Debt to the poor

If President Aquino wants to save the conditional cash transfer (CCT) to the poor from failure, he might need to put someone else in charge of the program.

The success of the CCT depends a great deal on trust in the integrity and capability of the implementing agency and its head, which can prevent politicians from turning the program into just another instrument of patronage. 

The CCT was launched in the Philippines in February 2008, with a pilot program in four towns and two cities involving 6,000 families. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo largely kept her hands off the program, leaving its implementation in the hands of the agency that she used to head, the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), and its secretary, cardiologist Esperanza Cabral.

Under Cabral, the DSWD bypassed local governments and went directly to depressed communities to identify potential beneficiaries of what came to be known as the 4Ps, or Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program.

That was one patronage opportunity lost for politicians, as residents incurred no debt of gratitude to any individual for government handouts.

There were attempts by some barangay officials to participate in drawing up the national household eligibility list. The DSWD threw out lists that were padded with the names of barangay officials’ relatives, friends and political supporters who did not qualify for the CCT. It is reasonable to expect politicians to keep trying to have a say in the identification of beneficiaries and the implementation of the 4Ps. And it’s easier for them to do this if they can raise doubts about the integrity of the chief implementer, DSWD balikbayan Dinky Soliman.

You’ve seen how GMA, now a Pampanga congresswoman, broke her silence on the House floor and went past her sleeping time to grill Soliman for three hours on the mechanics of the 4Ps, one of the key anti-poverty programs of the previous administration. It’s not just the opposition but also a faction of P-Noy’s staunch supporters who don’t trust Soliman, she of the Hyatt 10 and Code-NGO, and want either her hands off the CCT or else the abolition of the program.

This debate could evolve into something like the one on the congressional pork barrel: does the public trust the crooks in the Department of Public Works and Highways and other executive agencies or the crooks in Congress to identify and allocate funding for certain government projects? Should the public trust the DSWD under Soliman or lawmakers and local government executives to handle the CCT?

* * *

The Senate recently approved the P21-billion funding proposed by Malacañang for the CCT in 2011. The program is supported by a $400-million, five-year loan from the World Bank plus additional funding from the Asian Development Bank. The two banks are assisting in monitoring the proper implementation of the program.

This year, the program is targeting a million households as beneficiaries, with 700,000 served so far. P-Noy wants this increased to 2.3 million households by 2011 and eventually to 4.2-4.3 million annually.

Cabral must have been inspired by Brazil’s pioneering Bolsa Familia CCT program. In 2007, she sought technical advice from the World Bank, which has helped introduce and support the scheme in other developing countries.

CCTs were first developed in Brazil in the late 1980s and early 1990s, although Brazilians were discussing society’s “debt to the poor” as far back as the 1970s. In 1988, the Brazilian Constitution included social assistance to the needy among the basic rights.

Policy makers in that country were guided in part by Brazilians’ perceptions of poverty. In a World Values Survey conducted by the World Bank from 1995 to 1997, which included perceptions of poverty in Latin American countries, Europe and the United States, a high 75.7 percent of Brazilians said they believed people are poor because “society is unjust.” About 70.5 percent also believed that “the poor have very little chance to escape from poverty,” while a low 20.5 percent attributed poverty to laziness. 

This was similar to perceptions in other Latin American countries and in Europe but different from the US, where 61 percent believed the poor are poor because “they are lazy” and 70 percent believed the poor could rise from poverty if they tried hard enough.

It’s safe to assume that Filipinos perceive poverty more like the Brazilians rather than Americans.

In discussing cash transfers, the Brazilians wanted to address not just the symptoms but also the roots of poverty, zeroing in on education. Like impoverished Filipinos, poor Brazilians also found it difficult to sustain the schooling of their children.

One of the key elements of the CCT is requiring beneficiaries to send their children to school, and to keep the kids there for a specified length of time.

In the case of the Philippines, this can help reduce the high dropout rate that starts in grade school. While basic education is free, many poor parents cannot afford even the daily transportation fare and allowance plus miscellaneous fees to see their children through elementary and then high school. In rural areas, children are also forced to stop schooling during harvest time to help their parents.

Another feature of the 4Ps is requiring women to seek maternal health care in exchange for cash assistance. Even with free medical care in government hospitals, the poor must buy their own medicine, and a cash handout can be a big help.

The Bolsa Familia has been such a success in Brazil that it has served as a model for similar programs in other developing countries. CCTs have had mixed results in some countries – much depends on the way it is implemented and the people in charge of the program – but the 4Ps has worked so far in the Philippines.

Some quarters with little trust in Soliman have suggested that other departments such as education and health be entrusted with the CCT program instead. Why not, as long as the education chief, a priest, does not exclude as beneficiaries women who seek reproductive health care in exchange for a cash handout.

Congress can also exercise some kind of oversight over the fund releases but not in the identification of beneficiaries, and politicians should avoid taking credit for the disbursements. This can’t be another form of pork.

Soliman has her defenders but she attracts too much heat. Perhaps P-Noy can find someone within the DSWD or in his office to take direct supervision over the program. He must be guided by the thought that injecting politics into the CCT is the surest way to kill the program.