Sound social protection would be best Easter gift for senior citizens

 Senior citizens wait to receive their stipend under the national government cash transfer programme. [Sammy Omingo, Standard]

We are all candidates of social protection contrary the popular believe that this program are meant for the poor

There have been many things this week that are worthy of attention. These include the suspension of the semi-weekly mass protest by Azimio and arrest of former US president Donald Trump.

However, the Labour and Social Protection Conference at the Kenya School of Government was a breath of fresh air away from politics. It was a stark reminder that outside pursuits of political power, there are real people in need of economic, social and emotional protection.

The Hustler's administration has dithered on the cash transfer programmes to vulnerable groups since their assumption of office.

For instance, delays in remitting cash transfers for the most vulnerable beneficiaries enrolled in various programmes has amplified their cost of living from the resulting deprivation.

The administration appears to lean on shifting policy towards substituting cash transfers with distribution of actual food stuffs.

While there is absolutely nothing wrong with substituting one for the other, what is emerging is that there still are real policy inconsistencies and misinformation on social protection (SP). For example, does reverting to the food distribution programme subsume the government has also addressed the need gaps that necessitated the cash transfer programmes? Do different programmes target the same beneficiary groups or address similar needs?

Should national and sub-national policies shift with changes of political regimes? If each new administration comes up with their own interventions, what are the long-term impacts of this on the sustainability of the programs and the target beneficiaries?

Greatest myths

One of the greatest myths out here is that SP is only about the poor and the disadvantaged. For instance, most people will be surprised to learn that the Presidential Retirement Benefits Act of 2003 and subsequent amendments of 2013 is a social protection programme. Similarly, public and private sector pension and medical schemes and harambees in our villages across are social protections.

Important pronouncements that come from the opening speech by the president were the proposal to increase enrolled beneficiaries in cash transfers from 1.2 million to 2.5 million; timely payment of cash transfers; government allocation of Sh28 billion for prioritised programmes; and need to increase savings during working years to avert old age poverty.

For this column, the fact that top officials from government, politicians, labour unions, captains of industry, regulators, development partners, media and technocrats can congregate to have this conversation is a good sign. It sustains hope that the country is still on course to respond to issues that affect vulnerables groups and willing to invest in the development of human capital.

This conversation, however, cannot be complete without addressing some of the myths about SP expenditures. In addition, there are technical policy questions that must be understood correctly if the nation is to achieve desired long term outcomes in SP.

In reality, it is not feasible to exhaustively address such a complex topic in a single article on a popular National Newspaper. Therefore, I shall limit myself to five concepts here. These include investment vs expenditure contestations; policy vs fiscal choice questions; poverty vs life cycle approaches; contributory vs non-contributory; and the role of political gooodwill in our SP programmes.

It's an investment

The debate as to whether government spending on SP programmes is expenditure or an investment has often placed social economists at longer heads with their counterparts in macro planning. The traditional view was that SP spending is recurrent and therefore ought to be treated as a consumption element in development planning. In extreme cases, it has been viewed as government handouts that discourage hardwork, enterprise and productivity in society.

The net import of this is that it misprioritises SP allocations in development planning. However, there now is overwhelming evidence that expenditures on social protection programmes does not negatively impact attitude towards work, enterprise or productivity. Neither is there any persuasive evidence that beneficiaries pick-up harmful habits like alcoholism and marrying extra wives as is alleged for programmes like the old persons cash transfers in the country.

On the contrary, there is persuasive empirical evidence that SP expenditures positively impact individual life, communities and significantly contributes in the development of human capital with the attendant economic productivity.

Take for instance how many doctors, engineers, economists, psychologists, professors, media personalities, artists among others in this country are as a result of a school fees bursary that was awarded somewhere downstream years ago? Yours truly would probably not be here to write this article if it were not for a Visa Oshwal Education & Relief Board bursary for my undergraduate studies. Such stories are replete across the nation and these professionals are providing impactful solutions and transformation in all sectors of the economy.

The second area of debate is the notion that governments generally lack the money. This insinuates a lack of fiscal space to prioritize social spending. This has been particularly amplified by the Kenya Kwanza administration to justify delays in releasing cash to existing programmes. The correct answer to this question is that SP is first and foremost a policy choice and not a fiscal one. If the decision is made to invest in SP, the money would be found.

Good cases here would include the introduction of Free Primary Education in 2003, only days after President Mwai Kibaki assumed office. It did not matter it was in the middle of the fiscal year. Similarly, the Hustler Fund has been funded mid year because the policy choice has been made. Third is the complexity of whether to target beneficiaries based of poverty indicator measures or to have programmes that target the life cycle in the growth of a person. That is to say programmes are designed to address vulnerabilities of a person's through the different stages of growth from the time of birth to old age. Kenya presently leans on a life cycle approach.

This explains why we have government funded immunisation programmes for children, bursary and health insurance for school going children, youth targeted initiatives, paid internship for young graduates, work based medical insurance, pension schemes for retirees and cash transfers for old persons.

The contributory schemes are where the beneficiaries make partial payments to enjoy the scheme benefits like is the case for NHIF, NSSF and Contributory Provident Funds for pensions. Non-contributory arises when government pays for the entire benefit on behalf of the beneficiries. The largest component of SP spending in Kneya currently is under Contributory. That explains why majority of the people do not realise they are actually under social protection.

Finally is the role of political goodwill in SP. This ultimately determines whether the policy choice will be made. While it was initially received with a pinch of salt, the current beneficiaries of the old persons cash transfer were enrolled in 2016. Yes, it was a campaign tool for re-election of the Jubilee administration, but that has never negated its purpose and impact for this group of citizens.

In many regions that were leaning in the opposition, eligible target beneficiaries refused to enroll and have suffered the consequences. That explains why it is sweet music for persons over 70 years who missed out in 2016 and many more who have since met the eligibility criteria and deserve this benefit. This is a perfect Easter gift for our senior citizens if actualised.