STRENGTHENING SOCIAL

PROTECTION IN THE
PHILIPPINES:
CONDITIONAL CASH TRANSFER AND
UNIVERSAL SOCIAL PROTECTION
Celia M. Reyes
National Consultation on Strengthening Social Protection in the Philippines
July 8, 2013 Manila
Outline
1. Universal Social Protection
2. Social Protection in the Philippines
3. Pantawid Pamilya Pilipino Program (4Ps)
4. Universalism vs. Targeting
5. Conclusion
Objective
To examine how targeted interventions such as the
4Ps can be situated in the context of the move
towards universal social protection?

In the debate between Universalism vs. Targeting,
where does the 4Ps fit in?

Universal social protection
UNRISD defines universal social protection as a
minimum level of income or consumption granted as
a right by the state to all citizens and residents of
a country, thus treating everyone with equal
consideration and respect.
It further explains that social policy grounded in
universalism aims to guarantee a decent standard
of living for all, making social services and a
basic income accessible to the entire population.
History of Social Protection Framework
In 2006, DSWD began discussions on social protection
at the Sub-Group on Social Protection of the Working
Group on MDGs and Social Progress in the Philippine
Development Forum.
The recommendations of the Sub-Group were
presented to the Social Development Committee and
this led to the formalization of the definition of social
protection on February 13, 2007.
In response to the global financial crisis of 2008, the
government issued Administrative Orders 232 and 232-
A which clustered social welfare programs in a National
Social Welfare Program Cluster.
History of Social Protection Framework
In 2009, the Cluster commissioned the DAP to conduct
an assessment of the social welfare and protection
programs. The study recommended that social welfare
programs need to (i) be harmonized to avoid overlaps
and (ii) improve targeting of areas and beneficiaries.
In response to the DAP study, the DSWD, NEDA and SSS
formulated an Operational Framework to harmonize all
social protection programs. The framework was
presented to the SDC in October 2009 and
subsequently approved.
Social Development Committee approved the Social
Protection Operational Framework on May 18, 2012.
Social Protection
Constitutes policies and programs that seek to reduce
poverty and vulnerability to risks and enhance the
social status and rights of the marginalized by
promoting and protecting livelihood and
employment, protecting against hazards and sudden
loss of income, and improving peoples capacity to
manage risks ( Social Development Committee
Resolution No. 1 Series of 2007)



Social Protection Programs
1. Social insurance programs - to cushion risks
associated with unemployment, ill-health, disability,
work-related injury and old age such as SSS and
GSIS programs
2. Labor market policies and programs - to generate
employment and improve working conditions such as
employment facilitation schemes, emergency and
guaranteed employment
3. Social welfare programs - to provide basic protection
to those who are poor, excluded, discriminated against
and marginalized
4. Social safety nets short-term stop-gap measures
such as cash transfers, food for work, and emergency
employment programs.



4Ps: Philippine CCT
Objectives
(1) Social assistance to provide cash assistance to
the poor to alleviate their immediate needs (short
term poverty alleviation), and
(2) Social development to break the
intergenerational poverty cycle through investment
in human capital.


4Ps: Philippine CCT
Features
The 4Ps targets poor families with children up to 14 years of
age using a proxy means test (PMT) model.
The program provides cash grants to its beneficiary households
for health and educational expenses.
The amount of the cash transfer depends on the number of
children in this age category with three as the maximum.
For instance, a poor family that has five children aged 0 to 14
can receive up to P1,400 per month (P500 for the health
component and P300 for the educational component for
each of up to a maximum of three children).


4Ps: Philippine CCT
Conditionalities
1. Children aged 3 to 5 must attend day-care or preschool
classes at least 85 percent of the time
2. Children aged 6 to 14 must enrol in elementary or high
school and attend at least 85 percent of the time
3. Pregnant women have to avail of the pre- and post-natal
care and be attended during childbirth by a trained medical
professional
4. Parents must attend family development seminars
5. Children aged 0 to 5 have to undergo regular preventive
health checks and receive vaccines
6. Children aged 6 to 14 must receive de-worming pills twice a
year


4Ps: Philippine CCT
Coverage

Pilot 6,000
340391
630000
1 million
2.3 million
3,121,530
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
4Ps: Philippine CCT
Assessment by Reyes et al (2012)
1. Used data from the national Annual Poverty Indicator Survey
(APIS) 2011 conducted by NSO
2. It leads to an increase in the school participation rate by 3.5
percentage points among children aged 6-14 years old.
3. Still, 4 percent of children in 4Ps families aged 6-14 and 44
percent of children aged 15-18 in 4Ps families are not attending
school.
4. There is no significant difference between the school participation
rate of 4Ps children aged 15-18 and non-4Ps children.
5. The current coverage of 4Ps to 6-14 year old children is intended
to enable the child to finish elementary. Thus, for the very poor
who rely solely on the assistance from 4Ps to send their children to
school, they may not finish elementary school.
6. 90 percent of children aged 6-11 in the bottom 30 percent of
families were already attending school in 2007 while only half of
those aged 15-18 are.

4Ps: Philippine CCT
Impact evaluation by the World Bank (Chaudury, Friedman and Onishi,
2013) by conducting a survey among 1,418 poor families in 2011.
1. There is a significant 5 percentage point increase in the school
participation rate of children aged 6-14.
2. There was no significant increase in the school participation rate of
children aged 15-16.
3. 64 percent of pregnant mothers in Pantawid barangays had
antenatal care as against 54 percent in non-Pantawid barangays.
4. 85 percent of children in Pantawid barangays age 6-14 have
undergone deworming as against 80 percent in non-Pantawid
barangays
5. 81 percent of children in Pantawid barangays at age 0-5 have
taken Vitamin A supplements as against 75 percent in non-
Pantawid barangays.
6. The study did not find an overall increase in per capita
consumption among the poor benefiting from the program.

Universalism vs. Targeting
One of the important social policy issues is the
choice between universalism and targeting.
In universalism, social benefits are deemed as basic
right for all citizens while in targeting, they are only
for the truly needy and deserving (UNDP IPC,
2006).


Universalism vs. Targeting
According to Mkandawire, overall social policy in
more successful countries has been universalistic and
targeting has been used as simply one instrument
for making universalism effective. He noted that
such targeting within universalism directs extra
benefits to low-income groups within the context of
a universal policy design and involves the fine-
tuning of what are fundamentally universalist
policies.
Universalism
Advantages
Easy to implement
Gains support from the middle class
Disadvantages
Costly
If poverty incidence is relatively low, leads to high
wastage of resources
May breed dependence
Targeting
Advantages
More efficient allocation of resources
Disadvantages
High administrative costs
Requires high administrative capacity
May breed dependence
Universalism vs. Targeting
Targeted CCT due to budget constraints
4Ps can be viewed as a tool to achieve universal
access to basic education and primary health care
Conclusion
The 4Ps can be viewed as a building block towards the
provision of universal basic education and health
services for the entire population. By providing
conditional cash transfer to the poor, it is ensuring that
the poor would have access to basic education and
basic health services.
In the Philippines, we can say that we are adopting a
kind of universalism that incorporates targeting from the
standpoint of equal outcomes.
Thus, universalism and targeting are not contradictory in
the context of the 4Ps.