Sri Lanka’s polycrisis since 2019 has demonstrated that social protection systems are inadequate not only because they are underfunded, but they lack information, are too fragmented, lack coordination between institutions and are not robust or dynamic enough to understand structural issues or capture the different ways in which people can be vulnerable or need support.
It has demanded that we invest more meaningfully in social protection, going beyond the targeted schemes of social safety nets towards universal social protection, and seeing it has something that is not charity or a handout, but a right that every citizen is entitled to.
The impacts of Covid-19 lockdowns followed by a crushing economic crisis provided Sri Lanka the perfect opportunity to rethink what social protection means for the country, who it should be for, what it should entail and how it should be operationalised. Unfortunately what we saw was a heavy focus on one new cash transfer programs Aswesuma, which replaced the existing Samurdhi program.
Why beyond Aswesuma?
The objective of Sri Lanka’s recovery process must not be to recover to a point where people can make ends meet, but one where the recovery is just and equitable, and people experience a better quality of life within this lifetime.
While economic indicators have improved, inflation and utility tariffs have decreased, the impact of 2021-2023 is still deeply felt among the working classes and even the middle class. Availability in no way indicates affordability, and the absence of queues in the city is no indication that life is back to normal.
Covid-19 lockdowns and the economic crisis deepened our understanding of how shocks and crises are experienced and how that impact can vary based on several variables, that one single shock – such electricity disconnection or selling of an asset – can set families back years. It reverses gains made in nutrition and education of their children, depletes savings and assets.
The National People’s Power (NPP) policy statement of 2024 contains strong language on social protection, stating that the NPP views “social protection and welfare as a core responsibility of the state” and that they aspire to provide “a universal social protection system based on the life cycle approach for all Sri Lankans.”
The activities detailed in that section go beyond the traditional protective and preventive measures like cash transfers to various vulnerable groups and social insurance and pension funds to promotive measures such as establishing care centres and regulations for care centres, and support for care workers.
It falls slightly short at transformative measures that address concerns of social equity and exclusion – for example better social protection policy or regulations for the informal sector, like minimum wage laws for domestic workers. The National Social Protection Policy of Sri Lanka which was launched by the previous government in August 2024 states its mission is to “develop and manage an effective and efficient social protection system which enables all citizens to access social protection by enabling cohesion in planning, greater coordination in implementation, and monitoring and evaluation”.
While there is a lot of language on existing issues of fragmentation, lack of coordination between agencies, duplication of welfare, there is also mention in the policy statement on working towards “progressive realisation of universal social protection to cover all citizens across the life cycle with special attention to the poor and vulnerable”.
Overall, the policy remains quite narrow in its formulation of what social protection means, defining it as “policies and programs that help individuals and societies to manage risk and volatility, protect them from poverty and inequality, and help them to access economic opportunity throughout the life cycle.”.
For the Government, this is an opportune time to revise the National Social Protection Policy and the strategy document that is meant to accompany it. It’s a belated opportunity to start building a transformative long term vision on social protection that is not only meaningful but one that can go beyond just being a policy document, to actually laying a strong foundation for implementation.
It is also necessary to have a strong institution that has the vision and the oversight powers to convene not just the schemes and programs that are by the Government, but also schemes and even pilot programs by development actors and civil society to see how everyone engaged in social protection in Sri Lanka can consolidate, avoid duplication, share learning experiences and information and work together in a more holistic way.
What can Sri Lanka do?
Social protection must be viewed as a constellation of investments and interventions that need to happen in parallel and incrementally and we must not assume that one key program can be an adequate safety net. 2021-2023 is an important reminder that impacts on households due to the compounding crisis stemming from global shocks, austerity measures and fiscal adjustments cannot be cushioned by one or even a handful of welfare measures.
Having a cash transfer during a crisis is important, but it only allows people to meet basic needs and we did not it address nutrition, learning loss, livelihood support and even contributed to increasing the gendered burden of the crisis.
Social protection interventions can range from universal school meal programs to investing in better care infrastructure to insurance schemes for the informal sector to a basket of fresh produce guaranteed for households.
We must move away from targeted schemes and to invest in universal social protection schemes. Targeted schemes such as Aswesuma imagine poverty and vulnerability presenting itself in a particular way and assume the deprivation or absence of certain factors – like not having a permanent structure for a house or having low levels of education as indicators of people in need of a safety net.
However, people can be in need of a safety net even with many assets and to be deprived of social protection especially at a time of crisis simply by virtue of having achieved certain human and development milestones is a deprivation of their socio-economic rights.
The writer is Co-founder/Director at the Centre for a Smart Future (CSF) and leads the Urbanisation and Cities research. CSF is an interdisciplinary policy think tank focusing on an inclusive and sustainable economic recovery for Sri Lanka. Visit csf-asia.org/knowledge-insights for more.
