GOVERNMENTS are spending more on social safety nets than ever before, and yet, the struggle against urban poverty feels like it is stuck in the mud. The paradox is hard to ignore: funding goes up, but the poorest people in our cities keep falling through the cracks. The reason? The very laws meant to support them weren鈥檛 built for the urban world they live in now.
听
Urban coverage gap: spending more, reaching less
ON PAPER, things look promising 鈥� budgets for social protection have grown steadily across the globe. But the reality? Most of those resources end up helping rural populations or people who are already somehow connected to the system. Urban dwellers 鈥� especially the working poor, the undocumented, and the informally employed 鈥� are being left behind.
The numbers make it plain. According to a recent analysis by the Global Alliance against Hunger and Poverty, 46 per cent of rural residents receive social assistance versus 40 per cent of urban residents in developing countries. In a world where cities are swelling with people and problems, that kind of gap is more than a policy failure 鈥� it鈥檚 a red flag.
Take Bangladesh as an example. The government allocated Tk 126,272 crore to social protection in FY2023-24, which corresponds to 2.52 per cent of GDP. Contrary to the idea of stagnation, urban poverty in Bangladesh has actually worsened. A recent SANEM study shows the urban upper-poverty-line headcount rose from 16.3 per cent in 2018 to 18.7 per cent in 2023 鈥� while rural poverty fell from 24.5 per cent to 21.6 per cent over the same period.
听
How law becomes a barrier
AT THE heart of the issue is this: the rules that determine who gets help and how are outdated, scattered, and often blind to the realities of urban life. Three main problems keep coming up.
Eligibility criteria stuck in the past: A lot of welfare laws were written when poverty looked different 鈥� more rural, more straightforward. But in today鈥檚 cities, poverty wears a different face. People work informal jobs, live in temporary housing, and often can鈥檛 provide the kind of documentation traditional systems demand. So even if they are in desperate need, they are invisible on paper.
Administrative chaos: When you have got several laws creating overlapping programmes 鈥� each with its own forms, steps, and offices 鈥� it鈥檚 not a system. It鈥檚 a maze. And the urban poor, often lacking legal knowledge or documentation, are the ones most likely to get lost in it. While specific studies quantifying the administrative burden on urban applicants in Bangladesh are limited, broader analyses indicate that bureaucratic complexities and overlapping programmes can disproportionately affect urban poor populations. That鈥檚 not just inefficient 鈥� it鈥檚 unjust.
Weak accountability: In many places, there is no real oversight to make sure urban communities are getting their fair share. Programme administrators often have too much discretion and too little transparency. That leads to patchy implementation and, sometimes, outright neglect.
听
Fixing the system
SO HOW do we fix it? Not with tweaks or quick fixes, but with meaningful legal reform. Here鈥檚 what that looks like:
Update the eligibility rules: Welfare laws need to catch up with reality. That means allowing flexible proof of residence, accounting for informal income, and recognising that living in a city means higher costs. If we want equity, we need to meet people where they are 鈥� not where we assume they live.
Streamline the process: Instead of having people bounce between departments and agencies, let鈥檚 build integrated systems that handle multiple benefits through one entry point. While Mexico鈥檚 PROSPERA programme was terminated in 2019, its integrated approach to delivering multiple benefits through a single entry point serves as a model for streamlining social assistance programmes. The model鈥檚 out there. It works.
Make accountability the norm: Welfare legislation should include hard targets for urban coverage. And if those targets aren鈥檛 met there should be consequences. Regular audits focused on equity 鈥� not just efficiency 鈥� need to be part of the law, not an afterthought.
Let people have a say: Representation matters. Mandating urban poor voices on oversight boards isn鈥檛 just symbolic. Research shows it leads to real improvements in outcomes. When people help shape the programmes meant for them, the programmes get better. Period.
听
Roadblocks ahead
OF COURSE, even the best legal reform means little without solid implementation. And this kind of change won鈥檛 come easy. Bureaucracies resist disruption. Some current beneficiaries might worry about losing out if the pie is divided differently. Plus, there鈥檚 the simple reality of limited capacity 鈥� especially in under-resourced administrations.
But these aren鈥檛 deal-breakers. They are challenges to plan around. Phased rollouts, strong digital systems, and transition clauses to protect existing recipients can all make a big difference. Change is possible 鈥� it just has to be managed well.
听
A closing thought
THIS isn鈥檛 just about fixing paperwork or balancing budgets. It鈥檚 about people 鈥� millions of them 鈥� who live in cities, work hard, and still can鈥檛 access the help they鈥檙e promised. If we keep pumping money into social protection without fixing the laws that guide it, we鈥檒l keep getting the same results: programmes that look good on paper but leave too many behind.
The way forward starts with the law. It starts with recognising that poverty today doesn鈥檛 always look the way it used to 鈥� and that a one-size-fits-all legal framework simply doesn鈥檛 cut it anymore.
Reform isn鈥檛 easy. But if we want social protection that is fair, efficient, and truly inclusive, it is the only way forward.
听
Md Ibrahim Khalilullah is a writer and analyst with expertise in the law and development sectors.