FROM PALLIATIVES TO PATHWAYS

 USMAN SHUAIB writes why Nigeria’s new social protection strategy matters

For years, Nigeria’s response to poverty has too often been defined by emergency interventions: cash handouts, food distribution, temporary subsidies and other forms of palliative support designed to cushion the immediate effects of economic hardship. While such interventions have their place, they cannot, by themselves, provide a durable escape from poverty.

A hungry family may need food today. A struggling household may need cash today. But beyond today, that family needs an opportunity to earn, a child needs access to education, a young person needs skills, and a vulnerable household needs a realistic pathway towards economic independence.

That is why the federal government’s launch of the $1 billion Household Prosperity and Empowerment Social Protection Project (HOPE-SP), deserves attention beyond the ceremony that announced it.

Its most important promise is contained in the theme under which it was unveiled: “From Palliatives to Pathways.” That phrase captures a potentially important change in the philosophy of social protection in Nigeria, from simply responding to poverty to systematically helping people overcome it.

The initiative, launched at the State House Banquet Hall in Abuja alongside four other programmes, is designed to strengthen the identification of vulnerable households, understand their specific needs and connect them with interventions capable of moving them from immediate stabilisation to recovery, empowerment and self-reliance.

This is precisely the direction Nigeria’s social protection architecture needs.

Palliatives are attractive because their impact is immediate and visible. A bag of food, a cash transfer or an emergency intervention can provide relief to a household facing hardship. But relief should never be confused with transformation.

A government can distribute millions of interventions and still fail to reduce poverty if beneficiaries remain trapped in the same economic circumstances after the intervention ends.

The new approach articulated by the federal government recognises this fundamental distinction.

The objective is not merely to identify poor Nigerians and give them something. It is to understand their vulnerabilities, determine what intervention is appropriate and track their progress towards economic inclusion.

That is a far more ambitious proposition. It also introduces an important question into the measurement of government performance: not simply how many people received assistance, but how many households became more resilient because of it. That is the real test of social protection.

One of the most significant elements of the new architecture is its decision to shift attention from programmes to households. Nigeria has never lacked government initiatives designed to tackle poverty. The problem has often been fragmentation.

Different ministries, departments, agencies and levels of government may operate programmes with overlapping objectives, separate databases and different beneficiary lists. The result can be duplication on one side and exclusion on the other.

As the Minister of Humanitarian Affairs and Poverty Reduction, Dr Bernard Doro, explained, some beneficiaries may access multiple interventions while equally vulnerable Nigerians receive none.

The proposed One-Humanitarian-One Poverty Response System seeks to address this problem by creating a coordinated national mechanism for humanitarian response and poverty reduction.

A poor household does not experience “healthcare poverty”, “education poverty” or “employment poverty” as separate government departments. These vulnerabilities interact.

A family may require cash assistance today, healthcare tomorrow, skills training thereafter and access to finance before it can become economically independent.

An effective social protection system must therefore see the whole household rather than a collection of disconnected needs.

Perhaps the most consequential component of the new architecture is its emphasis on data. The federal government plans to integrate existing databases into a unified platform anchored on the National Social Register, which contains about 20 million households. The importance of this cannot be overstated.

Good social protection begins with knowing who needs assistance, where they are, what challenges they face and what kind of intervention can produce the greatest impact.

Without reliable data, social protection can become vulnerable to duplication, political manipulation, waste and exclusion.

With better data, the government can potentially move towards a system in which vulnerable households are identified, assessed, supported and tracked until they reach a point where they can participate more effectively in the economy.

The timing of the initiative is also important. The Tinubu administration has embarked on far-reaching economic reforms, including fuel subsidy removal and foreign exchange reforms. Such reforms may be necessary to correct structural weaknesses and create the conditions for sustainable growth, but their immediate effects can be difficult for vulnerable households.

Economic reform and social protection must therefore move together. It is not enough for the government to pursue macroeconomic stability while millions of citizens struggle to absorb economic shocks. Equally, it is not sustainable to provide endless relief without addressing the structural conditions that produce poverty.

The proper objective is to build an economy capable of creating opportunities while protecting vulnerable Nigerians during periods of transition. That is the logic behind the emerging social protection architecture.

There is another important idea embedded in this strategy: dignity. Poverty reduction should not be built around permanently treating citizens as passive recipients of government generosity.

People want more than relief. They want the means to provide for themselves and their families. A young person wants skills and employment. A farmer wants access to finance and markets. A small entrepreneur wants capital and a predictable business environment. A vulnerable household wants security and a route out of dependence.

This is why the concept of empowerment is so important. The goal should be to transform beneficiaries into participants in economic activity.

The proposed National Poverty Intelligence Lab could also strengthen this process by ensuring that government interventions are informed by evidence and measured against actual outcomes.

That represents a welcome departure from an approach in which success is sometimes measured by the volume of materials distributed or the number of ceremonies conducted.

 Shuaib writes from Abuja, FCT