1
Social Spending and Income Redistribution in Argentina
During the 2000s: the Increasing Role of Noncontributory Pensions
Panel LASA- Friday, 10:30am - 12:15pm, LincolnRoom 5
The Impact of Taxes and Social Spending on Inequality andPoverty in Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and Uruguay
Nora LustigTulane UniversityCarola Pessino
Universidad del CEMA
BackgroundCrisis 2001-2002 in Argentina:
default and devaluation Real GDP fell 5% in 2001 and almost
12% in 2002
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
400000
450000
500000
GDP Argentina constant prices 1993
Axis
Title
Background
Inequality and Poverty Increased to largest in history, National Poverty Headcount more than 50%
Poverty Rate GBA INDEC (Disposable Income)
May
-88
May
-89
May
-90
May
-91
May
-92
May
-93
May
-94
May
-95
May
-96
May
-97
May
-98
May
-99
May
-00
May
-01
May
-02
May
-03
1st 2
004
1st 2
005
1st 2
006
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
FindingsWhat happened to poverty and inequality
after the crisis?We show that from the peak of the crisis it
decreased substantially, but stayed at the level of the 90s, how it was done?
Furthermore, current levels of poverty and inequality rest on fragile stance, fiscally unsustainable and generating perverse incentives towards informality and welfarism.
What happened with Poverty and Inequality after CrisisThe “Observed” Indexes (Disposable Income):National Moderate poverty decreased from
55% to 30% in 2009, those are the “high” levels of the 90s.
International poverty 4US$ and 2.5 US$ PPP also decreased from 38% to 14% and 23% to 5%.
GINI decreased from 0.520 to 0.447
Gini and Poverty 2003-2009
Net Market
Incomea
Disposable Income
Final Income
Net Market Income
Disposable Income
Final Income
Net Market Income
Disposable Income
Final Income
Gini 0.553 0.520 0.435 0.512 0.487 0.399 0.489 0.447 0.366 Headcount index (%) $2.50 PPP/day 28.3% 23.2% -.- 13.5% 9.7% -.- 13.0% 5.5% -.- $4.00 PPP/day 41.5% 38.2% -.- 22.7% 18.8% -.- 21.9% 14.4% -.-
2003 2006 2009
National Poverty Indexes 2003-2009
Net Market
Incomea
Disposable Income
Final Income
Net Market Income
Disposable Income
Final Income
Net Market Income
Disposable Income
Final Income
Official National Extreme 30.6% 25.9% -.- 15.9% 11.8% -.- 9.6% 2.8% -.-Effectiveness Indicator 7.7 13.2 19.1
Official National Moderate 56.5% 54.7% -.- 38.3% 35.5% -.- 22.6% 15.7% -.-Effectiveness Indicator 1.6 3.7 8.2
FIEL National Extreme 30.6% 25.9% -.- 15.9% 11.8% -.- 18.1% 10.6% -.-Effectiveness Indicator 7.7 13.2 11.2
FIEL National Moderate 56.5% 54.7% -.- 38.3% 35.5% -.- 36.1% 30.6% -.-Effectiveness Indicator 1.6 3.7 4.1
2003 2006 2009
Change attributable to “macro” and to “redistribution”
Let and be the market and disposable income Ginis (headcount ratios) in year t, respectively; and, . and be the market and disposable income:
and as the portion attributable to redistribution
–
-
Change attributable to “macro” and to “redistribution”
Let and be the market and disposable income Ginis (headcount ratios) in year t, respectively; and, . and be the market and disposable income:
and as the portion attributable to redistribution
–
-
But contribution of market and redistribution differsWhen analyzing contribution of market
(before redistribution policies) and redistributive effect:
Between 2003 and 2006 the fall in poverty and inequality mostly explained by market (rebote) and international context.
Between 2006 and 2009, the fall is explained mostly by redistribution, (90% of Extreme Poverty and 40% of GINI coefficient).
Contribution of Redistribution to Change in Disposable Income Inequality and Poverty
2009/ 2003 2006/ 2003 2009/ 2006GiniChange in Net Market Income Gini -0.064 -0.041 -0.023Change in Disposable Income Gini -0.073 -0.033 -0.04Change Attributable to Redistribution -0.009 0.008 -0.017
12.3% -24.2% 42.5%Headcount index (US$2.50 PPP/ day)Change in Net Market Income Poverty -0.153 -0.148 -0.005Change in Disposable Income Poverty -0.177 -0.135 -0.042Change Attributable to Redistribution -0.024 0.013 -0.037
13.6% -9.6% 88.1%
Flagship programsRedistribution occurs principally because of
the moratoria previsional, and other non-contributory pensions, and in second place with the AUH that we simulated in this study.
