CCT: A mendicant policy?

Undeniably, poverty is the most overused, if not, the most abused word in the country today. In more instances, when crushed and mangled, all accusing fingers are pointed to one direction – poverty. Making matters worst is our propensity to focus on poverty at face value not its roots. Naturally, whatever initiatives we try to implement could not even put a tiny dent in its surface. 

Recently, PNoy’s government vibrantly announced the increase in its budget for the Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) Program. Dubbed as 4Ps or “Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program”, it is a five-year-long conditional cash transfer program that is envisioned to break the country’s cycle of poverty. 

Despite its sound and laudable objective, however, some critics have viewed the program with utmost skepticism. Politically effective to some extent, political opponents have insinuated that the 4Ps could be an early vote-buying activity of the present administration. As it seems, this new war obtaining today will surely escalate to a certain level and in a prolonged manner to make it more convenient for both camps to use it purely for publicity. Therefore, with vested interests prevailing in most arguments, we see no end in sight. Whether it will have a sad or happy ending, let’s leave it to fate, as usual. As we all know, when the supposedly men of purpose quarrel, they do so in the name of peace and for the betterment of the lives of all Filipinos. Whether pro or con, they are both at it, allegedly, to conquer poverty.   

However, for us, unbiased citizens of the republic, there is a need to look into the program for better understanding. CCT, as a poverty-alleviation program, isn’t new at all. As early as the 1990s, some Latin American and African countries have implemented it. Among others, CCTs were implemented in Brazil (Bolsa Familia, Bolsa Escola), Chile (Chile Soldario), Colombia (Familias en Acción), Honduras (The Family Allowance Program or FAP), Jamaica (Programme of Advancement Through Health and Education or PATH) ), Mexico (Oportunidades, established in 2002 based on the program Progresa created in 1997), Guatemala (Mi Familia Progresa), Nicaragua (Social Protection Network, established in 2000 and implemented by the Social Emergency Fund or FISE) and Panama (Red de Oportunidades).

Just like our 4Ps, although the conditions and amounts of dole-outs vary from country to country, in general, “these programs provide money to poor families under the condition that those transfers are used as an investment on their children’s human capital, such as regular school attendance and basic preventive health care”. The ultimate objective of which “is to address the inter-generational transmission of poverty and to foster social inclusion by explicitly targeting the poor, focusing on children, delivering transfers to women, and changing social accountability relationships between beneficiaries, service providers and governments”.

Reportedly, in these countries (upon implementation of these programs), increases in school enrollment and attendance were noted and a significant improvement in health and nutrition were felt. Notably, however, it was only felt in the short term as household income was increased by the dole-out and, consequently, consumption in poor families raised as well. On the other hand, in us, PNoy largely credited the 4Ps in the reduction of hunger and poverty incidences in the country as recent survey showed.  

Though there could be lots of benefits the CCT programs may bring, other countries that implemented them way ahead of us have faced multitudes of obstacles. Such obstacles have caused some programs to stagnate or completely terminate. Unfortunately for us, these are the same obstacles that are apparently obtaining in our midst.

As experienced by these countries, on many instances, the programs failed on account of changes in political leadership, natural disasters, or changes in program administration that normally cause the delay in the implementation schedule and lead to decreased efficiency or program termination. Moreover, another common barrier to success (which we are similarly situated) is the impossibility of implementing the program. For one, some poverty-stricken families are situated in remote communities where schools and health centers are miles away. Therefore, they cannot comply with the conditions of the CCT program. 

Today, as we try to learn from other countries’ experiences, we can’t help it but look beyond this program’s 5-year life. When the program’s life ends, what will the program’s beneficiaries life could be? 

Honestly, as what our other own poverty alleviation programs have been, there could only be two (2) possibilities. First, they will demand for the extension of the program (just like the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program or CARP) with increased benefits. Or, secondly, they will demand for another improved mendicant program to replace it. Sadly, however, in both instances, they are still perpetual mendicants.

With these scenarios inevitably prevailing five years from now, we can’t help it but remember one of the greatest statesmen this country ever had in Claro M. Recto. Maybe, to some, this man is insignificant. However, if we spare a second and look into his thoughts, then we can easily understand why we now, as a people, are even worst than the people in his time. 

First and foremost, the man was a visionary. He was way ahead of his peers in terms of foresight. Assertive and principled, his brand of politics was more for the good of the populace than personal glory. He went for sound economic policies than popular pronouncements that normally serve politicians’ selfish wishes to perpetuate their (and their clans) hold of power. 

For one, as early as his time, he was a person who abhorred mendicant policies. In a speech, “Our Mendicant Foreign Policy”, delivered during the commencement exercise at the University of the Philippines in 1951, “he implored an end to what he called the panhandling attitude of the Philippine government and emphasized the drive to self reliance”. A mendicant policy, he affirmed, encourages "a dole-out mentality”. 

While he declared it at that time in reference to our dependence with the United States of America, such mendicant policy pervades in the entire nation today. Notably, apart from the CCT (which remains to be seen), we already had the perpetually extended agrarian reform program. Despite the numerous extensions, however, the program is still a failure. Worst, the beneficiaries have started to act like mendicants by raking in over P4.0 billion in annual subsidy. With all these annual budgets for many years now, what has so far been achieved? Except for a few, some lands are abandoned. Others groups of beneficiaries who organized themselves into cooperatives are not cultivating them. Ironically, some of these beneficiaries are leasing out their lands and content themselves by simply earning rental. Now, some portions are cultivated. Sarcastically, however, non-beneficiaries of CARP maintain these. These non-beneficiaries are mostly entrepreneurs and are profitably cultivating the same land where the beneficiaries failed.   

Indeed, CCT or 4Ps, like many other poverty-alleviation programs, is bound to fail. Why? It is because we try to make pensioners out of potential earners.

For your comments and suggestions, please email to [email protected]. — THE FREEMAN