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.