Malawian woman and child sit on the step of their village house. Photo: JULIAN LOTT / Shutterstock
Last holiday, while relaxing in my bedroom back home, I received a call from my mom, asking me to check on Anachisale, an elderly widow living next door. My mom’s women group was distributing food and items to poor elderly women in our community, and Anachisale had not shown up yet. I quickly rushed to her house - its walls crumbling, with a roof patched by old plastic sheets – and was informed that she had already left for the gathering place, walking slowly down the dirt path, her frail body hunched, weighed down by years of hardship.
As I walked back home, I began to reflect: Are there any mechanisms in place for the government to coordinate such local humanitarian efforts? My mom and her group had simply come together as concerned Christian women to support the elderly, unaware that they were contributing to the same goals as Malawi’s social protection programs - to foster equity, create opportunities, and build resilience.
Social protection systems, which we can define as policies and programs designed to protect people against poverty, vulnerability, and social exclusion, and are crucial for lifting people out of poverty. For example, the Social Cash Transfer Program (SCTP) in Malawi, known locally as Mtukula pa Khomo, has shown promising results. According to the World Bank’s 2024 Malawi Economic Monitor report, SCTP beneficiaries have seen a 23% increase in food consumption and health-seeking behavior. Over the past nine years, the number of beneficiaries has grown from around 0.2 million in 2013 to 1.3 million in 2022. I believe that in order to improve Malawi’s social protection systems, we must think beyond just expanding programs—we need to coordinate efforts better and allocate resources more wisely.
The first step is for the government to coordinate its social protection programs with local, non-state actors like religious groups, community associations, and other small humanitarian efforts. These groups, like my mom’s women’s group, often target the same vulnerable individuals that government programs do. But without proper coordination, we risk duplicating efforts, where some households benefit multiple times, while others are left without support.
I think a better approach would be for the government to create mechanisms that consolidate these grassroots humanitarian efforts with official programs. For instance, a platform where community groups can register their initiatives and align them with the government’s social protection goals could ensure fairer distribution of resources. This would also help expand coverage to reach more beneficiaries as well as reduce administrative cost, as noted in the World Bank report. The Unified Beneficiary Registry (UBR), which already holds data on 3.9 million households (77% of the population), could be a starting point for such collaboration.
Another important step we should take as a country is to rethink the Affordable Inputs Program (AIP). Year after year, AIP has been a significant burden on our national budget, without yielding the desired increase in agricultural productivity. Despite heavy spending on fertilizer subsidies, food insecurity is still a major issue, and the results have not matched the investment.
On the other hand, evidence shows how social protection programs offer a much better return on investment. For every $1 spent on social protection, Malawi’s economy generates $2.49 in multiplier effects. I think, shifting some of the AIP budget to programs like the SCTP or the Climate Smart Enhanced Public Works Program (CS-EPWP) could help us address poverty and food insecurity more effectively. These programs provide income support while building climate-resilient community assets and offer both short-term relief and long-term benefits by helping communities adapt to climate shocks.
By reallocating some of the funds from AIP to these programs, evidence shows we can free up an estimated $40 million to expand social protection coverage. This would not only help more vulnerable households but also reduce our dependence on unsustainable subsidies, building a more resilient system for the future.
As we move forward with Malawi 2063 and the Malawi Implementation Plan (MIP-1), I believe social protection must be a core strategy for reducing poverty and building resilience. Both Malawi 2063 and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) emphasize the importance of inclusive growth and social equity. But right now, we are only allocating 3.4% of the national budget to social protection programs like the SCTP and CS-EPWP. This is far below the Sub-Saharan Africa average, and our system remains heavily dependent on donors, who provide 95% of the budget.
I believe that by coordinating local humanitarian efforts and reallocating resources from underperforming programs like AIP, we can strengthen Malawi’s social protection system. This system has already proven its value, but with the right policies, we can do so much more. It is time for us to rethink how we allocate resources and leverage community-driven efforts to create a more equitable and sustainable future for all Malawians.
Join the Conversation