1 / 19

Nanak Kakwani and Hyun H. Son International Poverty Centre Brasilia, Brazil

On Assessing Pro-Poorness of Governments Programs: International Comparisons. Nanak Kakwani and Hyun H. Son International Poverty Centre Brasilia, Brazil. Different kinds of government programs. Cash programs: - Principle component of safety net in industrialized market economies

starbuck
Télécharger la présentation

Nanak Kakwani and Hyun H. Son International Poverty Centre Brasilia, Brazil

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. On Assessing Pro-Poorness of Governments Programs: International Comparisons Nanak Kakwani and Hyun H. Son International Poverty Centre Brasilia, Brazil

  2. Different kinds of government programs Cash programs: - Principle component of safety net in industrialized market economies - Social insurance programs (e.g. publicly supported social pensions, unemployment insurance/allowance programs) - Social assistance programs (e.g. pensions to support disabled, orphans, widows, & other vulnerable groups, conditional cash transfers) In-kind programs: - Commodity subsidy schemes - Food stamps/vouchers - Public works programs (e.g. employment guarantee programs in India) Government services in education, health, & infrastructure

  3. What is pro-poor policy? • A government policy can be said to be pro-poor if it benefits the poor more than the non-poor. • It means that with a fixed cost to the government, a pro-poor policy should achieve greater poverty reduction compared to a counter-factual situation when everyone receives exactly the same benefit from the policy. • Policy A will be more pro-poor than policy B if for a given cost, policy A leads to a greater poverty reduction than policy B. .

  4. Additive and decomposable class of poverty measures : Headcount ratio : Poverty gap : Severity of poverty

  5. Pro-Poor Policy (PPP) Index • b(x): benefits received by an individual with income x : % change in total poverty due to b(x) = mean benefit per person • % change in total poverty due to a universal targeting of = where is the percentage change in poverty if everyone receives one unit of currency (i.e. absolute elasticity)

  6. Pro-poor Policy Index Example: (i) = 1.20 : a programme reduces poverty 20% more compared to a counterfactual universal targeting (ii) = 0.70 : a programme reduces poverty 30% less compared to a universal targeting

  7. Setting a Benchmark for PPP index • Imperfect targeting: worst scenario • Perfect targeting: best scenario * Note: for incentives, k should be always < 1

  8. PPP index under perfect targeting • Single poverty line • - poverty gap ratio: 1/H • - severity of poverty: where g = poverty gap ratio s = severity of poverty index • . Needs adjusted poverty lines

  9. PPP index by socioeconomic groups • Within group PPP index • Total group PPP index The pro-poor policy index for the whole country is the weighted average of the total-group PPP indices for the individual groups, with weight proportional to shares of benefits received by each group.

  10. Welfare programs : Thailand 2000

  11. Welfare programs: Thailand 2000

  12. Russian welfare system

  13. PPP index for Russian welfare system

  14. PPP index for education : Vietnam 1997-98 Universal Education

  15. Targeting children in Africa

  16. Food subsidies in Africa

  17. Food subsidies targeted at the poor

More Related