For the past four decades, the Iranian regime, despite claiming to be the government of the poor, has failed to address the issue of poverty. Instead, it has exacerbated the situation, pushing a significant portion of the population below the poverty line.
The Parliament’s Research Center recently conducted an analysis based on international and domestic indicators, income, and family expenses to assess the extent of poverty and deprivation in the country.
The analysis revealed that Sistan and Baluchestan province is the most deprived region in Iran, followed by Kerman and South Khorasan. Nearly 30% of households in Sistan and Baluchestan live in dire conditions, significantly higher than other provinces. This province experiences a 28% higher deprivation rate compared to the capital, Tehran, and a 22% higher rate compared to other regions.
While presenting this grim picture of poverty, the report also examines the regime’s budget allocated for poverty alleviation. It highlights that the budget has not achieved its intended purpose, suggesting a need for a complete overhaul of policies and plans aimed at tackling this crisis.
The report sheds light on the lack of basic amenities in rural areas. For instance, 21% of the rural population lacks access to piped gas, 4% lacks access to piped water, 1% lacks access to electricity, and 6% lacks access to secure housing.
Furthermore, the report reveals that less than 50% of the allocated deprivation budget has been utilized effectively. It also criticizes the lack of transparency and fairness in the distribution of these funds across provinces, highlighting a discrepancy between the budget allocation and the actual needs of deprived areas.
The report further emphasizes the secrecy surrounding the performance of the budget for deprivation reduction. It points out that while budget tables allocate funds for deprivation, many of these allocations remain unspent. For example, the report states that only 40% of the total deprivation-alleviation budget for 2022 was utilized.
According to the research center, a significant portion of the deprivation budget is allocated without specifying its provincial distribution. Additionally, other budget lines intended for deprived areas often remain unused.
The report concludes that the lack of a unified definition of “deprivation” and the use of irrelevant indicators have led to an unbalanced distribution of deprivation-alleviation credits. The outdated status of deprivation indicators and the absence of a regularly updated list of deprived areas further contribute to the misuse of funds and facilitate corrupt practices.
This situation has allowed local policymakers to exploit the deprivation-alleviation budget allocation as a means to channel funds towards areas of their own interest, undermining the purpose of the budget itself.
The report cites the approval of 7,550 billion tomans under the title “Balanced 2” in last year’s budget law as an example of fragmented policies lacking a comprehensive deprivation reduction plan.
Furthermore, the list of deprived areas has only been revised once in the last 20 years. The report identifies the Program and Budget Organization as the entity responsible for revising this list, but the last official update dates back to before 2008. Considering the significant economic developments and changes in deprivation levels since then, the existing list is outdated and requires immediate revision.
The report acknowledges that a draft revision has been prepared by the Program and Budget Organization and submitted for government approval, but it remains pending.
The report emphasizes the need to distinguish between severe deprivation and development plans, while acknowledging their interconnectedness. While development plans aim to improve economic growth, create jobs, and strengthen infrastructure, deprivation-alleviation plans primarily focus on alleviating absolute poverty and ensuring access to basic necessities like healthcare, education, roads, energy, water, sanitation, and minimum living standards.
Therefore, although both types of plans aim to improve living conditions and social welfare, their goals and priorities differ significantly.
The report concludes by highlighting the absence of a dedicated body responsible for developing and monitoring deprivation indicators, planning deprivation reduction strategies, and coordinating efforts among relevant institutions. This lack of a centralized and focused approach has led to the current ineffective state of deprivation reduction efforts.
