BISP in Pakistan: Welfare, Politics, and the Challenge of Clientelism

Yet the welfare role of BISP also carries deep political significance. Many praise it for helping the vulnerable, but critics argue it sometimes works as a political tool, influencing loyalties, rewarding supporters, and strengthening ruling parties. This tension highlights the challenge of clientelism, where state resources are used to build support instead of being distributed purely based on need. In my experience, people still see BISP as vital, but its intertwining of welfare and politics shows how fragile trust in such programmes can be.

Origins of BISP in Pakistan: Welfare, Politics, and the Challenge of Clientelism

BISP was introduced in July 2008 under the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) government, during a period of rising inflation and food insecurity. Named after the late PPP leader Benazir Bhutto, who was assassinated in December 2007, the program carried powerful political symbolism.

Key features at launch included:

• Unconditional cash transfers – Families received financial aid without conditions such as school attendance or employment.
• Direct targeting of women – Payments were issued to women to enhance their decision-making power within households.
• Click Here

Early Political Influence: Nominations and Exclusion

In the program’s initial phase, parliamentarians nominated beneficiaries, which introduced political bias into the system:

• Politicians often selected families from their own constituencies or loyal supporters.
• Poor families in opposition areas sometimes faced exclusion.
• Beneficiary lists reflected political allegiance rather than poverty status.

For example, PPP strongholds like Sindh and parts of rural Punjab experienced higher coverage, while opposition areas reported frequent exclusion. This early phase of BISP created the perception of clientelism, rewarding allies and sidelining rivals.

The Poverty Scorecard Reform

To reduce political influence, BISP introduced the Poverty Scorecard system in 2009. This reform used household surveys measuring income, assets, and living conditions to determine eligibility, replacing political nominations.

Benefits of the reform:

• Minimized direct political interference in beneficiary selection.
• Increased public trust in the program.
• Created a national database for accurate targeting.

Although the reform improved fairness, critics argued that the program’s association with Benazir Bhutto still tied it symbolically to PPP, keeping its political identity alive.

Clientelism and Patronage in BISP

Even after reforms, political patronage persists in several ways:

• Symbolism – BISP remains linked to Benazir Bhutto and PPP.
• Election cycles – Politicians highlight or expand BISP during campaigns.
• Regional patterns – Higher coverage is sometimes observed in areas aligned with ruling parties.
• Dependency culture – Beneficiaries may see support as a favor rather than an entitlement, reinforcing loyalty to political elites.

These dynamics show how welfare programs, while designed for poverty reduction, can become tools for political gain.

Case Study Insights the BISP in Pakistan: Welfare, Politics, and the Challenge of Clientelism

Recent research underscores BISP’s political dimensions:

• A 2024 case study concluded that BISP has consistently been used as a clientelistic tool, helping ruling parties secure votes.
• Comparative studies of unconditional cash transfers worldwide indicate that such programs can reduce poverty while boosting government popularity, especially in countries with weaker democratic institutions.

Global Context BISP in Pakistan: Welfare, Politics, and the Challenge of Clientelism

Pakistan is not unique; welfare programs globally often face political influence:

• Latin America – Brazil’s Bolsa Família and Mexico’s Oportunidades reduced poverty but also increased ruling parties’ electoral success.
• Africa – Programs in Kenya and Ghana sometimes favored politically aligned communities.
• South Asia – India’s rural employment and food subsidy schemes have faced similar allegations.

The politicization of welfare is a global phenomenon, not limited to Pakistan.

Positive Impacts Despite Political Ties

Despite political challenges, BISP has delivered substantial social benefits:

• Millions of poor households rely on it for survival.
• Women have gained greater financial control within households.
• Extreme poverty has declined in several districts.
• Education and health outcomes have improved where payments are consistent.

BISP demonstrates that welfare programs can have real impact, even if influenced by politics.

Key Challenges Facing BISP

To ensure BISP remains credible and effective, several challenges must be addressed:

1. Transparency – Public auditing of beneficiary lists is essential.
2. Targeting accuracy – Poverty Scorecards require regular updates.
3. Fairness – Political geography should not influence benefits.
4. Public trust – Citizens must view BISP as a state institution, not a party tool.
5. Independence – Institutional safeguards are needed to prevent ruling party interference.

Role of Citizens and Civil Society

The success of BISP also depends on active engagement from citizens and civil society:

• Community monitoring – Local groups can oversee fair selection of beneficiaries.
• Media oversight – Investigative reporting highlights misuse and irregularities.
• Demand accountability – Citizens can advocate for transparency in reporting.
• Awareness campaigns – Educating beneficiaries about rights reduces dependency on politicians.

Active civic participation helps protect welfare programs from being co-opted by politics.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is BISP in Pakistan: Welfare, Politics, and the Challenge of Clientelism from politics today?

Not entirely. Reforms reduced interference, but the program retains political associations, particularly through its name and visibility during elections.

Has BISP reduced poverty?

Yes. BISP has helped millions of families and lowered extreme poverty, especially in rural areas.

Why is BISP considered clientelistic?

Historically, politicians controlled beneficiary nominations, creating political loyalty rather than purely welfare-based support.

Do other countries face similar issues?

Yes. Many global welfare programs are politically linked and influence government popularity.

What can make BISP fairer?

Enhanced transparency, updated poverty data, and depoliticization of the program’s identity are crucial.

Conclusion

The Benazir Income Support Programme in Pakistan has been a significant welfare initiative, offering life-changing support to millions of poor families, especially women. For many, this programme has provided dignity and stability in times of hardship, making it one of the most impactful efforts in the country’s history.

At the same time, its political influence cannot be ignored. The way clientelism has shaped the history of such programmes raises questions about whether support was always fairly directed or used to build loyalties. Over the years, reforms such as the Poverty Scorecard have been introduced, aiming to ensure greater fairness and transparency. From what I’ve seen, these steps have strengthened trust in the programme, showing that while politics often surrounds it, the core purpose remains the support of the country’s most vulnerable. Going forward, institutional independence, data accuracy, and public engagement are essential to ensure BISP fulfills its core purpose: delivering social protection without political bias. With continued reforms, BISP can emerge as a symbol of social justice and equality in Pakistan.