Doubtless there is a great deal of allocational inefficiency in this regard. We have certain concerns in this matter that we feel the government should address if it wants the purpose of the programme met fully.

Even if we go by what some experts maintain that the programme has not been politicised, there are grounds to believe that there has been a lack of objectivity in dishing out the funds. Otherwise there can be very little rationale in allotting more funds to a region which has lesser percentage of poverty, as in the case of Sylhet division, for example, which in spite of having the second lowest incidence of poverty has received the highest SSNP benefits. But that is not the end of the matter. The percentage of allocation is greatly lopsided too as fund allocation in the same case shows, Sylhet, having 33.8 percent of people living below poverty line, have received 22.42 percent of the allocation, whereas Barisal, having 52 percent received only 13.34 percent. We fail to see the rationale except that some sort of influence was used in determining the allocation.

We feel also that the government should state the criteria clearly and say what qualifies a person as 'poor' to meet the requirement to be a recipient of the fund. This is essential because a very important safety net programme of the government, the primary education stipend programme, may prove a failure if a very large segment of the beneficiaries of the support continues to be the non-poor. Disturbing is also the fact that 11 percent of them don't even meet any single criteria. Similar is the case with the vulnerable group development programme.

For a country like ours the SSNP is indeed a noteworthy programme. More money need to be allotted, and indeed this year's allocation is almost 600 crore more than that of last year. But if the allotted money fails to reach the deserving persons the very efficacy of the programme risks being negated.