In spite of continued growth, millions of Ugandans remain in long-term, extreme poverty. They are also likely to continue being by-passed by the opportunities that economic growth offers, mostly to the ‘active poor’. Recognising this, government and other development actors are turning their attention to policy initiatives geared towards social protection. Taking a view of social protection as a transformative intervention that extends to the causes of extreme poverty, this paper posits that social protection initiatives borrow much from elsewhere, neglecting the local cultural context, and failing to build on existing indigenous protection mechanisms that could be strengthened.
The paper presents findings from research conducted by the Cross-Cultural Foundation of Uganda, a local NGO, on the interface between culture and ‘traditional’ social protection mechanisms for the very poor in Uganda in three rural areas – Buganda, Ankole, and Lango in the north of the country. Research has focused on the prevalence and functioning of such welfare mechanisms, the reasons for their survival (or withering), the benefits they provide and to whom, and opportunities for strengthening or revitalising them. Support networks include the family, the community, friendship groups, recently created self-help groups, work-based groups, traditional government structures, and clan alliances.
Social protection initiatives could usefully take this cultural context into account and policies could build on (rather than substitute) these traditional solidarity values and mechanisms. Some mechanisms have indeed shown resilience, adaptability and a degree of inclusiveness that can provide opportunities for future growth. If these today appear insufficient to address all the economic and social challenges faced by the very poor, the latter can nevertheless (at least at times and for a time), turn to the opportunities such mechanisms offer, or at least invoke the values of solidarity that have (and do still) inform them, for support.
Research results also indicate that these mechanisms display several limitations, including the reciprocal nature of many collective benefits, at times excluding the very poor; another is the risk of ‘adverse incorporation’ and exploitative relationships based on co-option. Further, the reliance on traditional support mechanisms may have an adverse effect on the ability of the poor to build social capital. Supporting such mechanisms will therefore have to take these limitations into account, such as by incorporating different types of contributions by the poorest that are not necessarily monetary.
Policymakers may feel daunted by the challenge of scaling up what is currently localised, culturally-driven and suatained by solidarity mechanisms. Rather than designing an externally-inspired social protection initiative, however, the findings indicate that much might be gained by strengthening existing mechanisms and building on existing values, rather than starting afresh. This would, however, require: a) a re-examination of attitudes among policymakers and implementers towards cultural resources and values and b) a ‘cultural mainstreaming’ in government ministries and agencies. This should foster a more sympathetic understanding of the potential that one’s cultural heritage affords in all aspects of life, including the value of solidarity towards the less fortunate in the community and the nation.
