The food security situation and the factors that contributed to the COVID-19 pandemic are covered in this chapter, with particular attention paid to social safety net support, food insecurity, personal coping strategies, institutional and social support, social security maintenance, family and social concerns regarding the pandemic, the fulfilment of expectations by social safety net programs (SSNPs), gender-led differences, the process and impact of disbursement, political intervention, encountering issues with service delivery, and general satisfaction with the performance of social security programs. First of all, it draws attention to how inadequate the government’s social safety net help was during the pandemic. Seventy per cent of those surveyed who benefited from safety net institutions voiced unhappiness with the amount given, citing financial issues brought on by lockdowns and inadequate support from local governments. The chapter also assesses how adequate local governments’ financial resources are; only 2% of respondents thought they were outstanding. 36% of respondents stated that there were irregularities and dishonesty in local authorities, which resulted in moderate financial adequacy. Mixed ratings were given to social and institutional support; only 2% rated it extremely high, while 28% rated it low since there wasn’t enough help available throughout the crisis. Twenty-six per cent of respondents thought highly of social security upkeep, highlighting its significance in a nation where finances are unpredictable. Nonetheless, 19% gave it a very low rating, indicating the need for increased openness and ongoing support, particularly for individuals without jobs. During the pandemic, political influence on social security systems was acknowledged; 7% of respondents said there had been a very high level of intervention. Despite these obstacles, 51% of respondents said they had no trouble getting services from local governments, while others had trouble because of corruption and anomalies. In order to address food insecurity and ensure general well-being, the chapter highlights the complexities and difficulties that people and communities faced during the pandemic. It also emphasizes the significance of strong social safety net programs, open governance, and cooperative efforts between the government and society.

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Voices of Marginalized Citizens in Social Safety Nets Programs During COVID-19

  • Jannatul Ferdous,
  • Maruf Ahmad

摘要

The food security situation and the factors that contributed to the COVID-19 pandemic are covered in this chapter, with particular attention paid to social safety net support, food insecurity, personal coping strategies, institutional and social support, social security maintenance, family and social concerns regarding the pandemic, the fulfilment of expectations by social safety net programs (SSNPs), gender-led differences, the process and impact of disbursement, political intervention, encountering issues with service delivery, and general satisfaction with the performance of social security programs. First of all, it draws attention to how inadequate the government’s social safety net help was during the pandemic. Seventy per cent of those surveyed who benefited from safety net institutions voiced unhappiness with the amount given, citing financial issues brought on by lockdowns and inadequate support from local governments. The chapter also assesses how adequate local governments’ financial resources are; only 2% of respondents thought they were outstanding. 36% of respondents stated that there were irregularities and dishonesty in local authorities, which resulted in moderate financial adequacy. Mixed ratings were given to social and institutional support; only 2% rated it extremely high, while 28% rated it low since there wasn’t enough help available throughout the crisis. Twenty-six per cent of respondents thought highly of social security upkeep, highlighting its significance in a nation where finances are unpredictable. Nonetheless, 19% gave it a very low rating, indicating the need for increased openness and ongoing support, particularly for individuals without jobs. During the pandemic, political influence on social security systems was acknowledged; 7% of respondents said there had been a very high level of intervention. Despite these obstacles, 51% of respondents said they had no trouble getting services from local governments, while others had trouble because of corruption and anomalies. In order to address food insecurity and ensure general well-being, the chapter highlights the complexities and difficulties that people and communities faced during the pandemic. It also emphasizes the significance of strong social safety net programs, open governance, and cooperative efforts between the government and society.