Program
Concentration coefficient with
respect to benchmark case net mark income
for 2009b
As percent of GDP in 2009
Program Jefes y Jefas de Hogar Desocupados -0.53 0.03%Program Familias/ IDH -0.50 0.05%Unemployment Insurance -0.19 0.08%"Inclusion" Scholarships (Becas) -0.13 0.02%
Asignacion Universal por Hijo Simulated (AUH)c-0.50 0.63%Moratorium/ Non Contrib Pensions -0.27 2.89%Total Contributory Pensions -.- 7.16%Total Direct Transfers -0.31 3.70%Primary Education -0.39 2.22%Secondary Education -0.24 2.02%University Tertiary Education 0.20 1.32%
Other Educationd 0.20 1.12%Total Education Spending -0.20 5.56%Health Primary Attention -0.36 2.57%
PAMI Healthe 0.13 0.90%Total Health Spending (primary and PAMI Health) -0.23 3.47%Seguridad Alimentaria -0.48 0.11%
PAMI- INSSJyP - Social assistancee -0.26 0.20%
Obras sociales - Sociale -0.16 0.13%
Other Social Protection Programse 0.00 0.82%
Water and Sanitatione 0.00 0.44%
Housinge 0.00 0.63%
Other Urban Servicese 0.14 0.96%
Transportation Subsidiese 0.16 2.45%
Energy Subsidiese 0.22 1.86%
Manufacturing and Communications Subsidiese 0.55 0.46%
Agricultural Subsidiese 0.55 0.63%
Airline Subsidiese 0.80 0.20%
CEQ Social Spendingf -0.15 16.74%
Airline SubsidiesManufacturing Subsidies
Agricultural SubsidiesNet Market Income GiniDisposable Income Gini
Final Income* GiniEnergy SubsidiesOther Education
University Tertiary EducationTransportation Subsidies
Other Urban ServicesPAMI Health
Other Social Protection Programs Water and Sanitation
Housing"Inclusion" Scholarships (Becas)
Total CEQ Social SpendingObras sociales - Social
Unemployment InsuranceTotal Education Spending
Total Health SpendingSecondary Education
PAMI- INSSJyP - Social assistanceMoratorium/Non Contrib Pensions
Total Direct TransfersHealth Primary Attention
Primary EducationSeguridad Alimentaria
Asignacion Univ. Hijo Simulated (AUH)Program Familias/IDH
Jefes y Jefas de Hogar Desocupados
-0.80 -0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
0.80
0.550.55
0.49
0.450.37
0.22
0.20
0.200.16
0.14
0.130.00
0.00
0.00-0.13
-0.15
-0.16
-0.19-0.20
-0.23
-0.24-0.26
-0.27
-0.31
-0.36-0.39
-0.48
-0.50-0.50
-0.53
Concentration Coefficient (or Gini when specified)
LegendEducation SpendingHealth SpendingTargeted TransferOther Social AssistanceNon-Contributory PensionSubsidyGini
Argentina: Share of Benefits Main Social Programs 1999
Share of benefits going to each income group
Net Market Income Groupy<2.52.5 < y < 4 4 < y < 10
10 < y < 50 y > 50 Total
ARGENTINA
Jefas y Jefes de Hogar 35.0% 18.2% 45.8% 0.9% 0.0% 100.0%
Familias 37.2% 20.2% 37.8% 4.4% 0.3% 100.0%
Unemployment Insurance 22.9% 16.8% 34.2% 24.4% 1.7% 100.0%
Becas 15.4% 14.0% 52.6% 18.1% 0.0% 100.0%
Non Contributory Pensions (inferred) 35.2% 7.4% 37.3% 19.7% 0.3% 100.0%
Food 37.2% 18.6% 38.6% 5.6% 0.0% 100.0%
Asignación Universal Por Hijo (simulated) 36.8% 20.9% 37.0% 5.2% 0.2% 100.0%
At least one of the above (a) 34.6% 12.2% 38.2% 14.7% 0.3% 100.0%
Education: All Except Tertiary 22.5% 15.9% 47.7% 13.8% 0.1% 100.0%
Education: Tertiary 5.0% 4.8% 41.2% 48.3% 0.6% 100.0%
Argentina: Coverage Main Social Programs 2009 Percent of individuals in each income group who are beneficiaries
Net Market Income Groupy<2.52.5 < y < 4
4 < y < 10
10 < y < 50 y > 50
Total Population
ARGENTINA Jefas y Jefes de Hogar 5.0% 3.8% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8%Familias 36.5% 30.1% 11.2% 0.9% 0.8% 12.5%Unemployment Insurance 1.6% 2.2% 0.9% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0%Becas 1.3% 2.1% 1.6% 0.4% 0.0% 1.2%Non Contributory Pensions (inferred) 33.2% 19.2% 17.5% 9.4% 3.4% 16.7%Food 20.8% 15.9% 5.6% 0.7% 0.0% 6.7%
Asignación Universal Por Hijo (simulated) 52.9% 46.6% 20.6% 3.9% 3.7% 21.2%At least one of the above (a) 91.9% 78.8% 47.6% 15.2% 7.9% 44.6%Education: All Except Tertiary 31.1% 31.1% 19.0% 6.6% 1.1% 17.2%Education: Tertiary 1.8% 2.5% 4.6% 6.7% 2.8% 4.8%Health (b) 68.1% 63.9% 34.3% 11.1% 6.1% 33.0%Contributory Pensions 1.0% 3.1% 12.9% 19.9% 17.4% 12.9%Above (all above for benefits except food, at least one for beneficiaries) 90.4% 76.1% 45.7% 14.8% 7.9% 43.2%
