BISP in Pakistan 2025 – Welfare, Politics, and the Challenge of Clientelism

The Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP) is certainly one of Pakistan’s biggest social safety projects. Started in 2008, it was created to offer cash help to needy families, particularly women, to lessen poverty and enhance family stability. Over time, BISP has supported countless families, becoming a vital lifeline for the poor.

But BISP isn’t just about welfare. It has frequently been connected with politics. Critics say that in some cases, governments have used BISP to politically benefit, praise supporters, and make a stronger party’s influence. This shows how welfare applications can, on occasion, blend with politics—an exercise known as clientelism, in which country advantages are used to win political loyalty.

BISP Launch – Welfare Meets Politics

BISP began in July 2008 under PPP, named after Benazir Bhutto during a period of high inflation. The program carried a strong political meaning because of its name.

Main points at the start:

• Unconditional cash help – Families received money without strict conditions.
• Focus on women – Cash was given to women to boost their financial power and household roles.

Though it fought poverty, the program also sparked political concerns.

Early Political Issues

In the early phase, members of parliament recommended beneficiaries for the program. This created bias:

• Most beneficiaries came from ruling party regions.
• Poor families from opposition areas were sometimes left out.
• Some lists reflected political loyalty more than poverty levels.

As a result, people started seeing BISP as a tool to strengthen political support rather than a purely welfare-based scheme.

Reform Through the Poverty Scorecard

In 2009, BISP launched the Poverty Scorecard to cut political bias. This system used surveys to collect data on income, assets, and living conditions to decide who was eligible.

Benefits of this reform:

• Reduced direct political control over beneficiary selection.
• Increased fairness and public trust.
• Created a national database for better targeting.

Still, the use of Benazir Bhutto’s name kept the program connected to PPP in the public mind.

Clientelism and Political Use

Even after reforms, politics remained part of the BISP story:

• The program’s name continues to link it with PPP.
• Politicians promote or expand BISP during elections to win support.
• Certain regions aligned with ruling parties sometimes get more coverage.
• Some beneficiaries feel the payment is a “favor,” increasing loyalty to political leaders.

This blend of welfare and politics isn’t unique to Pakistan.

Global Perspective

Many countries face the same challenge where welfare programs become political tools:

• Brazil and Mexico – Cash aid cut poverty but boosted the ruling parties’ popularity.
• Kenya and Ghana – Political influence was seen there, too.
• India – Food and job schemes often benefited political allies.

This shows that political influence on welfare is a common global issue.

Positive Results Despite Politics

Despite criticism, BISP has brought real change:

• Millions rely on it to survive.
• Women have more financial independence.
• Poverty has gone down in many areas.
• Some education and health outcomes have improved due to stable support.

So even with political angles, the program remains important for social welfare.

Key Challenges Ahead

For BISP to stay fair and effective, some things must improve:

• Transparency – Make beneficiary lists open to the public.
• Regular updates – Poverty data must stay current.
• Equal access – Support should not depend on political geography.
• Public trust – BISP should be viewed as a national, not party program.
• Independence – Strong systems are needed to keep politics out.

Role of Citizens and Media

The public and civil society also play an important role:

• Community monitoring – Locals can ensure fair beneficiary selection.
• Media checks – News and reports can expose misuse.
• Awareness – Teaching beneficiaries their rights cuts reliance on politicians.
• Accountability – People should demand transparency and fairness.

When citizens participate, welfare programs become stronger and less open to political misuse.