Background of the social safety net program<\/p>\n
By Sri Pamoedjo Rahardjo<\/p>\n
This is the first of two articles on the social safety net.<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): The social safety net strategy (known by its
\nlocal acronym as JPS) was first introduced in Indonesia as a
\nresponse to safeguard the most affected segment of the population
\nfrom the socioeconomic crisis in 1998. In order to ensure
\nimplementation of the strategy, multilateral agencies stipulated
\nin their assistance scheme, covenants and a time frame for the
\ngovernment to comply with this requirement.<\/p>\n
Current public bickering on the social safety net scheme could
\nhave been avoided had all parties concerned understood the
\nbackground to the scheme. On the one hand, government officials
\nare accused of indirectly misappropriating funds. On the other
\nhand, officials are apprehensive in accepting funds and disclaim
\nany wrong doings.<\/p>\n
The social safety net had become a target for disagreement.
\nThe current debates have developed because of confusion in the
\nmeaning of the scheme. The concept is mixed up with that of
\npoverty alleviation. Although both concepts have the same target
\ngroups -- the poor -- the underlying visions and mechanisms
\ndiffer from one another. In reality, the social safety net and
\npoverty alleviation are two sides of the same coin, but mixing
\nthese two, results in confusion in the program's implementation.<\/p>\n
Poverty is a phenomenon of social institutions. Society
\norganizes itself by creating social stratifications and roles.
\nThe stratification suggests social differentiation and the
\ndivision of labor, creating cooperation, competition and conflict
\nto obtain limited resources. In other words, the poor are a
\nsocial fact; those who failed in the competition for resources.
\nPoverty does not become a social problem until some segments of
\nsociety reach a certain level of affluence.<\/p>\n
Similarly, in Indonesia the issue of poverty came into the
\nlimelight as some people's welfare improved because of rapid
\neconomic growth in the late 1980s. As the social gap widened, the
\ngovernment introduced various social development programs under
\nthe auspices of the concerned ministries.<\/p>\n
During the crisis, as the government began to lose the
\ncapacity to control its development plans, the International
\nMonetary Fund (IMF) recommended that the government introduce
\nsocial safety net measures in its development schemes. According
\nto its mission, social safety net schemes are a device to help
\nsave communities from a crisis-induced destitution. The process
\nto identify, select and assist the target groups has to be
\nadministered in a speedy and focused manner. According to its
\nvision, the scheme is an approach to reach the most vulnerable
\ngroups, whose capacity to meet challenges is affected by the
\ncrisis. Within a period of time, the plan aims to help the groups
\nconcerned to move on to more sustainable means of development.<\/p>\n
As a strategy in social development, poverty alleviation aims
\nto deal with transformation of family structures. It is a long-
\nterm activity. In poverty alleviation, the family as an
\ninstitution is the target. The family is stimulated to achieve
\nsustainable long-term changes. On the contrary, in social safety
\nnets, the community institution is the target. The aim is to
\nrescue some members of the community and stimulate them to
\nrecover their capacity to survive in the short-term. While both
\napproaches have the same target groups and impact on poverty
\nlevels, over a period of time, the management of poverty
\nalleviation and social safety net schemes is not similar.<\/p>\n
The contrast between these approaches suggests that the
\ngovernment should avoid using these two strategies
\ninterchangeably. Failure to recognize the difference will only
\nresult in confusing the target groups for poverty alleviation and
\nthe social safety net.<\/p>\n
In the past, the government always reinforced its development
\nprograms with social development strategies for the poor.
\nPrograms like income generation, mother and child health care,
\nnutrition, immunization, cooperatives and assisting women in
\ndevelopment activities are some notable examples. These were
\nusually designed as support infrastructures to create demand.<\/p>\n
In the early 1980s, the government increased community
\nparticipation in its expanded program activities. This was
\nreflected in the structure of government agencies dealing with
\ncommunity development issues, including increased human resources
\nand operational budgets. At the time, the objective was mainly to
\nobtain program sustainability; the policy was to employ
\nappropriate field workers from all sectors (penyuluh lapangan) to
\nwork with village volunteers. All the donors supported, if not
\ndemanded, that these workers be fielded in each different
\nproject.<\/p>\n
Early in the 1990s, hostile attitudes toward centrally
\nsupported field workers emerged. These reactions were a result of
\nconfusion at the village level. Village leaders and the community
\nwere confronted with a great many sectoral interests. The
\nperformance criteria of village, sub-district, district and
\nprovincial leaders was based on their success in accommodating
\nthese overlapping and, in some cases, conflicting activities.<\/p>\n
When the crisis hit the country in 1998, the number of the
\npoor increased drastically. Strategies to deal with the poor in
\nthe community were re-conceptualized as social safety net
\nactions. Despite the good intention, the move seems to have
\nresulted in another misunderstanding at the central and lower
\nadministrative levels. The lower echelons were apparently not
\nclear on the change of visions and missions. The requirements to
\nmaintain clarity, transparency and accountability -- which were
\nnot demanded as urgently before -- were regarded as additional
\nburdens. In the past, the funds were directed toward the service
\nproviders. Now, funds are directly disbursed to the target
\ngroups.<\/p>\n
Public groups have recently accused the government of
\nmishandling the social safety net funds. Most of the Rp 17.8
\ntrillion allocated is thought not to have reached the appropriate
\ntargets. Some ministry officials are confused about social safety
\nnet funds in their budget items. They appeared unaware that their
\nbudget items were labeled as social safety net funds. As a
\nresult, the ministry concerned released the funds as usual, with
\nthe possible outcome of mishandling of the funds. This could be
\nthe reason why many fingers now are pointing at the non-compliant
\nnature of the administrative and disbursement scheme of social
\nsafety net funds.<\/p>\n
The writer is a social and economic observer, and former
\nregional development bank officer in Manila.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/background-of-the-social-safety-net-program-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}