Aswesuma, the latest addition to the Government’s welfare programmes, has been mired in alleged inefficiencies, once again casting doubt on the credibility of the welfare programmes successive governments have ventured into.
Concerns have been raised with regard to the selection process for Aswesuma, but the blame has been directed at computer software. The Ministry of Finance, speaking to The Sunday Morning, confirmed the issues it was facing with the new welfare scheme.
State Minister of Finance Shehan Semasinghe admitted that it was unfortunate that there continued to be irregularities in welfare payment disbursement, although the country had been implementing welfare programmes for the past 25 years.
From Janasaviya to Samurdhi to Aswesuma, Sri Lanka’s welfare programmes have all faced inherent problems.
Janasaviya
According to a research paper published in June 1998 by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, in 1988 President Ranasinghe Premadasa initiated his Janasaviya (Janasavia) programme to alleviate poverty in Sri Lanka.
By October 1990, this programme, in its first phase, had provided support in the form of a $ 62 monthly “investment and consumption package” to between 150,000 and 165,000 families. In mid-October 1990, the Sri Lankan Government formally approved President Premadasa’s plan to establish, with World Bank assistance, a $ 100 million Janasaviya Trust Fund (JTF) that was to execute the five-year Janasaviya Programme.
However, according to another research article compiled in July 1995 under the title ‘Poverty as Politics: The Janasaviya Poverty Alleviation Programme in Sri Lanka’ authored by Kristian Stokke from the University of Oslo, Janasaviya was a “massive personal propaganda show orchestrated by a populist President”. It also calls the programme a “movement in civil society for the true empowerment of the poor”.
Regardless of the true motivations, an undeniable shift occurred in the focus from ensuring food security (via food stamps) to alleviating poverty through employment creation, social mobilisation, and improved consumption.
Samurdhi
In 1995, the Sri Lankan Government initiated the Samurdhi Programme, also known as the Prosperity Programme, with the primary objective of alleviating poverty in the country. This comprehensive programme involved a network of officials at both national and local levels, overseen by a dedicated ministry and the Samurdhi Authority.
However, the programme faced significant challenges due to the absence of a well-defined management system for monitoring and evaluation, rendering it susceptible to politicisation. Moreover, concerns have been raised about the programme’s emphasis on welfare activities that foster dependency rather than promoting the socioeconomic development of Sri Lankan citizens.
According to a recent survey conducted and released by Colombo-based think tank LIRNEasia on Sri Lanka’s social safety net, seven million Sri Lankans are living in poverty as per the national poverty line and four million Sri Lankans (17% of the population) have fallen into poverty since 2019.
A total of 1.7 million families received monthly Samurdhi cash transfers, but only 40% were poor as per the national poverty line.
According to a World Bank blog published in June 2023, although one-fourth of the country’s population has fallen into poverty, many do not receive monetary support from the Government, largely due to the weaknesses of social welfare schemes.
More than 50% of Sri Lanka’s poorest population is not covered by Government welfare programmes such as Samurdhi, the major social protection scheme in Sri Lanka.
The World Bank states that Samurdhi and other social protection schemes in Sri Lanka are bogged down by administrative inefficiencies and possible political interference and consequently are not reaching those most in need.
Many who are eligible for benefits are excluded, while others who are not eligible are receiving support. These failures contribute to further deteriorating living standards for the poor, who have been severely affected due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the ongoing economic crisis.
Samurdhi is handled by the Samurdhi Development Authority and transfers are made to beneficiaries using Samurdhi Banks. The allowance for the elderly is handled by the Elderly Secretariat and the allowances are provided via post offices. The allowances for people with disabilities are handled by the Disability Secretariat and transfers are made through post offices.
This fragmented nature has resulted in many administrative inefficiencies, including delays in adding new recipients to the rolls and providing cash to existing beneficiaries.
The World Bank estimates that nearly 60% of the poorest income quintile (or the bottom fifth of the population in poverty) will be eligible to receive cash transfers, as compared to just 43% covered by the old system.
LIRNEasia’s findings reveal that eligibility criteria for many schemes have included monthly income/expenditure, which is difficult to verify in many poor households, and officials exercise high levels of discretion when determining eligibility while programmes were co-opted for political gain.
Another concern raised is that the dependents of Samurdhi have mostly remained dependents instead of exiting gradually. Only 17% of those who have received Samurdhi benefits have exited the programme, according to LIRNEasia data.
For the system to be more beneficial for the poor, the eligibility criteria and targeting methodology will need to be reassessed on a regular basis and made more robust. This is where Aswesuma comes into the picture, but unfortunately, it too is caught up in irregularities.
Aswesuma
According to LIRNEasia, there is a need to improve the clarity of Aswesuma’s programme operations. It is essential to determine whether individuals can receive multiple benefits simultaneously, such as receiving a grant while also receiving a senior citizens’ allowance and a kidney allowance.
Additionally, there should be a plan for reevaluation and exit mechanisms to address concerns regarding eligibility and the continuation of cash handouts for transitional poor households beyond 31 December. Reevaluation processes should be considered for these groups before the deadline.
One of the challenges identified in the report is the lack of awareness among potential beneficiaries, despite the scheme being advertised through various channels, including newspapers, TV, SMS, loudspeakers, and Government officials.
