can mexico’s social programs help reduce poverty? by alain de janvry uc berkeley january 31, 2005
DESCRIPTION
Can Mexico’s Social Programs Help Reduce Poverty? by Alain de Janvry UC Berkeley January 31, 2005. Outline of presentation I. Context of the study What can be expected from public spending for poverty reduction? A conceptual framework - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
2
Outline of presentation
I. Context of the studyII. What can be expected from public spending for poverty
reduction? A conceptual frameworkIII. Data on the evolution of poverty and basic needs in Mexico
1) Evolution of poverty2) Evolution in the satisfaction of Basic Needs
IV. Mexico’s social programs: the Contigo strategyV. Analysis: Why a lag in poverty reduction relative to
progress in social development, especially for the extreme poor?
VI. Conclusions
3
I. Context of the study
Work with Sedesol and the World Bank-Mexico Office on social programs and poverty in Mexico.
Reports:- Assessment of the Contigo strategy (for Miguel Székely, Sedesol)- Poverty in Mexico (Michael Walton and Gladys Acevedo)
www.worldbank.org/mx- Mexico: A Study of Rural Poverty (José Maria Caballero)
4
II. What can be expected from public spending for poverty reduction? A conceptual framework
1) Social development expendituresSocial assistance: Increase the assets of the poor: health,
education, food and nutrition, access to land.Social protection: Reduce vulnerability, social insurance
(transfers): old age pensions, health insurance, employment programs.
2) Economic sector expendituresImprove the quality of the context where the assets are used:
infrastructure, agriculture, rural development, energy, transport, communication.
5
3) Conceptual framework to explain well-being: role of complementarity between social and economic expenditures
Determinants of well-being Contigo programs
Household assets positions Social development exp.Education Oportunidades, DIFHealth Seguro social (SSA, IMSS)Nutrition Diconsa, LiconsaLand ProcedePhysical capital Habitat, Credito a la palabra
Opportunities (context) Economic sector exp.Markets InfrastructureInstitutions Fonart, Firco, IncaRuralPublic goods Impulso, MicroregionsPolicies Ley de Desarrollo SocialLocal governance Ley de DR Sustentable
Livelihood strategies
Transfers and protection Procampo, PET, IMSS, Fonden
Well-being outcomesPoverty, basic needs,Security, empowerment
Feedbacks on policiesSocial incorporation Indesol
6
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
Years
Extreme Poverty Headcount
National Rural Urban
III. Data on the evolution of poverty and basic needs in Mexico
1) Evolution of poverty: Little decline in the incidence of extreme poverty 1992-2002 and
rise in the number of poor.
7
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.050.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
Years
Headcount Moderate Poverty
National Rural Urban
High and resilient moderate poverty
8
Incidence of rural and urban poverty in Mexico
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
1984 1989 1994 1996 1998
Po ruralPo urban
Debt crisis
Peso crisis
Sensitivity of poverty to growth and macroeconomic cycles (debt and peso crises)
9Importance of economic cycles on poverty
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
3050 3100 3150 3200 3250 3300 3350 3400 3450 3500 3550 3600
Po rural
Po urban
Rural Po
Urban Po
Debt crisis 84-89
Peso crisis 94-96
Figure 3. Mexico: Poverty (Po) and the ratchet effect of economic crises
GDP per capita in 1995 US$
10
The poverty hard cores: geography and ethnicity
- Regions: South (Oaxaca, Puebla, Guerrero, Quintana Roo, Chiapas)- Indigenous populations: 44% of indigenous are in the bottom 20% of the distribution of income
11
Share of Agriculture in Rural Family Income by Definition of Rural
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
Years
Share of Agriculture
Rural < 2,500 Rural <15,000
Role of changing income structure for the rural poor in explaining poverty reduction. Sharp increases in:
Non-agricultural sources of income (pluriactivity).Remittances, transfers, decline in the urban-rural wage gap.
Role of a territorial approach that integrates rural-urban locally
14
Inequality is very high, stagnant overall, and rising in rural areas, limiting the ability of growth to reduce poverty
15
2) Evolution in the satisfaction of Basic Needs (social development)International comparisons: Catching up. Strong progress in health, education, and nutrition
18
IV. Mexico’s social programs: the Contigo strategy1) Mexico’s public spending: Stagnant. Rising expenditures on social development, but at cost of decline in economic sector expenditures due to overall constraint.
