How do we address it Mr Global? I say we give them monthly stipend on account of extreme poverty - food stamps - enough to buy them food and meet their basic needs - if we can come up with a way to identify those suffering from absolute poverty - maybe 1M household - then GOK can send them 3k per month - enough to buy food - that will be mere 3B per month or 36B (300M usd) per year - which is pocket change in our nearly 30B budget- or just 1% of the budget - if you add to those already receiving money on account of old age, disability and etc - gok will be committing maybe max of 2% of it's budget to such poor and desperate households. Of course the opportunity cost is say CDF = which receive about the same amount of money - and probably has more impact (building schools etc) than feeding the poor?
I'm not sure that it is that simple. If it were, then, presumably, the GoK would not be relying on the World Bank's to substantially support the existing cash-transfer programmes. (DFID and others have also been doing their bit.) GoK would, I imagine, just take a bit more "pocket change" from its "huge budget" (for which it already has to borrow on a regular basis)
After a year of consultations and planning, the government of Kenya and the World Bank finally signed the agreement to establish the National Safety Net Programme. The signing ceremony took place at the National Treasury in Nairobi on 16 September 2013.
The establishment of the NSNP ushers in a new way of doing things in the Cash Transfer Programmes where results will precede disbursement of funds. The 4 years programme is supported by the World Bank under a Programme for Results operation, implying that disbursement of funds will only be made upon achievement of agreed results, attained within an agreed period of time.
http://www.socialprotection.or.ke/information-center/news-and-events/131-government-signs-off-national-safety-net-programmeAccording to the World Bank's pages, their funding of the programme runs out next year:
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/576081491486500571/Kenya-National-Safety-Net-Program-for-Results-P131305-Implementation-Status-Results-Report-Sequence-07So, before planning for 1 million, I'd first consider how the current lot will be funded after the non-trivial external contribution dries up.
And then there's food. It is all very well to say "give them money or whatever to buy food". At the very least, for that to work food has to be readily available and at reasonable prices. In that respect, Kenya's endless inability to ensure food security and its constant begging for food is not encouraging.
That said, I see some good in such programs; they can and have had positive effects in several places. What I fail to see in places like Kenya is anything resembling a plan for long-term sustainability of the basic program and any real attempt to deal with poverty (beyond a little help for the most desperate). To start on the right path like that, it seems to me that people should give up on mindsets such as that shown here:
Maybe establish a poverty fund - finance by gok, donors and foreign aid.
Other than issues of self-respect and people being able to fend for themselves, taxpayers in the "donor" and "foreign aid" countries probably would not be too unhappy if the first parts of some plans did not have "handouts!" in big, red letters.
The other thing that is especially in important a place like Kenya is the World Bank has delicately referred to as "fiduciary problems". That's people
eating, but not food and not the people who are supposed to be eating food in the programme. The "fiduciary problems" also means that plenty of noise will be made about 1-million-acre Galana project, and there will be plenty of eating from that ... just not of food.