1 week Ago By N/A (Manila Bulletin)
A considerable portion of the national budget is allocated to cash assistance programs or what is now popularly known as “ayuda.” In fact in the proposed 2025 national budget, ₱114 billion is earmarked for the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps), ₱39.8 billion for the Assistance to Individuals in Crisis Situations (AICS), and another ₱39.
8 billion for the Ayuda sa Kapos ang Kita Program (AKAP). While these financial aids have provided short-term relief to millions, the focus on immediate cash transfers often overlooks the more sustainable solution of livelihood programs. In the same proposed budget, the Sustainable Livelihood Program (SLP) of the Department of Social Welfare and Development got a pittance — only ₱3.
4 billion — although this is a program that aims to empower marginalized communities by providing them with the skills and resources to build and sustain their own businesses. With this imbalance, it is crucial for our lawmakers and our leaders to think about the state’s priority while there is still time to tinker with the proposed budget. Should the government continue to prioritize temporary relief measures or band-aid solutions like ayuda, or should it invest more in programs that offer lasting measures and true empowerment through livelihood opportunities? A deeper examination of both approaches reveals why prioritizing livelihood programs can have a far greater impact in alleviating poverty and ensuring that the most vulnerable citizens are self-sufficient.
Livelihood programs focus on capacity-building, skills training, and providing the necessary resources and tools to help marginalized individuals and communities generate income. By equipping people with sustainable skills, these programs foster long-term economic independence. Participants learn to manage their own businesses, access markets, and build financial resilience.
The end goal is not just to provide temporary relief but for people to thrive independently and contribute meaningfully to their respective communities. Take for instance the DSWD’s SLP, which is obviously underfunded compared to cash assistance programs. SLP focuses on equipping individuals with the tools necessary to create lasting economic value.
Whether through small-scale farming, handicrafts, or micro-business ventures, these initiatives help build confidence, improve socio-economic conditions, and reduce dependency on government aid. It is no brainer that a family that learns how to generate income through entrepreneurship or a certain livelihood is much more likely to achieve financial stability than one that receives a lump sum of cash to tide them over for a month. Moreover, these programs align with the government’s long-term economic goals by creating jobs, stimulating local economies, and building a more self-reliant society.
They also have the potential to break the cycle of poverty across generations, as children in households that benefit from sustainable livelihoods are more likely to receive education and escape poverty themselves. Of course, we do not belittle the impact of the government’s ayuda programs, like 4Ps, AICS, and AKAP, which have played a crucial role in providing immediate relief to families in crisis, particularly in times of natural disasters, economic shocks, or other emergencies. These cash transfers help people survive when they have no other means of support.
However, while ayuda is undeniably helpful in the short term, it does little to address the underlying causes of poverty as it creates dependency and even breeds patronage when the assistance is coursed through politicians. Given the limited funds available and the need to ensure long-term solutions, it is crucial that more emphasis is placed on livelihood programs that foster a more self-reliant and resilient society. The empowerment provided by livelihood programs can help break the cycle of poverty for good.
.
