Poverty : Disagreement of Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4ps)

Duke Paul Nathaniell R. Taborada

University of Cebu Maritime Education Training Center

NGEC 5 : Purposive Communication

Ms. Jonnah ji Alcotin

November 30, 2024

 Poverty : Disagreement of Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4ps)

Poverty signifies the condition of inadequacy or insufficiency. It is a human condition

that denotes lack of money or material possession thus usually equated with hunger,
inadequate housing, lack of clothing, poor education and extreme malnutrition. A Conditional
Cash Transfer Program is a program implemented by the government where money (cash
grants) is given to eligible beneficiaries given that these beneficiaries comply with certain
conditions such as nutrition, education, family development sessions, and other such services
offered by the government. It is a means of helping the beneficiaries through provision of social
and medical assistance and increasing the investment in human capital for society by providing
education to those who cannot afford it.

Since 2007, the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) of the Philippines is the
conditional cash transfer program implemented by the Department of Social Welfare and
Development (DSWD), along with cooperative partner institutions such as the Department of
Education, Department of Health, Department of the Interior and Local Government, and
various other government institutions. The 4Ps was patterned after the conditional cash transfer
programs in Latin American and African countries which have been proven successful as a
poverty reduction and social development measure (DSWD, 2011).

The 4Ps is targeted at chronic poor households with children aged 0-14 years old who
are located in poor areas. The cash grants range from PhP500 to PhP1,400 per household per
month, depending on the number of eligible children. At the core of a CCT program is a social
contract where a state provides financial resources to a family in exchange for that family’s
fulfillment of certain tasks such as ensuring that its children’s attendance in school, regular visits
to community health centers, participation in government-sponsored feeding programs and
attendance in more specific trainings, to name a few (Somera, 2010).

Like any other government program, the 4Ps also have its disadvantages that may
encumber its helpful benefits. One of the most crucial characteristic of the 4Ps and other CCT
programs implemented in other countries is its being a ‘demand-side’ intervention instead of
being a ‘supply-side’ intervention. That is, in order to be considered as a beneficiary of the
program, one must concede with the government’s demands and conditionalities (Coady &
Parker, 2002). This is remarkably notable in the conditions concerning education and health
services where the beneficiaries being brought into the education and health services system
instead of expanding the education and health systems in order to reach them.

Furthermore, as previously mentioned, poverty in the country is not only caused by the
lack of economical resources, but also because of socio-economic and political factors that
prevent the equality and distribution of resources. Although the 4Ps aims to provide the poor
with the education which is, otherwise, inaccessible, it does not directly answer the socio-
economic and political problems that are the primary cause of poverty. In the case of the 4Ps in
the Philippines, it does not answer the issues regarding the political and economic elite families.
And poverty can only be totally alleviated if there are programs that could target its roots.

The 4Ps will also encounter some difficulties in achieving support from the other social
classes, mainly because it does not benefit middle-income groups which have also been
steadily affected by limited universal services and decreases in employment (Cuesta, 2007).
These middle-income groups are also suffering from issues of poverty and limited access to
educational and health benefits, but are not included in the target population of the 4Ps. The
4Ps is programmed to help only the extremely poor.

One of the primary criticisms of the 4ps program is its potential to create a culture of
dependency. By providing regular cash transfers, some argue that the program may
disincentivize beneficiaries from seeking employment or engaging in productive activities. This
could lead to a situation where beneficiaries become reliant on the program, hindering their
ability to break the cycle of poverty independently. Additionally, there are concerns that the
program may not adequately address the root causes of poverty, such as lack of education,
poor infrastructure, and limited job opportunities (Haddad, L., & Hulme, D. 2001).

Another major disadvantage of the 4Ps implementation is that it requires a huge amount
of finance which we do not have at the present. The 4Ps is a loan driven program, much of the
funds constituting the conditional cash grants given to beneficiaries are generated from loans
abroad, particularly from the United States. By the tail-end of August 2010, the Asian
Development Bank (ADB) approved a US$400 million loan specifically for the 4Ps which will run
from 2011 to 2014. This comprises 45.2 per cent of the total cost of US$884.2 million, where
US$484 million serves as the government’s counterpart. Having ADB’s US$400 million in
addition to the World Bank’s US$405 million, makes two-thirds of the whole 4Ps from 2009 to
2014 comprised of loans (Somera, 2010, p. 6). Arguments against the 4Ps point out that despite
the large amounts of financial resources needed to implement the program; it does not generate
guaranteed returns to the economy as much as infrastructure projects like construction of roads,
bridges, and railways do.

In conclusion, the government should remove the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program
(4ps) in the Philippines because it fosters dependency among beneficiaries, strains public
resources, and fails to address the root causes of poverty such as lack of employment
opportunities and systematic inequality. The 4ps program is a complex issue with both positive
and negative implications. While it has undoubtedly helped to alleviate poverty for many Filipino
families. It is important to acknowledge the its limitations and potential drawbacks. To maximize
the programs impact, it is crucial to address the root causes of poverty, improve the targeting
system, and ensure the programs long term sustainability. By doing so, the government can
help break the cycle of poverty and create a more equitable society for all Filipinos.(Ravallion,
M., & Jalan , J (2002).
References:

Bloom, K. (2008, May 17). CCT in Philippines is ‘teaching people how to fish’.
Philippine Daily Inquirer. http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20080517-
137087/CCT-in-Philippines-is-teaching-people-how-to-fish.

Calvo, C. (2011). Social Work and conditional Cash Transfers in Latin America.
Journal of Sociology & Welfare, September 2011, Volume XXXVIII, Number 3.

Cuesta, J. (2007). Field report: On more ambitious conditional cash transfers,

social protection, and permanent reduction of poverty. Journal of International Development, 19,
1016-1019.

Department of Social Welfare and Development (2009), Effects of 4Ps, . Available

from: Department of Social Welfare and Development,
: http://www.fo1.dswd.gov.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=188%3Aeffects-
of-4ps- Itemid=110.

Diokno, B, (2011), Will CCT help or hurt the poor? . Available from: University of
the Philippines, School of Economics: http://econ.upd.edu.ph/faculty/bediokno/2010/10/12/will-
cct-help-or-hurt-the-poor/

Somera, N, (2010), Politics, Patriarchs, Palliative and the Poor: Conditional Cash
Transfer in the Philippines, http://www.forum-adb.org/docs/BP-201012.pdf

Valencia, E. (2009). Conditional cash transfer programs: Achievements and illusions.

Global Social Policy, 9, 167-171

Haddad, L.,& Hulme, D. (2001). Poverty and inequality in developing countries:

Static and dynamic.

Ravallion, M., & Jalan, J. (2002). How the world’s poorest fared since the 1980s
World Bank Economic Review, 16 (1), 1-19.

World Bank. (2020) Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Pogram (4ps).

https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/Philippines/brief/faqs-about-thepantawid-pamilyang-
pilipino-program