Conditional Cash Transfer: Not the Solution

By: Gerry Mark S. Gubantes

BS BIO 2013-33630
Extreme poverty and hunger have always been a problem to developing
countries like the Philippines. Thus, the government decided to adopt a program
investing in human capital aiming to improve the quality of life the less fortunate
called the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program. The Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino
Program (4Ps) was established in 2008 under the Department of Social Welfare
and Development (DSWD), together with the Department of Education (DepEd)
and Department of Health (DOH), in order to alleviate extreme poverty in our
country especially in the health and education of children ages 0-14. The
beneficiaries were the poorest among the poor as determined by 2003 Small Area
Estimate (SAE) survey of National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB).[1] The
program promises to fulfill the following: (1) Eradicate Extreme Poverty and
Hunger; (2) Achieve Universal Primary Education; (3) Promote Gender Equality (4)
Reduce Child Mortality (5) Improve Maternal Health.[2]
However, in exchange for the cash grant, the recipients need to be able to
qualify the set of conditionalities in which most of it is not easily accessible to
them. I believe that the 4Ps is a good act of welfare aiming to provide social
assistance and development. Nevertheless, I am certain that program has several
more disadvantages compared to its advantages. I also believe that the budget for
the program can be allocated to bolster other primary necessities of the people.
Hence, I disagree with the efforts of the national government, and propose the
discontinuation of the program.
First, the program does not eradicate poverty and hunger. It is strictly onedimensional that is used as only a tool for poverty reduction, but was otherwise
ineffective. According to Tutor (2013), she stated that cash grants were not enough
to cover household participation and indirect costs implying that there was no
significant difference between the Non-4Ps families and the 4Ps families in terms
of their lifestyle.[4] Dalit (2012) noted that the majority of the beneficiaries said that
access to regular employment would drive them out of poverty, not CCT. [3] Indeed,
this highlights the most important factor in order to fight against poverty is
generative employment.
In addition, the National Statistical Coordination Board (2014) indicated that
the poverty incidence in 2009 and 2013 remained almost static having values of
26.3 and 25.2, respectively. The same data also presented that the poverty
incidence for women in 2009 and 2012 which remained stagnant at values 25.7
and 25.6, respectively. This can also be said true for children whose poverty
incidence in 2009 and 2012 were 35.3 and 35.2. [5] As it can be seen, the poverty

incidence roughly changed especially those of the women and the children during
the times 4ps was implemented even when it was largely concentrated on
alleviating the quality of life on women and children.
Furthermore, the program does not address the issues concerning with
other vulnerable groups like the senior citizens, the chronically sick, people with
disabilities, the millions of out-of-school, and functionally illiterate or the
unemployed poor.[6] If the program would want to eradicate or significantly
reduced poverty, it should include other individuals, not just women and children.
Second, tedious supervision and adequate implementing materials are
needed in order to ensure the development of the beneficiaries. A social study done
by Global Network (2014) revealed that proper evaluation must be met; otherwise
erroneous procedures would lead to failure of assistance distribution. [7] Social
Watch Philippines (2010) stressed that the success of the program is highly
dependent on the supply of social services for health and education. It states that
no amount of conditionalities will work if there is a lack of schools, health clinics,
and means of transport in 4P areas. [6] In fact, Son (2008) acknowledges that the
program assumes that there is a prior adequate supply of services connected to the
program.[1] Thus, it is necessary for the government to also spend money in other
services, not just conditional cash transfers, to ensure the success of the program.
Third, universal primary education was neither obtained nor significantly
improved in the years of its implementation. One of the primary goals of the 4Ps in
achieving universal education was attracting the out-of-school youth. [8]
Unfortunately, the proportion of pupils starting grade 1 who reach grade 5
decreased from year 2000 (79%) compared to year 2009(73.2%) by almost 6
percent. In fact, the literacy rate of 15-24 years old were 95.1% and 94.8% in the
year 2000 and 2009, respectively.[9] As it can be read, the literacy rate decreased
from the year 2000 to the year 2009, a year after the 4Ps was implemented. This
can imply that there was a problem in the implementation of the program, or it was
just simply ineffective.
According to The Manila Times, the budget for the program currently stands
at P62.6 billion--P22 billion more than it was in 2013. [10] However, the budget for
our educational system in our country is 2.3 percent of the GDP which is a far cry
when compared to the 1997 budget of 3.2 percent. Meanwhile, the UN
recommends that countries should spend at least 6 percent of their GDP on
education.[11] Our educational budget is deeply below the international standards.
If we would be able to allocate the budget for 4Ps to primary education, then we
could substantially increase our primary education budget especially to the
teachers salaries, and potentially making it free for all children. Thus, it is
imperative for the government to have a major educational reformation in order to
attain universal primary education.

