Constant crisis: perceptions of vulnerability and social protection in the Kyrgyz Republic

In 2008, the Kyrgyz Republic experienced significant increases in food and fuel price, massively affecting  the most vulnerable populations. In response, the World Bank announced a US$10 million grant directed at topping up the existing cash transfer mechanism (the Unified Monthly Benefit, or UMB).

This report discusses the effectiveness of the UMB, and looks particularly at the role of means testing in poverty reduction.  The authors argue that the World Bank top-up of the Unified Monthly Benefit (UMB) is not sufficient to make a noticeable difference. The UMB itself is limited as a poverty reduction tool, partly due to significant errors in means testing, meaning many individuals who are eligible for the benefit are excluded from the programme, while others who are not eligible are receiving it.

Based on a survey of households conducted over winter months, three factors stood out as having particular impact on vulnerability to poverty: 1) seasonality, 2) migration and 3) household debt. Significantly, as a consequence of high levels of migration, multigenerational households consisting of older people and young children are emerging as a newly identified vulnerable group at high risk of chronic rural poverty.

The authors suggest that for the programme to have more impact, particularly on the lives of older people, two key changes are needed: an alternative to means testing, with more sophisticated means of assessing vulnerability, and increased levels of top-up.

The report goes on to make these specific recommendations:

• simplify criteria for poverty testing: the most vulnerable will always find it harder than others to prove their eligibility, due to a lack of information on the full procedure and required documents, and  private costs, which might exceed the value of the benefit

• wider policy options for non-contributory social protection programmes: many low-income countries with extremely limited budgets are choosing categorical coverage for those who are too old or too young to work (for example, old-age pensions and child benefits), instead of administratively expensive and cumbersome means testing. However, there is no blueprint. A feasibility study of alternatives would be relatively low cost, and would provide a sound basis for decisions on affordable relevant long-term policy
  

• make sure that information outreach incorporates measures to remove any physical, geographical and other barriers to access – in particular, for people with disabilities, older people and members of ethnic minority groups. Special measures should also be taken to reach beneficiaries living in remote rural areas

• take into account seasonal poverty when designing any safety-net programmes, and consider rates of cash transfers in the context of fluctuating levels of vulnerability. If the fiscal space is restricted, it may be more beneficial to deliver higher cash transfers for a shorter period of time – to focus on risk coping at the crisis time
  

• encourage exchange of well-informed horizontal policy making between different government departments and policy institutions that recognises the critical linkages between social protection, migration and disaster risk reduction. For example, assumptions on potential income from land need to be reviewed and issues such as lack of agricultural inputs and services taken into account
  

• ensure participation of vulnerable people and civil society in development – both at the design and evaluation stages. This is the only way to predict and assess potential gaps between theory and practice, and to prevent implementation of unintentionally ineffective or regressive programmes