Geingob’s welfare programmes outdated
STAFF REPORTER
Poverty levels in Namibia have become a humanitarian crisis in the past five years. Two-thirds of Namibians live below the poverty line of USD1.90 per day and unemployment is at a peak high of about 45-50%.
According to the 2020 UN Global Report on Food Crises, 800 000 Namibians are constantly stressed about where they will get their next meal, of which 400 000 need humanitarian aid.
Basic Income Grant (BIG) is of the view that the president still bases his poverty eradication measures and legacy on outdated welfare programmes that aren’t relevant and have made very little impact to the current situation.
This stance bears hallmarks of a poorly planned and unsustainable HPP ll, especially in regard to pillar 3 (social progression), which states that the Food Bank will be converted into a BIG scheme which only the previous Food Bank recipient would be beneficiaries. “We find that problematic as only 42 000 recipients will benefit from BIG perpetuating the systemic exclusion of most Namibians in need. The president is yet to inform us about the fate of the rest of the 799 958 people who are currently facing hunger,” BIG said.
Basing BIG on welfare programmes that haven't reached their targets or lack the necessary political will to achieve such targets, while only benefiting very few recipients, creates frustrated and disenfranchised communities. It also prepares for a scenario that will engulf our entire democracy and set us on a path of social disintegration. The president’s intervention is not a measurable indicator in tackling the problem and downplays the magnitude of poverty in our country, BIG said.
Inequality
The reason why the BIG Coalition previously stated that the president wasn’t serious about addressing poverty and inequality is because he is objecting the unconditional BIG, an economic stimulus package and welfare programme that has been scientifically validated by various studies to be by far the fastest and most cost-efficient measure to address multi-dimensional poverty. In 2007, the president called on government to implement BIG. One would with all certainty expect that BIG would have been implemented upon taking reign of the Namibian Presidency in 2015, BIG added.
The poverty situation in Namibia has changed and so must the president’s poverty eradication measures. “We need to move forward and try to solve the problems at hand with new and innovative measures that are relevant to the current situation. It is because of the magnitude of poverty that the BIG Coalition deems it fair that, an unconditional BIG programme of N$500 per person for people aged 19-59, be legislated as the best way to ensure that all vulnerable, deserving and intended beneficiaries are covered,” BIG pointed out.
Classic welfare programmes, which the president supports, that use means-test to target beneficiaries have been proven to be far more expensive, wasteful, and ineffective at reaching indented beneficiaries.
If conditionality is applied by means of added administrative requirements, the poorest are those who are least likely to benefit from the programmes as they are by nature the most disadvantaged in terms of access to information, infrastructure, and administrative services provided.
.
Poverty levels in Namibia have become a humanitarian crisis in the past five years. Two-thirds of Namibians live below the poverty line of USD1.90 per day and unemployment is at a peak high of about 45-50%.
According to the 2020 UN Global Report on Food Crises, 800 000 Namibians are constantly stressed about where they will get their next meal, of which 400 000 need humanitarian aid.
Basic Income Grant (BIG) is of the view that the president still bases his poverty eradication measures and legacy on outdated welfare programmes that aren’t relevant and have made very little impact to the current situation.
This stance bears hallmarks of a poorly planned and unsustainable HPP ll, especially in regard to pillar 3 (social progression), which states that the Food Bank will be converted into a BIG scheme which only the previous Food Bank recipient would be beneficiaries. “We find that problematic as only 42 000 recipients will benefit from BIG perpetuating the systemic exclusion of most Namibians in need. The president is yet to inform us about the fate of the rest of the 799 958 people who are currently facing hunger,” BIG said.
Basing BIG on welfare programmes that haven't reached their targets or lack the necessary political will to achieve such targets, while only benefiting very few recipients, creates frustrated and disenfranchised communities. It also prepares for a scenario that will engulf our entire democracy and set us on a path of social disintegration. The president’s intervention is not a measurable indicator in tackling the problem and downplays the magnitude of poverty in our country, BIG said.
Inequality
The reason why the BIG Coalition previously stated that the president wasn’t serious about addressing poverty and inequality is because he is objecting the unconditional BIG, an economic stimulus package and welfare programme that has been scientifically validated by various studies to be by far the fastest and most cost-efficient measure to address multi-dimensional poverty. In 2007, the president called on government to implement BIG. One would with all certainty expect that BIG would have been implemented upon taking reign of the Namibian Presidency in 2015, BIG added.
The poverty situation in Namibia has changed and so must the president’s poverty eradication measures. “We need to move forward and try to solve the problems at hand with new and innovative measures that are relevant to the current situation. It is because of the magnitude of poverty that the BIG Coalition deems it fair that, an unconditional BIG programme of N$500 per person for people aged 19-59, be legislated as the best way to ensure that all vulnerable, deserving and intended beneficiaries are covered,” BIG pointed out.
Classic welfare programmes, which the president supports, that use means-test to target beneficiaries have been proven to be far more expensive, wasteful, and ineffective at reaching indented beneficiaries.
If conditionality is applied by means of added administrative requirements, the poorest are those who are least likely to benefit from the programmes as they are by nature the most disadvantaged in terms of access to information, infrastructure, and administrative services provided.
.
Kommentaar
Republikein
Geen kommentaar is op hierdie artikel gelaat nie