FOOD AID, BUDGET AND POVERTY IN SRI LANKA

ri Lanka has a long history of providing its citizens with food aid. In fact the first such aid programme was introduced to the country while still under British occupation. As early as in 1939 -the rice ration- provided rice free to all sections of the population. This programme was continued even after the gaining of independence and into the 1960s.  
It is estimated the food subsidy ate into as much as 17 - 18% of total government expenditure. By 1978 the scheme did not cater to the elite sections of the population and provided food stamps to the more needy sections of the country and expenditure was brought down to between 1 - 3% of GNP. The scheme underwent another change in the era between 1989 and 1995 when Janasiviya was the country’s main assistance programme.  
In 1995, the Samurdhi scheme was launched by an Act of Parliament to improve “the economic and social conditions of youth, women and disadvantaged groups in society.  
The Central Bank reported that the programme covered nearly 50% of the households in the country.  
Yet the poverty rate in the country stood at 20% in 1990! Indicating many non-poor households were benefiting under the scheme.  

A World Bank study by Elena Glinskaya found Samurdhi misses almost 40% of households ranked in the lowest expenditure quintile, while a substantial number of households with higher relative welfare receive Samurdhi consumption grants and other forms of Samurdhi assistance. Around 44% of the total Samurdhi transfer budget is spent on households from the third, fourth, and fifth quintiles - those who are well-off in relative terms and added the Samurdhi scheme misses out on around 40% of the poorest families the report says.   
While applauding efforts of various governments to help needy sections of the population, the report mentions Sri Lanka Tamils, Indian Tamils and Moors are less likely to receive Samurdhi benefits. There are allegations that political affiliation and voting patterns influence allocation of Samurdhi consumption grants. To cut a long story short, the poverty alleviation scheme does not seem to be reaching the most needy families in the country.  
The Department of Census and Statistics describes persons living in the households whose real per capita monthly total consumption expenditure is below Rs.1,423 in the year 2002 in Sri Lanka, are considered poor...   

According to a study by Institute of Policy Studies (IPS), the estimated living wage (a little more than the minimum pay rates needed to let workers and their families lead a decent life) for the estate workers in the tea plantation industry in Sri Lanka was Rs. 21,585 in December 2015. However, the wage they received at the time was only Rs. 16,971. The plantation workers, also referred to as ‘Indian Tamils’ who were brought in by the British during colonial times, continue to be the lowest paid workers in the country. Large numbers of the community continue living in 120 sq ft line rooms (attached houses, which do not have toilets or running water facilities). Presently new schemes have been introduced to provide these workers with separate housing units.   
With a major portion of income spent on food, very little of their income is left for education of children, travel or recreation. The appalling conditions of these workers and their families is leading to alcoholism among the community. Next month our Finance Minister will present this country’s budget to parliament. It is the country’s financial plan for the next year.   

A family budget, as most citizens understand, is our own localised plan to distribute income toward expenses, debt repayment and savings, if possible. We take into consideration past month’s expenditure, anticipated income the causes that may have led us into situations debt, our plan for debt repayment, attempts to come up with plans to overcome the pitfalls which led us into debt and ensure we do not repeat the mistakes which led us into such a situation.   
Basically this is what our Minister of Finance will be attempting to do when he presents the country’s National Budget in November this year. But the minister is faced not with a simplistic plan of a single family. His job is to attempt to put all of the country’s ills in order.  
So will he take into consideration the poorer sections of our country and will he be able to help move them out of the desperate position they are in? Or will the problems of the poor and desperate have to wait until they are forced into trade union action.