Despite disbursing an estimated P242.4 billion through various social aid programs, the Marcos Jr. administration is facing a sobering reality: Public perception remains largely skeptical of its efforts to curb poverty and control rising prices.

A recent Pulse Asia survey revealed that the majority of Filipinos do not believe the government is doing enough to address these fundamental issues, casting doubt on the effectiveness of “Ayudanomics” — a term that encapsulates the administration’s heavy reliance on cash subsidies.

At the heart of this skepticism is the growing disconnect between short-term financial assistance and long-term economic impact. The administration’s flagship programs — Walang Gutom, Ayuda sa Kapos at Kita (AKAP), Tulong Panghanapbuhay sa Ating Disadvantaged/Displaced Workers (TUPAD), and the Assistance to Individuals in Crisis Situations (AICS) — were designed to provide immediate relief.

In theory, they represent a lifeline for the most vulnerable. In practice, however, they are seen by many as band-aid solutions in a worsening economic landscape characterized by persistently high inflation, job insecurity and stagnant wages.

The Pulse Asia survey reflects this mood. While beneficiaries acknowledge the temporary help, they also recognize that it doesn’t go far in an economy where basic commodities have become unaffordable, transportation costs remain volatile and public services continue to be out of reach for the poor.

The Philippine Statistics Authority reported inflation easing to more manageable levels in recent months, but that hasn’t translated to actual savings or relief at the grassroots level.

Moreover, distribution inefficiencies, lack of transparency, and political patronage mar many of these ayuda programs. Critics argue that these schemes are often used for political mileage rather than economic transformation. It doesn’t help that announcements of new ayuda rounds often coincide with survey seasons or upcoming elections, leading to public suspicion that these are more about optics than impact.

There’s also the issue of sustainability. Pumping hundreds of billions into consumption-driven assistance, without parallel investments in livelihood generation, agricultural reform, rural development, or skills training, creates a dependency loop rather than economic empowerment.

Even the well-intentioned TUPAD program, aimed at providing temporary jobs, fails to offer stable employment pathways or upward mobility. Once the temporary job ends, so too does the income.

The survey’s implication is that Filipinos are not merely looking for cash — they are demanding structural change. People want a government that fosters resilient livelihoods, ensures food security, and builds economic opportunities. Without these, the billions poured into ayudas may just be perceived as tokenism, not transformation.

It is not enough to hand out money and expect gratitude or confidence. Public trust is built on tangible, long-term outcomes. The Marcos administration, despite its “ayuda blitz,” has yet to convince the masses that it has a credible plan to lift people out of poverty permanently. Until then, no amount of cash disbursed — no matter how well-branded — will change the prevailing sentiment that the government is merely treading water, not steering the ship.

In the end, the Pulse Asia findings serve as a cautionary tale: Poverty alleviation cannot be bought with dole-outs alone. It demands vision, political will and genuine commitment to inclusive growth — none of which can be wrapped in a cash envelope.