Date post: | 14-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | tobias-reed |
View: | 214 times |
Download: | 2 times |
Assessing Public Expenditures on Social Protection:
Some Methodological Suggestions
Kathy Lindert, World BankQualidade do Gasto Publico no Brasil
June 26-27, 2003
Outline: Key QuestionsSector-Wide View What are the goals of the sector? Where does the money come from (financing)? How much is spent? Where does the money go? (composition of
spending) Basic inventory Mapping against key vulnerable groups Gaps, duplications, horizontal inequities across
programs
Program View (what do you get for the money?) Institutional aspects Performance indicators
Sector-Wide View
Goals of the Social Protection “Sector”
SOCIAL ASSISTANCE-To provide support to the
extreme poor (structural poor)-To help households cope with
shocks (transient poor)- To reduce inequality (redistributive goals)
- To reduce future poverty via human capital conditions (CCT)
- To provide social services to particularly vulnerable groups
(Generally in form of non-contributory transfers – cash or
in-kind; conditional or not)
SOCIAL INSURANCE
- To help individuals, households mitigate the
adverse effects of risks and shocks, such as: old age, disability, health shocks,
unemployment, etc.
(Generally in form of contributory payments)
To assist individuals, households, and communities to better manage risks, and to provide support to the critically poor
Goals, continuedGoals depend largely on profile of poverty, risk and vulnerability: Profile of Poverty:
Poverty headcount, gap, trends Characteristics of the poor Degree of chronic vs. transient poverty (what share are structurally
poor vs. poor due to shocks?) Profile of risks and vulnerability
Sources of risk and vulnerability Specific vulnerable groups (e.g., disabled, street children, child
laborers, indigenous, etc.)
Goals also depend on the extent to which private transfers, insurance are available and accessible to the poor (formal, informal)
Where do funds come from? (sources of financing)
General RevenuesOther sources (mainly for social insurance): Payroll taxes/contributions
Employer/employee contributions Self-employed contributions
Penalties from employers Interest income Other – fees for service
Other sources (not always counted): Donors, NGOs Counterpart contributions
Financing Issues
Earmarked or not (e.g., fondo de pobreza)
Federal, state, local
Open entitlement vs. fixed budget allocation
Reliability, pro-cyclical or counter-cyclical
How much is Spent? (1)Not an easy question to answerSpending spread across multiple programs, multiple agencies, and multiple levels of governmentNeed an inventory of programs & spending: At federal level (across agencies) At state/municipal level:
Probably can’t do complete inventory for all states/municipalities
Select sample (some with high capacity/spending, some with low capacity/spending) to gauge overlaps, complementarities with federal spending
...How much is spent? (2)With inventory of spending on each of the (main) programs, can estimate how much is spent on SPCalculate as % of GDP, total public spending, total social spending
Expenditure Estimates on Social Protection (SP), Social Insurance (SI) and Social Assistance Programs (SA) Country SP SI SA
% of GDP % of GDP % of SP % of GDP % of SP Argentina 5.0 4.1 82.0 0.9 18.0 Brazil 10.8 10.3 95.4 0.5 4.6 Mexico 4.3 3.2 74.4 1.1 25.6 Costa Rica 5.4 3.7 68.5 1.7 31.5 El Salvador 5.9 4.2 71.2 1.7 28.8 Guatemala 3.0 1.9 63.3 1.1 16.9 Honduras 4.1 1.6 39.0 2.5 61.0 Nicaragua 6.5 5.4 83.1 1.1 16.9
Source: World Bank, various reports. Data mostly for 1999/01 period, central government spending only.
Composition of Spending (1): Basic inventory of programs
Social insurance: Pensions (general old age, survivor, disability, civil service) Unemployment insurance [Health insurance]
Social assistance: Cash transfers
Conditional (linked to health, education sectoral goals) Non-conditional (pure cash transfers)
In-kind transfers (food – such as school feeding, other) Subsidies (food, energy, agricultural, housing) Workfare (transfers in exchange for public works) Active labor market programs
Type of Program Number of Programs
Budget 2000 (million pesos)
Percent of total
Budget
Major Beneficiaries
1. Social Insurance —Social Security —Negative Income Tax
4 3 1
170,539.0 158,687.0 11,760.0
76.1 70.8% 5.2%
- Formal sector employees - Formal sector employees
2. Sectoral Social Assistance —Education —Health —Housing credit —Other
29 18 5 2 4
15,861.9 6,622.8 4,740.7 3,779.6 718.8
7.1% 3.0% 2.1% 1.7% 0.3%
- Poor, low educated - Rural poor - Public sector employees - Various vulnerable groups
3. Income Transfers and Subsidies —Progresa (conditioned income T) —Food Programs
7 1 6
14,765.2 9,635.0 5,130.2
6.6% 4.3% 2.3%
- Rural poor - Poor
4. Income Generation —Temporary Employment —Labor Training —Rural Development
54 1 2
51
