of the BISP with a view to find out the existing flaws and recommend measures for necessary improvement so that the programme could meet the intended objectives. Besides, it needs to be analysed whether the government, instead of doling out cash grants, could support the poor in a better way by investing in basic and quality education, free medical access and ensuring vertical mobility for the targeted groups. Such a reappraisal is urgently required because the amount earmarked in the budget for BISP is huge and there could be long queues of households waiting to join the programme if it continues to be in its present shape. The basic idea should be to make the individuals more productive and independent rather than enhancing the ratio of population dependent on social safety nets of the government.