THE last few years have seen a slow expansion of social assistance programmes in Pakistan. Among mainstream political parties, the PPP claims to embrace such programmes as a policy measure.
In 2008, the PPP-led federal government introduced the first targeted cash transfer programme, the Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP). In its 2024 election manifesto, the PPP promised to introduce additional schemes including subsidies for farmers and stipends for students. The Sindh government has also launched a World Bank-funded Mother and Child Support programme, which disburses cash to pregnant women and mothers on the condition that they utilise maternal healthcare and basic services for their young children.
This growth in social assistance schemes is in line with global trends. In recent years, there has been a noteworthy rise in welfare schemes in developing countries. Today, 120 low- and middle-income countries run cash transfer programmes for poor families that cover around 2.5 billion people, according to a study by the National Bureau of Economic Research.
While the expansion of welfare programmes in low- and middle-income countries is a welcome development, there are reasons to be cautious about the underlying policy goals of cash transfer schemes and their impact. Some governments may be replacing commitments to expand public services, such as health and education, with cash payments to low-income families. This amounts to deprioritising accessible, affordable and quality public services that are crucial for the upliftment of the poor.
Another concern about cash transfer schemes is that they can create a sense of dependency among recipients and can be an effective tool wielded by the political leadership to expand patronage networks. Development expert Yamini Aiyar has raised this concern in view of the rapid growth in social assistance schemes in India, promoted very successfully by the BJP, which she says run the risk of turning citizens into “passive recipients … of state largesse rather than active claim-making, right-bearing actors”.
One possible way to get around potentially adverse outcomes is to implement social assistance programmes through rights-based legislation. Laws that build accountability and transparency measures into welfare schemes could empower citizens to demand basic goods and services from the state. Such laws also establish mechanisms for the recognition of unions and organisations among recipients to enable them to organise collectively for effective and accountable welfare programmes.
Implementing cash transfer programmes hasn’t been consistent with a rights-based approach.
The Sindh government has tinkered with this approach as well. In 2018, the Sindh Home-Based Women Workers’ Act was passed to promote the rights of the workers in the informal sector who work from home. Many industries in the textile, food and sporting goods manufacturing sectors rely on a large number of women who make goods at home. These women are often paid below the minimum wage, and lack security of employment or benefits such as paid sick and maternity leave. The 2018 law provided for the formation of unions of registered home-based workers and the establishment of a fund to finance projects for their upliftment.
The Sindh Agricultural Women Workers Act was enacted in 2019 to promote the rights of women doing agricultural work, including farming and raising cattle. The law provides for the registration of women agriculture workers and the formation of unions and arbitration councils to resolve worker complaints. It also imposes requirements on employers to pay fair wages.
Unfortunately, social protection measures in Sindh though guaranteed by law have not yet been enforced as rights-based entitlements. This is due to the failure of the government to establish mechanisms to register workers, enable them to form functioning unions and monitor compliance with the law. The government has also failed to establish the funds that would create programmes for the upliftment of covered workers. The laws, therefore, fail to enable any bottom-up accountability for violations of rights of workers in the informal sectors.
Even in the field of reproductive and newborn child health, the Sindh government takes an inconsistent approach. Before the Mother and Child Support programme was piloted, the Sindh Reproductive Healthcare Rights Act was enacted in 2019 that guarantees the right of women to contraception, maternal health and post-abortion care services, including the right to counselling and informed consent with respect to any medical treatment. The 2019 Act remains unimplemented as no procedures or mechanisms have been put in place for its enforcement. The Mother and Child Support programme may well succeed in creating incentives for mothers to obtain crucial maternal and newborn child health services, but demand-side interventions are not substitutes for a functioning public health system that promotes and respects women’s reproductive rights and provides health services on an equitable basis.
Cash transfer schemes are, in theory, simpler to execute than right-based laws that require well-functioning mechanisms and procedures. But evidence suggests that the implementation of cash transfer programmes has not been consistent with a rights-based approach. According to a study by the Legal Aid Society, the execution of BISP is riddled with inefficiencies and corruption. Women claiming cash entitlements often complain that their experience can be bewildering and humiliating. The absence of a structured disbursement schedule compounds their vulnerabilities. Women are often dependent on third-party agents who take a cut from the cash payments. This is far removed from an approach that is consistent with the right to equality and dignity.
If the PPP is serious about implementing its election manifesto, it must develop a clear policy goal for its social assistance schemes. The Sindh government should not view cash transfer schemes as alternatives to investments in public health and education systems. It should build accountability into the service provision to prevent welfare schemes from becoming tools to expand patronage networks. Finally, it must get serious about implementing rights-based legislation rather than shelving laws almost immediately after they are passed so that all they do is collect layers of dust.
The writer is a lawyer.
Published in Dawn, March 12th, 2025