BENEFITS PER BENEFICIARY BY DAY PPP 2005
y < 2.52.5 < y
< 44 < y <
1010 < y <
50 y > 50 Total
Jefas y Jefes de Hogar 0.35 0.34 0.35 0.48 0.00 0.35
Familias 0.54 0.52 0.55 0.97 2.31 0.56Unemployment Insurance 1.36 1.09 1.11 1.52 2.50 1.25
Becas 1.30 1.12 1.17 1.94 0.00 1.27
Non Contributory Pensions (inferred) 3.87 2.06 2.38 2.90 4.19 2.84
Food 0.15 0.14 0.18 0.26 0.00 0.16
Asignación Universal Por Hijo (simulated) 1.22 1.14 0.96 0.88 0.85 1.07Above (all above for benefits, at least one for beneficiaries) 2.26 1.35 1.47 2.20 2.60 1.75
Memo item:TOTAL Pensions 6.8% 6.9% 10.0% 3.2% 23.9% Contributory 6.2% 5.7% 7.2% 1.0% 7.4% Non-Contributory 0.7% 1.2% 2.9% 2.2% 16.6%
2003 2006 2009Change
2009-2003 ( % pts)
Share of the
increase (in %)
Percentage of People 65 and Older Receiving Any Kind of Pensions: 2003, 2006 and 2009
2003 2006 200940.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
MalesFemalesAll
Problems of this redistribution1) Public expenditure increases to more than
40% of GDP financed by distortive taxes, inflation tax and non-orthodox mechanisms.
Part of increase with export taxes, sensitive to commodities 'prices. Part of the increase related to indirect subsidies to firms, difficult to decrease.
ARGENTINA : Government Spending by Category (% of GDP) 2003 2006 2009
Change 2009-2003
( % pts)
Share of the
increase (in %)
Gross Nat Inc/capita (PPP US$) 8,180 11,740 14,230
Total Government Spending 29.5% 32.9% 43.2% 13.7% --
Primary Government Spending 27.1% 30.7% 40.6% 13.5% 100.0%
Social Spending 13.0% 15.4% 20.6% 7.6% 56.1%Social Spending (In Incidence Analysis Benchmark) 7.3% 8.3% 11.8% 4.5% 33.4%
Total Cash Transfers 2.0% 2.0% 3.7% 1.7% 12.6%Cash Transfers (excluding all Pensions) 1.3% 0.7% 0.8% -0.5% -4.0%Non-Contributory Pensions 0.7% 1.2% 2.9% 2.2% 16.6% Moratorium Pensions 0.4% 0.8% 2.4% 2.0% 14.4%
Total In Kind Transfers 5.3% 6.3% 8.1% 2.8% 20.8%Education 3.4% 4.3% 5.6% 2.1% 15.6%Health Primary Care 1.9% 2.0% 2.6% 0.7% 5.2%
Other Social Spending (Not in Incidence Analysis) 5.7% 7.1% 8.8% 3.1% 22.7%Non- Social Spending 7.9% 9.6% 12.8% 4.9% 36.5%
Indirect Subsidies 2.5% 3.8% 5.6% 3.1% 23.3%Other Non Social Spending 5.4% 5.9% 7.2% 1.8% 13.2%
Contributory Pensions (In Sensitivity Analysis) 6.2% 5.7% 7.2% 1.0% 7.4%Debt Servicing 2.4% 2.2% 2.6% 0.2% 1.3%
Financing of Government Spending
Financing of Total Government Spending 29.5% 32.9% 43.2% 13.7% 100.0%Total Government "Actual" and "Creative" Revenues 30.4% 34.5% 41.0% 10.6% 77.3% Total Government Tax Collection 23.4% 27.4% 31.4% 8.0% 58.3%
Total Government "Actual" Non Tax Revenue 6.8% 6.6% 7.6% 0.8% 6.1%
Total Government "Creative" Non Tax Revenue 0.2% 0.5% 2.0% 1.8% 12.9%Official "Creative" Public Sector Borrowing Requirements -0.9% -1.6% 2.2% 3.1% 22.7%"Actual"Public Sector Borrowing Requirements -0.7% -1.1% 4.1% 4.9% 35.7%
2003 2006 2009Change
2009-2003 ( % pts)
Share of the
increase (in %)
Problems of this redistribution2) The redistribution of second part of decade
thanks principally to “moratoria”. It was partially subsidized through
contributory pensions. Disincentives to contribute to social security,
and incentives to informality.
Evolution of Contributory, Noncontributory and Moratorium Pensions 2003-2009: Millions of Individuals
Problems of this redistribution3) As a consequence, the total number of beneficiaries of social programs increase enormously over decade: from about 5% and not more than 10% in the 90sWith crisis, increase to 24% in 2003But with the crisis over, in 2009 43% of
population depended on social transfers, to get poverty levels similar to the 90s.
Beneficiaries of Social Programs
1997 2003 2006 20090%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%