Some individuals have not registered for Aswesuma due to a lack of knowledge about the programme, relying heavily on social capital to gain information about such initiatives. Misinformation about who can register and a lack of trust, stemming from unsuccessful attempts to obtain benefits in the past, have also contributed to low registration rates.
To address these issues, it is recommended to reopen and keep open the registration process for Aswesuma.
Furthermore, communication efforts regarding registration should be enhanced to reach a wider audience. Incentives can be provided to officials to engage in outreach beyond their immediate circles. It should be emphasised that anyone who feels they are in need can apply for the programme, encouraging more eligible individuals to come forward.
Currently, the registration process relies on pen and paper, with the collected data later entered into a database. However, instances have been encountered where Government officials collected registration forms but chose not to process them further.
The report suggests exploring digitally-enabled registration options to improve efficiency and accessibility. With 32% of adults in poverty being internet users, implementing online registration systems, similar to those in other South Asian countries, can help streamline the process.
Additionally, low-tech options such as SMS-based registration can be considered since 92% of poor households own a mobile phone, and this method has proven successful during the Covid-19 pandemic in countries like South Africa.
Aswesuma uses a formula based on 22 indicators to assess eligibility for programmes and calculate a ‘deprivation score’. Currently, face-to-face surveys are conducted to collect data for calculating the deprivation score.
While this method allows for some level of data verification, it is resource-intensive and relies on the honesty of potential beneficiaries. Data collectors may face threats or even assault during the process.
To address these challenges, integrating a unified social registry with other digitised databases can help verify the accuracy of the collected data. It is important to consider integrating learnings from the appeals and objections process to improve the eligibility criteria and decision-making process.
Furthermore, the definitions of poverty should be reconsidered, with a focus on capturing the nuances and challenges faced by the ‘new poor’ population.
Efforts underway to address irregularities
State Minister Semasinghe stressed the importance of identifying and addressing such motives to ensure the smooth functioning of the system.
The Minister stated that there was an established process in place for objections and appeals, emphasising the need for people to exercise their right to voice their concerns and follow the proper channels for appeal or objection.
Semasinghe stated: “We have a process in place for objections and appeals. It is crucial that people exercise their right to voice their concerns and follow the proper channels for appeal or objection.”
The Minister affirmed the Government’s dedication to finding effective solutions to the challenges. It is the Government’s responsibility to provide a reliable and efficient system that serves the people with fairness and transparency. As efforts are underway to address irregularities and ensure proper targeting, improvements are expected in the system, ultimately benefiting those who rely on it for financial support.
To accommodate those unable to use the online system for submitting their appeals or objections, the State Minister mentioned that they could file them as usual. Additionally, for any further inquiries, the general public can contact the operational hotline 1924 on weekdays from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Experts’ views
University of Colombo Department of Economics Senior Professor Sirimal Abeyratne, speaking to The Sunday Morning, highlighted the fundamental issue underlying the inefficiency of welfare programmes in Sri Lanka.
When asked about the persisting inefficiency of welfare programmes such as Janasaviya and Samurdhi, as well as the current issues with the Aswesuma programme, Prof. Abeyratne emphasised the difficulty in identifying the target beneficiaries.
He stated: “The fundamental issue is not being able to identify the targets; this is a big problem. The Government does not have the power and the nation is not able to do anything about it.”
Prof. Abeyratne highlighted the importance of establishing a comprehensive database and utilising technology solutions tailored to Sri Lanka’s population of 22 million.
He stated: “Establishment of a database using different technology for 22 million people in a small country such as this is not difficult. It can solve many other problems as well.” However, he noted that this aspect was yet to receive adequate attention.
While acknowledging ongoing digitisation programmes such as Aswesuma, Prof. Abeyratne expressed concerns regarding data security and privacy.
“It’s not a good thing to have people’s data exposed. There is potential for the data to be stolen, leading to social surveillance and corruption. We are not very confident about that,” he said.
The Professor emphasised the need for cautious handling of personal information and the implementation of robust security measures. He suggested that suitable technology solutions could both enhance the effectiveness of welfare programmes and also address various other challenges faced by the country. However, he stressed the importance of ensuring data security and protecting individuals’ privacy throughout the process.
Meanwhile, Advocata Institute Economist Rehana Thowfeek, speaking to The Sunday Morning, shed light on the reasons behind the repeated failures and inefficiency of Government welfare programmes.
She emphasised the need to examine the objectives of these programmes, which were primarily aimed at poverty alleviation but were often intertwined with political motives.
“The primary objective is also part of the election cycle. Part of it is for people to vote for politicians; they can be used as a vehicle for that,” Thowfeek explained. This political influence has led to the inclusion of undeserving beneficiaries in the programmes, resulting in a lack of effectiveness.
One of the major flaws highlighted is the absence of an exit clause for programme participants. Once individuals enter these welfare programmes, they remain beneficiaries for a lifetime, irrespective of any increase in their income or household earnings.
She expressed concerns about the lack of clarity regarding the actual objective of the programmes, as the number of beneficiaries had continued to grow over time without a significant impact on poverty alleviation.