The Ugandan government announced it will pay a $10 monthly allowance to the country’s “chronically poor.” Any Ugandan who was born, raised or has lived in poverty all their life will be eligible, officials said in a recent BBC article.

On the surface, the announcement is positive. Indeed, optimists will argue that though the amount is small, it is a small step towards ensuring that families are able to meet some of their basic needs. Some will even argue that the handouts will give the will give the poor a sense of hope because as the saying goes “a bird in hand is worth two in the bush.”

One must commend the Uganda government for the bold gesture taken. This gesture will bolster the wonderful efforts made in the area of Universal Primary School which has led to unprecedented school enrollment and the narrowing of the access disparities in regards to the ratio of boys to girls a key pointer for gender equality. The halting and reverse on the rates of HIV/AIDS has been a commendable effort and a point to be emulated by other African countries.

However, a closer analysis pours cold water on the optimists view because $10 dollars a month is way below what normal human beings need to survive. In many countries $10 dollars can hardly buy three meals in a day. Critical to this is also the comparison of the intended stipend to the agreed minimum wage. Is it a question of accounting for pocket change or piece-meal solutions to big challenges?

The bigger question that the Ugandan government needs to answer relates to the sustainability of this solution. How can a country whose economy is 60% supported by its development partners, and which is fighting to stay afloat in the highly competitive market economy, finance such a huge commitment? Can Uganda really afford to give out hand-outs to the poor?

The long-term vision on this new policy change becomes even more difficult to comprehend when considered the fact that many development workers in Uganda are of the view that the government’s commitment to the Millennium Development Goals(MDGs) is on the wane. Indeed the mid–term progress report indicates that though the country is on track to meet three of the goals (namely Education, HIV/AIDs and Gender) the overall picture indicates that Uganda will not meet the MDGs. It is this perceived reduction in commitment by the government that has some people dismissing the proposed payout to the poor as a mere political gimmick.  This argument is borne out by the fact that the levels of inequity in Uganda are growing at an alarming pace.

Ten years ago, the Ugandan government rolled out the Poverty Eradication Action Plan of 1997 (PEAP). The basis of the PEAP was to have an increased expenditure on the delivery of those services which would directly benefit the poor. The institutionalization of this process was to take form in the Poverty Action Fund as a means of planned reallocations. The key binding elements of the PAF were: no expenditure is included in PAF unless it directly benefits the fight against poverty. The government promised to ensure stringent monitoring PAF funds.

Areas included within the PAF included rural roads, agricultural extension, primary health, primary education, water supply, and equalization grants whose purpose (defined in the Constitution) is to make the quality of service delivery more even across different districts. Within this group of services, the priority attached to water supply was increased as a direct result of the finding from participatory work that the poor themselves regarded water supply as a high priority. Other areas to be considered were the enhancement of adult literacy.

Why is it that ten years down the line, despite all the efforts and commitments described above, the po