Date post: | 16-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | ayla-osswald |
View: | 218 times |
Download: | 3 times |
Economic Diversification, Social Development and Poverty Eradication in Botswana: Towards an Integrated
Model of Social Protection.
Prof. R. Mupedziswa, PhDUniversity of Botswana
Presented at “Are Diamonds there Forever ?” Conference, Lansmore Hotel, Gaborone. 27-28 August, 2014.
e.
Organisation of PaperIntroductionFormal social protection system in BotswanaShortfalls of the formal social protection
systemSustainability concerns The case for a social development
perspectiveNon-formal social protection systemInterface - formal/non-formal systems“Diversification” through an integrated
model?Concluding remarks
Basic Argument of PaperThe paper argues that the government of Botswana has
over the years promoted a social protection system which is the envy of many sister countries in the SADC region. The measures have had a major positive impact in respect of the fight against poverty. However, since the social protection system in place is highly dependent on revenue from the country’s mineral wealth, particularly diamonds, long term sustainability of the social protection system has been questioned. The paper makes a case for the integration of formal and non-formal (traditional) social protection systems, to come up with a social development perspective of social protection which ultimately promotes self reliance (as opposed to giving of handouts).
IntroductionAt independence in 1966, Botswana was a poor
country with its people depending on subsistence economy (in particular cattle/beef.
Judicious use of mineral resources since the mid 1970s transformed the country’s fortunes, later resulting in Botswana attaining middle income status.
Over the years, Botswana has done quite well economically compared to several other SADC countries as can be noted from several basic socioeconomic indicators (See Table 1).
Selected Socioeconomic indicators of SADC Countries 2010 (GoSA, 2010)
HDI GINI
Coefficie
nt
Access to
Improved
water
Average%
real GDP
Growth
1990 – 2008*
GDP per
capita
(PPP) US$
2006**
Angola 0,564 58.64 51% 6,28 4, 631.44
Botswana 0.694 60,96 96% 5,32 13, 474.95
DRC 0,389 44,43 46% -1,15 295.24
Lesotho 0,514 52,5 78% 3,93 1, 183.81
Madagasca
r
0,543 47,24 47% 2,74 879.43
Malawi 0,493 39,02 76% 3,92 694.57
Mauritius 0,804 - 100% 4,88 10, 446.49
Mozambiq
ue
0,402 47,11 42% 6,41 782,57
Namibia 0,686 74,33 93% 4,41 6, 009.12
Seychelles 0,845 42,0 87% 3,63 18, 972.52
South
Africa
0,683 57,77 93% 2,68 9, 150.58
Swaziland 0,572 50,68 60% 3,56 5, 202.86
Tanzania 0,530 34,62 55% 4,79 1, 164.30
Zambia 0,481 50,74 58% 2,61 1, 241.92
Zimbabwe N/A 50,1 81% -0,51 9.65
Introduction (Continued)In the early years, government efforts focused
mostly at economic growth (Ntseane & Solo, 2007).
With time, it became apparent that economic growth alone would not be a sufficient condition for total eradication of poverty (Seleka, et al., 2007).
The government of Botswana then made deliberate efforts to introduce a formal social protection system (social safety nets) for welfare improvement (Ntseane & Solo, 2007).
Formal social protection system - BotswanaEllis, Devereux & White (2009) have grouped the
social protection measures into 4 broad categories:(1). Food and basic needs deprivation of the
extremely poor, the destitute, and older persons (e.g. Destitute P. Programme, Orphans & Vulnerable Children., etc.).
(2) Low yields and other natural disasters (e.g. Ipelegeng (Ntseane & Solo, 2007).
(3) Impact of HIV & AIDS on households. (e.g. CHBC).
(4) Income and assert depletion resulting from retirement, sickness, death. (E.g. Pension scheme).
