Categorical Blindness? Disability and the Design of Cash-Based Social Protection in Pakistan

Abstract

The government of Pakistan has expanded the cash transfer social protection approach to a large extent in the framework of the Benazir Income Support Program and its related schemes. Its core Programs, however, are largely focused on targets of household poverty. This study compares the extent to which disability is used as a source of economic need—independence—when designing social protection to the use of disability as merely a household characteristic. The documentary and comparative policy-analysis design was used. A structured framework was used to analyse Official Program documents, eligibility criteria, evaluation reports, disability-measurement instruments, and literature on disability-related policy. Official Program documents were analysed for the provision of disability-related policy information that was relevant to the four key components of the framework: disability identification, means testing, eligibility thresholds, benefit differentiation, accessibility, and recognition of disability-related additional costs. The poverty-targeted model for Pakistan was also contrasted with the United Kingdom's Personal Independence Payment, which focuses directly on extra costs of living with disability. The results show that disability is not uniformly embedded in the social-protection framework or that it systematically affects the poor's poverty line and their entitlements. The study distinguishes three types of categorical blindness: measurement blindness, which refers to the fact that the cost of disability is omitted from the analysis of household well-being; eligibility blindness, which refers to the fact that the cost of disability is not reflected in the poverty line because it is the same for disabled and non-disabled households; and benefit blindness, which refers to the fact that the received value of transfers does not account for disability-related costs. Thus, disabled households can participate formally in cash-transfer Programs but not be adequately protected, substantively. Formal inclusion in cash-transfer Programs is therefore possible without being substantively protected, however, for disabled households. This study finds that the presence of beneficiaries alone is not enough to constitute a proof of disability-inclusive social protection. There is a need to enhance the functional-disability data, disability-adjusted poverty assessment, disability registration process and the consideration of disability supplements/complementary services in Pakistan. There is a need for future nationally representative microdata analysis to estimate the extent of disability adjusted poverty and Program exclusion.