Abstract
The incongruity between South Asia’s economic growth and extreme poverty has led to a growing interest in social protection and the subsequent implementation of anti-poverty programs. These work to promote inclusive growth and ensure that the poor do not get left behind. However, many programs have systematically failed to achieve their full potential in reaching the poorest of the poor. We reviewed the literature to understand the determinants behind this inequity in South Asia.
A search of four databases, EconLit, Global Health Database, MEDLINE, SocINDEX, supplemented by citation tracking and an external search, yielded 42 papers evaluating 23 social protection programs. All articles were assessed for quality using the GRADE and GRADE CERQual criteria. Data were analyzed using Thomas & Harding’s thematic synthesis approach to generate new higher-order interpretations.
Our analysis identified five themes underscoring program processes that stop resources from reaching the poor. These include: (1) structurally flawed program theories that overlook the complexities of poverty and are instead rooted in simplistic cause-and-effect approaches overestimating the poor’s gain from participation; (2) elite capture of program resources through the direct appropriation of benefits, their powerful positioning in program implementation, and their ability to dictate the poor’s accessibility through relationships of patronage and withholding of information; (3) insufficient targeting strategies to reach the poorest and a subsequent redirection of resources toward the rich; (4) program designs that overlook gender-based restrictions, hidden costs, the poor’s lack of legal documentation, and their physical and social exclusion; (5) some of the poorest households actively choosing self-exclusion from social protection due to a desire to maintain dignity, a lack of capital, and a perception of programs as substandard.
The review highlights the disconnect between social protection program designs and the ground realities of their ‘ideal’ beneficiaries: the poorest of the poor. We propose the persistence of this well-documented disconnect may stem from three sources. First, there is an unclear understanding of who the poor are in South Asia, with definitions overlooking the historical influence of the caste system. Western perceptions of poverty continue to dominate the discourse. The second challenge is effective engagement and co-production of knowledge with the poor. Lastly, despite encouragement of international collaboration, fast-paced funding calls do not allocate sufficient time to build relationships with the poor primary stakeholders. We suggest the possibility that maintenance of this disconnect is intentional, reflecting a broader power dynamic in which the global and local elite dictate the lives of the poor based on geopolitical interests and national priorities.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The authors received no specific funding for this work.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Not Applicable
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Alberta Research Information Services System (ARISE) - University of Alberta No: PRO 00117838
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Not Applicable
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Not Applicable
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Not Applicable
Data Availability
This submission is a literature review. We did not use any empirical data and therefore there is no data for sharing
