Poverty is a multidimensional phenomenon and there is no single indicator that will capture all its facets. This article highlights the importance of selecting the appropriate method for measuring poverty depending on the welfare objective of the policy or programme. For example, if the objective is to supplement the earnings of low-income groups, a monetary approach is called for. However, if the objective is the improvement of healthcare or educational achievement, an approach which only measures income, would not necessarily correctly identify the disadvantaged groups in need of support. Click here for the full article.
This brief overview indicates that despite good aggregate indicators on human development and on access to safe water and sanitation, there are many challenges yet to be met in Sri Lanka. From the perspective of poverty research, there is a need to explore the links between poverty and water in greater detail in order to understand them better. There appears to be a great deal of evidence lurking outside the public domain which should be made public. The Government of Sri Lanka has already set itself some clear targets; the challenge must be to develop the infrastructure and the management and financing systems to achieve these targets, balancing equity and efficiency. Click here for the full article.
The Samurdhi programme is certainly held in high regard by its recipients. The community that did not receive Samurdhi considered themselves to be ignored by the government despite having access to other government services. It is vital that Samurdhi coverage be extended to all areas of the country including the North and East. Inclusion in the programme sends a powerful message that these areas are also receiving government attention. Their exclusion feeds into existing conflict related grievances and risks exacerbating or perpetuating ideas associated with the conflict. Other recipients also spoke of some of the failures of the Samurdhi system. It is vital that issues of targeting be examined, criteria for selection should be transparent and applied across the board. Proper lines of communication between recipients and Samurdhi coordinators at the local level are vital. It is important that these lines remain open and clear and people are able to access the full range of available services and provide feedback about aspects of the programme that are not performing.Click here for the full article.
Privatisation evokes sharp political reactions around the world, and privatisation of state owned enterprises in Sri Lanka has been similarly controversial. However, despite the fact that a debate over the pros and cons of privatisation has been ongoing in Sri Lanka for almost two decades, there has been little attempt to study the actual impacts of privatisation on the well being of workers. Assessments usually focus on the financial success of the enterprise, but this article takes a different angle and explores the socio-economic impact of privatisation on employees, both those who stayed with the organisation and those who took voluntary retirement. The article is based on a study carried out by Nilakshi de Silva and Susrutha Gunasekera at the Centre for Poverty Analysis over 2004-2006. The study interviewed workers in three companies that were privatised during the 1990s to try and understand more about their experiences at the time and following privatisation. The study is published as a working paper, entitled: Between Theory and Rhetoric: the Workers’ Reality: An assessment of the social impact of privatisation on employees (De Silva, Nilakshi and Susrutha Goonesekera, 2007).Click here for the full article.