Social protection system-BotswanaType of
Progra
mme
Target
group
Targeting
Mechanis
m
Coverage
&Number
of
Beneficiari
es
Type of
transfer
Value &
frequen
cy of
transfer
Govern
ment of
Botswan
a Annual
expendit
ure
Expendi
ture per
benefici
ary
Destitut
e
Persons
Progra
mme
Poor and
destitute
individua
ls unable
to work
Proxy
means-
testing +
referral by
communit
y
represent
atives
National;
40, 865
(2010),
almost all
rural
Food and
cash
Food
P450 –
750,
Cash
P81
monthly
P214m
(2008/09)
P5,596
(2008/09)
Orphan
Care
Progra
mme
Under
18s
without a
biological
or
adoptive
parent
Categoric
al +
referral by
communit
y
represent
atives
National 48
119
registered
orphans
(2008/2009)
Food;
school
fees,
uniform,
etc.;
clothing
Food:
P450-
700
monthly;
other:
variable
P254m
(2008/09)
P5,286
(2008/09)
School
feeding
Prim/Se
c
All school
children
in
Governm
ent
school
Categoric
al
National;
Primary261
,513;
Secondary
165 097;
(2009/10)
Food Variable;
1 meal
daily;
RADS 2
meals;
borders
3.
Primary
schools
P208m;
Secondar
y P135m
(2009/10)
Secondar
y P820
(2009/10)
Vulnera
ble
group
feeding
Adults
and pre-
school
children
at
nutrition
al risk
Categoric
al
National
239, 985
(2009/2010)
Food Variable,
normally
monthly
P216m P35
(2009/10)
Old Age
Pension
All
citizens
aged
65+;
Categoric
al;
register
with DSS
through
local
authority
National;
91446
(2009/10)
Cash P220
Monthly.
P337m
(2009/10)
P3,688
(2009/10)
World
War 2
Veteran
s
WW vets,
or
surviving
spouse or
children
below 21
Categoric
al;
beneficiar
y register
with DSS
through
local
authority
National;
2940 WW2
Vets
(2009/10)
Cash P359
Monthly
P30m
(2009/10)
P10,250
(2009/10)
Remote
Area
Dweller
s
Remote
communit
ies;
Basarwa
individua
ls
Geographi
cal +
proxy
means
testing
+categori
cal
communit
y
42,597
mainly in64
settlements
in 7
districts
(2008/2009)
Infrastru
cture
developm
ent;
grants for
income
generatio
n
Variable
P32m
(2008/20
09)
P775
(2008/09)
Ipelege
ng
Able-
bodied
adults
needing
low-
waged
employm
ent
Self-
selection;
in
principle
available
to all, but
rotated
when
over-
subscribed
National;
19,431
person-
years
(2009/10)
Cash P18/day
(P24/day
for
supervis
ors)
22-day
cycle
P221m
(2009/10)
P11,384
(2009/10)
Commu
nity
Home-
based
Care
Very ill
individua
ls
Categoric
al referral
by doctors
National
14130
2004/5;370
2 2008/9
Food,
transport
,
counselin
g,
rehabilita
tion
Food up
to
P500(P1
200 tube
feeding)
Monthly
2005
P 53
million
(2008/09)
P14,265
(2008/9)
Shortfalls of the formal social protection system in Botswana.Alleviation of hunger rather than providing
sustainable livelihoods (Gadibolae (2010).
Lack of scope to graduate out of schemes, hence creates dependency syndrome (Ntseane & Solo, 2007).
Challenges with targeting, coordination, and implementation deficiencies (Ntseane & Solo, 2007; Mupedziswa & Ntseane, 2012; BIDPA & World Bank, 2014).
Shortfalls (continued)A recent Social Protection Assessment study by
BIDPA in conjunction with The World Bank noted that, “While Botswana has many social protection programmes, some of them are rather small relative to the target group they intend to cover or to the number of poor people, which limits their effectiveness” (Balise, 2014).
The same study reportedly noted that safety net programmes were fragmented, are implemented by different government ministries, in the process diluting scarce administrative capacity.
Sustainability Concerns.Despite the shortfalls, Botswana’s social protection
system remains quite impressive, by SADC standards.
The authoritative South Africa-based Regional Hunger & Vulnerability Programme (RHVP) (2011) noted that Botswana has a very impressive track record in terms of long standing commitment to state-led social protection..........
Work by other researchers (e.g. Mupedziswa & Ntseane, 2012 a, b) has corroborated the observation that Botswana has indeed done well in regard to commitment to rolling out welfare improvement measures.
Sustainability concerns (Continued)The Social Protection Assessment study by
BIDPA/WB (2014) indicated that the government spent P5.3 billion on its social protection programmes in the fiscal year 2012/13.
This figure, which represents 4.4% of GDP, is very
impressive and the government ought to be commended for such commitment.
