Vulnerability and Social Protection in Malawi

Abstract

Vulnerability appears to be rising for many Malawians, whose exposure to livelihood shocks
\nis increasing while their ability to cope is decreasing. The first part of this report draws on
\nrecently published studies and analysis of the 2004/05 Integrated Household Survey dataset
\nto explore the nature of vulnerability in Malawi. Most livelihoods in Malawi depend on
\nagriculture, but agricultural vulnerability is extremely high due to erratic rainfall, inequality in
\nlandholdings, constrained access to inputs, limited diversification and weak markets. Noneconomic
\nfactors that compound economic risks include demographic and health risks,
\ngendered vulnerabilities, social change and governance failures.
\nEconomic vulnerability, defined as the risk of future monetary poverty, is high because of
\nthe heavy concentration of Malawians clustered close to the poverty line, and because of
\nthe frequency and severity of covariant shocks such as droughts, floods and food price
\nfluctuations, as well as idiosyncratic shocks such as accidents, illness and death of family
\nmembers. The economic, demographic and social impacts of HIV/AIDS are especially
\ndevastating. Monetary and subjective indicators of vulnerability are related to demographic
\ncharacteristics (female- and older-headed households, orphans), lack of assets, geographic
\nlocation (with a north-south gradient of rising vulnerability) and multiple shocks. Policy
\npriorities derived from this analysis include: stabilise food prices, enhance access to
\nagricultural inputs, and identify labour-saving technologies for labour-constrained
\nhouseholds. More generally, social protection and livelihood promotion measures, together
\nwith an enabling environment, are central to addressing vulnerability in Malawi.
\nThe second part of this report reviews a range of ongoing and discontinued social
\nprotection mechanisms in Malawi. Free inputs distribution (‘Starter Packs’) followed the
\nabolition of fertiliser subsidies in the 1990s, and had positive impacts on food production
\nand prices. Public works programmes (food-, cash- or inputs-for-work), social funds (the
\nMalawi Social Action Fund) and food transfers (food aid, school feeding) also have long
\nhistories in Malawi, but have demonstrated limited impacts. Finally, unconditional cash
\ntransfers are increasingly popular, which this review endorses with the qualification that
\nongoing pilot projects need to be institutionalised within a comprehensive, government
\nowned, national social protection strategy.
\nKeywords: Malawi, poverty, social protection, vulnerability.