Fourth, there was a political involvement in process of assistance

distribution. According to Dalit (2012), there were many loopholes in the program
such as the late arrival, or even intentionally lessened cash assistance due to
corrupt officials.[3] Anakbayan expressed their concern about the program as a
corruption program that promotes legalized vote buying. Vencer Crisostomo,
national chairperson of the Anakbayan, stated that the CCT is pantawid not for
the poor but for the racketeers in government and politicians. It is a huge
corruption project staring us in the face. [12] Indeed, inquirer reported that the
program was used by the candidates in order to bribe the people while promoting
their campaigns in some cities during the 2013 mid-term elections. [13 Thus, the
program can be used as a tool to exploit the destitute leading politicians to commit
graft and corruption.
Studies have revealed that the programs had several loopholes, and some
even had involvement of political foreplay. Meanwhile, statistics showed that the
program did not significantly affect the socio-economic status of the destitute.
In light of the evidences, the government must be able to increase their
spending in services tied to the program especially in health and education, or else
discontinue the program and allocate their budget to primary education. The
government should also be able to create a reliable anti-poverty strategy, and
provide strict socioeconomic political policies to avoid politicians in using 4ps as a
means to commit graft and corruption. Thus, this calls for cooperation among labor
and civil society groups to strengthen their advocacy against squandering of the
taxpayers money in impractical and ineffectual government programs. In all, the
government and its people should cooperate comprehensively in alleviating the
quality of life here in our country.

References:
[1]

Son. 2008. Conditional cash transfers: an effective tool for poverty alleviation,
Asian Development Bank Economic and Research Department ERD Policy Brief
Series No. 51.
[2]

Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). Retrieved September

14, 2014 from
<http://pantawid.dswd.gov.ph/index.php/about-us>

[3]

Dalit. 2012. 4P's - Facts and Issues. Retrieved September 14, 2014 from
<http://charlyndalit.blogspot.com/2012/12/4ps-program-facts-andissues.html>
[4]

Tutor. 2013. Evaluating the Impact of PantawidPamilyangPilipino Program on

Consumption. UP School
of Economics, UP Diliman, Quezon City.
[5]

National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB). 2014. Poverty Incidence for

Basic Sectors.
Retrieved September 14, 2014 from
<http://www.nscb.gov.ph/pressreleases/2014/PSA-%20PR20140704-SS201_poorestsector.asp>
[6]

Social Watch Philippines. 2010. Social Watch Philippines Position Paper on the
Pantawid
Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps). University of the Philippines
Diliman, Quezon City.
[7]

Global Network. Social Protection in the Philippines: A case study on the

countrys social security model and conditional cash transfer program. Retrieved
September 14, 2014 from
<http://www.solidar.org/IMG/pdf/d4_philippinessocial_protection_final.pdf>
[8]

Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). Pantawid Pamilyang

Pilipino Program focuses to empowering the youth through YDS. Retrieved
September 14, 2014 from
<http://www.car.dswd.gov.ph/2014/08/pantawidpamilyang-pilipino-program-focuses-toempowering-the-youth-through-yds/>
[9]

Albert et al. 2012. Profile of Out-of-School Children in the Philippines.

Discussion paper series no.
2012-01. Philippine Institute for Development
Studies.
[10]

Lazo. 2013. Pantawid Pamilya budget raised to P62.6 billion for 2014. The
Manila Times.
Retrieved September 14, 2014 from <http://www.manilatimes.net/pantawidpamilya-budget-raised- to-p62-6-billion-for-2014/35409/>
[11]

Quismundo. 2012. Philippine education spending still below UN standard.

Philippine Daily
Inquirer. Retrieved September 14, 2014 from
<http://globalnation.inquirer.net/31229/philippine-education-spending-stillbelow-unstandard>
[12]

Anakbayan. 2012. CCT is corruption program, legalized vote buying.

Anakbayan Organization.
Retrieved September 14, 2014 from
< http://www.anakbayan.org/cct-is-corruption-program-legalized-votebuying-anakbayan/>
[13]

Boncocan. 2013. .Suarez wants Conditional Cash Transfer program

suspended. Philippine

Daily Inquirer. Retrieved September 14, 2014 from

<http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/314695/suarez-wants-conditional-cashtransfer-program- suspended>

[]

Moser et al. 2013. Observations of the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program in the field.
Retrieved September 14, 2014 from <http://blogs.adb.org/blog/observations-pantawidpamilyang-pilipino-program-field>