Sri Lanka is preparing to launch a US$100 million Asian Development Bank (ADB)-funded programme to strengthen social protection, livelihoods and care services, but the initiative also exposes a deeper question: why have existing social security programmes failed to deliver maximum benefits to the country’s poorest and most vulnerable communities?
The five-year Macro-Recovery Sector Development Program for Promoting Resilience and Inclusive Economic Opportunities, scheduled from November 2026 to October 2031, will cover Kegalle, Matale, Mullaitivu, Kilinochchi, Batticaloa and Nuwara Eliya. Financed through a concessional ADB loan, it is intended to address economic vulnerabilities intensified by climate-related shocks.
Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath has acknowledged the scale of the challenge, saying around 56 percent of Sri Lanka’s population faces multidimensional vulnerabilities. Women, youth, elderly citizens, persons with disabilities, rural communities and estate-sector populations are among those particularly exposed.
Hitherto the announcement raises uncomfortable questions about the effectiveness of Sri Lanka’s existing social protection architecture, particularly Aswesuma, introduced amid the country’s economic crisis and subsequent fiscal reforms.
The central weakness is not simply the amount of money allocated to welfare. It is whether assistance reaches households according to the depth of their deprivation and whether beneficiaries can ultimately escape dependency through sustainable income opportunities.
The new programme appears to recognise this problem by combining welfare with economic empowerment. Under its livelihood component, selected beneficiaries will receive entrepreneurship training, market access and financial linkages. Most significantly, 30,000 selected Aswesuma families will receive Rs.200,000 each in seed capital, distributed in two instalments.
However, this intervention also highlights a fundamental limitation of conventional cash-based welfare. A grant can provide temporary relief, but without markets, business skills, access to finance and predictable income, poor households can quickly return to economic vulnerability.
Sri Lanka’s social protection system has also evolved under severe fiscal constraints associated with the country’s economic recovery and reform programme. The challenge for policymakers is therefore to balance fiscal discipline with the need to protect citizens who have suffered disproportionately from inflation, income losses and economic shocks.
The ADB programme’s proposed Social Protection Plan could become an opportunity to correct longstanding weaknesses. New regulations and training for care workers, alongside five elderly day-care centres, broaden the programme beyond income support and recognise the growing care burden facing vulnerable families.
But another layer of scrutiny is essential: selection, monitoring and accountability. If the poorest households are not accurately identified, even well-funded programmes can bypass those who need assistance most. Similarly, seed capital will have little lasting impact if beneficiaries receive money without adequate follow-up, market access and business support.
The new programme therefore should not become another parallel welfare mechanism. It must instead strengthen the entire social protection system, close gaps exposed by Aswesuma and ensure that scarce public and borrowed resources produce measurable improvements in household incomes.
For Sri Lanka’s poorest citizens, the real test will not be the US$100 million headline figure. It will be whether five years later, vulnerable families are genuinely more resilient, economically independent and less dependent on welfare.