1 / 10

Effectiveness of Targeted Food-Assistance Programs

Effectiveness of Targeted Food-Assistance Programs. October 23 rd , 2002. Public Social Safety Net. Total safety net spending: 1% of GDP; 6% of total govt. expenditures Multiple Programs serving diverse objectives:

ross
Télécharger la présentation

Effectiveness of Targeted Food-Assistance Programs

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Effectiveness of Targeted Food-Assistance Programs October 23rd, 2002

  2. Public Social Safety Net Total safety net spending: 1% of GDP; 6% of total govt. expenditures Multiple Programs serving diverse objectives: • Cash Transfer Programs (Orphanages, Pensions, Cash assistance to Freedom Fighters, Women’s social welfare centers, Housing fund) • Food-Assisted Workfare Programs • Food-for-Work (FFW) –9,920 Tk. Million • Test Relief (TR) –1,452 Tk. Million • Food-Assisted Development Programs • Food-for-Education(FFE) –4,610 Tk. Million, recently monetized • Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) –2,294 Tk. Million • Food-Assisted Relief Programs • Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) –218 Tk. Million • Gratuitous Relief (GR) –291 Tk. Million

  3. Allocations to Food-Assistance Programs Gradual evolution in emphasis from relief to development objectives

  4. Targeting and Coverage of Rural Population • Programs are well targeted towards poor households: • Poorest fifth nearly five times more likely to participate than the richest fifth • But, only a small percent of the poor have access: • Jointly, the three programs cover 10% of the rural population • Only 18% of the poorest fifth participates in any program • Over 80% of the population eligible for VGF and FFE not served

  5. Measures to Improve Targeting • Refine criteria for selection of beneficiaries: • Currently, one-fourth of population satisfying eligibility criteria is from the richest 40% of the population • Criteria should be closely correlated with incomes but should not entail excessive screening costs • Implement geographic targeting to concentrate resources in poor areas: • Only few programs (VGD, RD-FFW, partly FFE) attempt regional targeting; Most allocate resources across districts according to population • Considerable scope for improving geographic targeting of poor areas – pro-poor targeting is mainly due to targeting of the poor within communities • Potentially high payoffs to developing a poverty map

  6. Assessment of Leakage • Survey estimates of aggregate transfers are much lower than program off-take statistics • Percent food grains unaccounted for: -- 41% in the VGD -- 35% in the VGF -- 75% in the FFE A large share of budgeted resources appears not to reach any beneficiaries, negating any definitive conclusion about pro-poor impact.

  7. Assessment of Leakage (contd). • What explains the discrepancy between official records and survey-based estimates of program outlays? • Actual number of beneficiaries is lower than the official estimates – FFE & VGF • Beneficiaries receive less than their full entitlement – case of the VGD • Worrisome trend of increasing leakage over time: • 1995-96 HES based estimates indicate substantially lower leakage in the case of the FFE

  8. Stemming leakage offers a win-win situation Reforming program administration to reduce leakage, rather than expanding resources allocated to safety net programs, should be the highest priority. • Number of beneficiaries can be increased at little additional cost • Freed-up resources are more likely to benefit the poor than the rich

  9. Measures to Reduce Leakage • Improve program administration. Possible actions related to program design include: • Emulate design features of other programs with lower system losses (e.g., Female Secondary Stipend program) • Pilot new initiatives such as smart cards • Experiment with alternative payment systems (e.g., RMP) • Strengthen participation of local bodies • Strengthen Monitoring and Evaluation Systems: • Internal and external audits • Periodic survey-based assessments • Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation • Public expenditure tracking surveys (PETS) • Citizens report cards

  10. Additional Considerations for Improving the Impact of the Public Safety Net • Balance between relief and development focused programs: • Development impact crucial, as food transfers are small relative to total food expenditures • Important to retain some relief programs that can be rapidly scaled-up in times of natural disasters • Rationale for holding public foodgrain stocks to stabilize prices is weak: • Seasonal variability in prices much reduced • Pockets of seasonal vulnerability (geographic areas and specific groups) justify targeted programs : need to modify FFW? • Complementary community-level interventions of non-food components also an important element for improving development impact

More Related