Despite all new technologies and so-called ‘progress’ the “third industrial revolution” capitalism claims it has provided, it has failed in more than one crucial field of life (the destruction of natural resources, climate change, etc.) mainly having failed to eradicate or even check poverty. Despite all lip service and social programs, poverty is rising everywhere in the world including in the affluent western countries. A decreasing part of society is living a lavish life while a growing part of society remains in or slips into poverty. The gap between rich and poor is widening worldwide. Consider the glaring difference in living conditions in the developing world.
To deal with this situation the west developed the idea of universal basic income (UBI). In a UBI program every person receives a flat monthly payment, regardless of whether they’re working and earning an income or not. Different programs outline who exactly receives the income some state that all citizens would get it regardless of what they do, while other programs may only give it to those who fall below the poverty line. Some would give it only to citizens of their own country, others to all living in the country. Attempting to define UBI shows how many questions arise from such an idea. But before deciding who would be eligible to receive UBI one has to ask where would the money come from? Would we collect the super profits of the rich for that? Once that is secured, we can start distributing it this way or another. This is a major problem in Pakistan where tax collection is abysmally low.
In Germany implementation of social security laws currently in place is expensive, leaving holes open to misuse. A person has to disclose all sources of income and property. It requires an extended bureaucracy to establish if a person is entitled to social security transfers. A large number of people is needed for doing just the check-up of the data provided. People feel overwhelmed by the ten and more pages of application forms they need to fill, others refuse to disclose that they are poor which they consider a shame. A UBI paid to everyone regardless if he or she has another income or financial assets would make the whole bureaucracy including the people involved therein unnecessary. Calculating the money that would be saved not paying for their salaries, offices, technology and other expenses a good chunk of the costs of UBI could be recovered.
The oldest social security programme in the world is the Islamic idea of Zakat. An obligatory payment paid annually under Islamic Law by the affluent on certain kinds of property. Used for charitable and religious purposes, Zakat is one of the five pillars of Islam. However as applied it has not been able to eradicate poverty over the centuries. In Pakistan another attempt has been started a couple of years ago by the name of Ehsaas. The Ehsaas program of Pakistan is an initiative of the PTI govt based on the party’s idea of converting Pakistan into an Islamic welfare state. It is based on a thoroughly revised plan by the PPP govt called ‘Benazir Income Support Program’ BISP) that aimed giving financial hand-outs to the poorest families. Since 2019 the Ehsaas program has been updated and widened. Financial handouts and support for women’s “financial inclusion” may only be the beginning. When the corona pandemic hit it helped to prevent hunger among those who lost their daily income due to lockdown and disease. Too early to say if Ehsaas will sustainably fight poverty in Pakistan, it will depend upon the ability to prevent corruption. Indeed under Dr. Sania Nishtar millions of undeserving recipients, among them bureaucrats and many with party affiliations have been eliminated. With her brilliance and integrity running this program, this country is fortunate to have Dr. Sania Nishtar. What Imran Khan and Pakistan need badly are more Sania Nishtar clones. Whatever the program it needs sound financial footing. Globalized market economy and the inequality inherited from colonialism, upheld by unequal trade under WTO and reinforced by wars like in Yemen and Syria that destroy the economies of whole countries, divide the world into countries with high and relatively lower poverty. Comparing UBI and Ehsaas one has to acknowledge that both frameworks are based on entirely different bases; one is the outcome of a rather affluent western world that could afford to give a UBI to all so that social security is provided even in an emergency situation like a pandemic. Developing countries with a poverty level of 50 or more per cent and serious educational and healthcare deficiencies need a different approach.
In Pakistan, the Ehsaas program is govt financed and given the slump of GDP due to corona and the anyway low and rather unstable, much of the money for Ehsaas comes from loans brought in from the international market including IMF, will have to be paid back. For Ehsaas to be on a sound footing Pakistan’s GDP has to be raised well above the mark of 3% (which is the mark of population growth meaning 3% of each year’s GDP is eaten up by the newly born population). Availability of energy and a rational use of it is another precondition to raise the GDP. Then availability of educated and skilled workforce. With Pakistan whether lagging behind, to change that takes decades. It is questionable if the currently produced National Curriculum Framework is enough to provide better education and skills. China, another country with a big population and a high level of poverty has just shown a way. In 1990 there were more than 750 million people in China (out of a population of 1.10 billion) living below the international poverty line more than two-thirds of the population. By 2012, this had fallen to fewer than 90 million (about 8 % the population), and by 2016 the most recent year for which World Bank figures are available it had fallen to 7.2 million people (0.5% of the population), overall 740 million fewer people were living in extreme poverty in China than were 30 years ago. But again, the main way to reach this has been a sustained growth of GDP over an extended period of time. There remain serious doubts if the Chinese experience can be repeated one on one. The times have changed, climate change, pandemics and other hazards are here and not going away. Under these circumstances it has to be asked if extensive growth as the GDP-based model is, can be retained in a world with limited resources, that in some cases are about to finish. Even if the Chinese way can be a guideline it will have to be adjusted to the new conditions. May be CPEC and BRI are a first step. But for Pakistan to keep up with them we need a stop of population growth, better education, security and good governance.
Contribution by: Dr Bettina Robotka, former Professor of South Asian Studies, Humboldt University, Berlin and Editor of the Defence Journal and a Consultant to Pathfinder Group.