However, concern has been expressed over long term sustainability of the social protection system, especially since emphasis is on giving of handouts.
Case for social development approachThe existing social protection system predicated on remedial
approach (handouts), though noble, should be viewed as only a short term measure since it is ‘relief’-oriented.
For the long term, the government may wish to consider ways of working towards promoting the social development perspective.
The social development approach emphasises capacity building and empowerment towards self reliance (Elliot, 2012).
The approach appreciates the connection between social and economic goals, and stresses the idea of planned change. Social justice is adjudged critical. (Hall, 1990).
Lessons from the River Story The analogy by the American social organiser of the last century, Saul Alinsky of the
‘River Story’ might be instructive in appreciating the need for a social development perspective.
The analogy of the leaking water tap too corroborates the need to promote a social development approach.
The Chinese saying about catching fish is moulded along similar lines………..
Non-formal social protection systemThe non-formal system may be the missing ingredient
towards realisation of the social development approach.
Traditionally Botswana depended on non-formal social protection measures, steeped in people’s cultural beliefs, norms and values, with botho spirit playing a key role.
Social groups (e.g. community, kinship ties, family, etc. operated on basis of such values as (e.g. self-help, inherent solidarity, etc )(Olivier, Kaseke & Mpedi, 2008).
Non-formal social protection system (examples)Tribal granaries (defalana), milkpad cattle (kgamelo),
tribal fields (masotla), all of which fell directly under regulation of the Chief.
Self-organised mutual support systems e.g. mafisa (lending cattle to the poor) ; go tshwara teu or bodisa (poor looked after rich people’s cattle in return for a cow); majako (poor worked in field of rich in return for portion of harvest); letsema/molaletsa (voluntary work for poor), etc.
Modern-day non-formal social protection initiatives include burial societies; credit and savings associations.
Interface between formal & non-formal social protection systemsType of Vulnerability Formal Social
Protection
Initiatives
Non-Formal
Social
Protection
Initiatives
Food and basic needs
deprivation of the
extremely poor, the
destitute and older persons
Destitute Persons
Programme
Remote Area Dwellers
Programme
Vulnerable Groups
Feeding Programme
School Feeding
Programme
Needy Students
Allowance
Extended family
Neighbourhood
support
Chiefs granary
Food and basic needs
deprivation of older people
Old Age Pension
World War II Veteran
Scheme
Extended family
Neighbourhood
support
Chiefs granary
Impacts of HIV and AIDS Orphan Care Programme
Community Home Based
Care
Burial societies
Savings and
Credit
Associations
Low yields and other
natural disasters
Ipelegeng
Labour based Drought
Relief Programmes
Majako
Letsema
Extended family
Retirement, sickness,
occupational injuries and
death
Government Pension
Scheme
Health Insurance
Schemes
Workmen’s Compensation
Maternity Benefits
Extended family
Burial Societies
Neighbourhood
Support
Savings and
Credit
associations
Diversification of social protection systems through their integration ?The non formal social protection system essentially
‘persists’ in Botswana today essentially because it still has an important role to play.
RHVP (2011) has expressed concern that while Botswana has developed an impressive social protection system, only a small segment of the population does benefit.
Concern has also been voiced over such issues as inadequacy and restrictive nature of the provisions in the formal social protection system.
Diversification through integration (continued)It is for these and related reasons that the paper proposes
integration of the formal and non formal social protection systems.
Ideally debate should focus on which initiatives from the two systems are amenable to integration and which aren’t.
If the idea of integration were to be taken on, the first step would probably be to identify those initiatives with potential, and then find ways of building synergies between them.
As Diagram 1 shows, integration is not an end in itself, but rather should be viewed as a means to an end (i.e. realisation of the social development approach and ultimately poverty eradication.
Integrated social protection model: Steps towards poverty eradication
Formal social
protection system
Integrated approach - Social developmental orientation - Capacity build - Self-reliance - Poverty eradication
Non-formal
social protection
system
Concluding remarksGovernment of Botswana has done extremely well
in terms of commitment to state-led social protection initiatives.
However questions have remained regarding long term sustainability of the initiatives.
There is however need for an integrated approach which would bring together the formal and non formal social protection systems.
The idea would be to promote a social development approach which in turn would help build capacities for self reliance, and ultimately poverty eradication.