19
2) Low capacity of state to redistribute due to weak fiscal capacity:
Low and stagnant public spending due to failed fiscal reforms
21
3) The Contigo strategy in design: an impressive projectMultidimenionality of well-being: BN and incomeSeeks complementarities between programs: coordination Follows life-cycle needs: prenatal, childhood, youth, adults, elderly
Social insurance (80% of social protection budget)Old age pensions (IMSS, ISSSTE)Health insurance (IMSS, ISSSTE, SSA)
Social assistance (20% of social protection budget)Education and health: Oportunidades (6%)Food and nutrition: Liconsa, DiconsaHousing: Habitat, Tu CasaIncome generation: PET, ImpulsoTransfers: ProcampoSocial infrastructure (water, sanitation, roads): Microregions.Access to land: Procede
23
Social insurance for the moderate poor could be improved by using conditional cash transfers as a safety net to protect child education from
shocks
24
V. Analysis: Why a lag in poverty reduction relative to progress in social development, especially for the extreme poor? Ten answers:
1. Weak and unstable growth performance in context of high inequality low employment creation and high poverty cost of macroeconomic instability lack of income gains for the poorNeed growth, macroeconomic stability, and policies to reduce inequality.
2. Low level of tax revenues (Fox’s failed fiscal reform) weak redistribution capacity: social expenditures are a high and rising share of public spending, but at the cost of falling economic sector expenditures.Key role of success in tax reform.
25
3. Lack of cordination between social and economic investments
- Ministerial parallelism: lack of coordination, separation between Social Cabinet (dominated by Health and Education) and Economic Cabinet.
- Contigo strategy mainly owned by the Ministries Health and Education.
- Territorial approaches separate social expenditure (SEDESOL’s Microregions) and productive expenditures (SAGARPA’s Sustainable Rural Development).
26
4. Public programs in support of income generation and competitiveness (economic sector spending) do not reach the poor: benefit large producers, do not reach SME, small farmers, especially indigenous
Alianza para el Campo: co-investments oriented at large producers.
Procampo: progressive, but not complemented by investments in support of smallholder competitiveness.
Procede: access to land, but no support to competitiveness (incomplete land reform).
5. Integration of economic and social expenditures at the local level through decentralization is held back by:
Lack of accountability of municipal expenditures (Ramo 33) to the national level.
Federal transfers are not related to local performance (vs. results-based management).
27
6. Low quality of public services: need increase efficiency, reduce biases
Improve supply side of school and health services.Critical in context of decentralization (Ley de Desarrollo
Social) with little accountability and short run municipal political cycle w/o re-election.
Social development agenda for the moderate poor is not well defined (potential role of IMPULSO).
7. Poor not much covered by social insurance programs: Highly regressive programs for health, old age pensions, and
unemployment insurance.Exposure to risk of moderate poor is a source of new poor.
28
8. Lack of assistance to social incorporation of the poorWeak civil society organizations (strong state,
anticlerical/NGO).Lack of stakeholder representation/empowerment in guiding
and monitoring local expenditures: centralized decision-making (Oportunidades, Alianza, Procampo).
The Indesol exception: is it effective? No evaluation.
9. Lack of monitoring and evaluation, impact analysis, and results-based management
Needed for accountability, at national, state, and municipal levels.
Needed to engage in results-based management (Oportunidades impact analysis effective for accountability, but not for results-based management).
29
10. Bias for hope: Progress in
Seguro Popular (SSA) for the uninsured poor: free for poorest 20%.
IMPULSO: support to productivity and formalization of SMF (moderate poor).
Ley de Desarrollo Social: from government to state social policies and role of municipalities.
Ley de Desarrollo Rural Sustentable: role of municipal, district, state, and national rural development councils.
Congressional mandate for annual evaluations of federal programs and Manual Ciudadano.
INDESOL: assistance to social incorporation.Continuity of civil service appointments: continuity of
programs beyond the political cycle?
30
VI. Conclusions
Persistence of “too much” poverty, vulnerability, and inequality, in a context of improving social development.
A poverty reduction strategy cannot be limited to a social development strategy.
To be effective in reducing poverty, social programs need to be complemented by an income generation strategy for the poor.
End