15,531.8 3,997.7 1,683.9 9,850.2
6.9% 1.8% 0.7% 4.4%
- Poor unemployed - Low income - Rural communities
5. Social Infrastructure 5 2,250.1 1.0% -- Communities with low access to basic infrastructure
6. Natural Disaster Protection 1 4,839.9 2.2% -- Communities hit by natural disasters
7. Other 5 202.8 .09% -- Poor communities TOTAL 105 223,990.7 100%
Composition of Spending (1): Basic inventory of programs: Mexico Example
Composition of Spending (2):Mapped Against Key Vulnerable Groups
One quick and practical way to analyze the mix of programs is to map spending on the main programs against key vulnerable groups using a “life-cycle” approachAdvantages of this “life-cycle”mapping: Easy, quick overview of where funding goes (main groups) Can identify possible overlaps, spending biases (e.g., in favor of
elderly rather than youths), and possible gaps – for broad groups
Some disadvantages: Not sure of actual gaps, duplications at household level Life-cycle approach mainly focuses on individual risks, ignores that
these individuals are actually part of households
Population Group/
Main Risk Leading Risk Indicators Indicator Value, Urban Area Indicator Value, Rural Area
Poorest 10 percent
Poorest 30 percent
All Poorest 10 percent
Poorest 30
percent
Poorest 60 percent
All
Ages 0–5: Stunted development
Chronic Malnutrition (stunting) 11%. 30%
ECD coverage n.a. n.a. Preschool attendance (age 5
only) 53% 71% 82% 44% 52% 62% 66%
Ages 6–14 Low human capital development
Primary school enrollment (ages 6–11)
92% 94% 95% 86% 91% 93% 94%
Age-for-grade* (ages 6–11) 1.07 1.04 1.01 1.13 1.12 1.10 1.08 Lower secondary school
enrollment (ages 12–14) 41% 55% 68% 24% 24% 29% 37%
Age-for-grade (ages 12–14) 1.19 1.13 1.07 1.36 1.37 1.31 1.24 Child employment (ages 12–14) 16% 13% 9% 40% 30% 28% 26% Violence/crime Inactivity—neither work nor
attend school (ages 12–14) 21% 12% 7% 9% 14% 14% 13%
Composition of Spending (2, cont’d):Identifying Vulnerable Groups: Mexico Example
(Highlighted areas signal prominent at-risk groups)
Population Group/
Main Risk Leading Risk Indicators Indicator Value, Urban Area Indicator Value, Rural Area
Poorest 10 percent
Poorest 30 percent
All Poorest 10 percent
Poorest 30 percent
Poorest 60 percent
All
Ages 15–24 Low human capital development
Upper secondary enrollment (ages 15–17)
19% 29% 46% 6% 6% 7% 13%
University enrollment (ages 18–24)
2% 4% 15% 0.7% 0.2% 0.9% 2%
Low income Unemployment (ages 15–24) male
female
24% 12%
23% 12%
13% 10%
4.4% 0%
3.2% 6.9%
5.2% 5.3%
4.9% 5.2%
Violence/crime Inactivity (ages 15–17) 37% 28% 18% 31% 30% 29% 27% Inactivity (ages 18–24) 49% 43% 28% 29% 36% 36% 35% Ages 25–64 Low income Unemployment: male
female 6.5% 3.5%
4.9% 2.8%
3.2% 1.8%
0.6% 0.0%
0.9% 1.5%
1.5% 0.8%
1.5% 0.6%
Part-time job (as % of all employed)
37% 32% 26% 52% 50% 46% 42%
No education or incomplete primary (low skills) (ages 25–40)
49% 36% 17% 70% 68% 61% 49%
No education or incomplete primary (low skills) (ages 41–64)
78% 69% 42% 93% 90% 90% 85%
Ages 65+ Low income Receives pension 2% 7% 22% 0% 0.1% 0.2% 7% General population
Low-quality housing
No piped water 18% 15% 7% 55% 53% 48% 38%
No piped sewerage 50% 37% 18% 96% 93% 89% 79% No electricity 5% 3% 0.9% 29% 24% 20% 14%
Mexico Vulnerable Groups …
Population Group Leading Risk Indicators Indicator Value, Urban Area Indicator Value, Rural Area Isolated rural villages (population 100 or less, total 2.6 million people) Indigenous (total population 11,500,000 people, of which 80 percent (9,200,000) among the extreme poor, and 1 million monolingual)
Lack of access to basic infrastructure, social services
High dependency ratio (large proportion of children and elderly relative to working-age population)
Systematically higher
poverty rates and lower social development indicators
Not applicable
(all indicators for indigenous are given in next column—data do not allow rural/urban breakdown)
- Without access to: electricity (59 percent), sewerage (90 percent), primary school (40 percent), secondary school (100 percent), health mobile unit (30 percent), access to temporary employment program (94 percent), free tortilla (99 percent), etc. - These villages represent 2.9 percent of total population, but 3.3 percent of youth (0–14) and 3.4 percent of elderly (over 65), vs. 2.6 percent of working age population (25–64). -Illiteracy rates, age 15 and over: 49 percent (women), 27.8 percent (men). In communities with over 70 percent indigenous populations (total pop. 4,000,000), 28 percent of children do not attend school, most living in communities with 100 or fewer inhabitants. Over 1 million school-age children speak indigenous language, 250,000 of which are monolingual. Only 38 percent of schools in indigenous communities offer all 6 grades of primary education.
The life-cycle faces its limits and so we move beyond it:
Social risk among specific population groups in Mexico
Population Group/
Main risk Program Coverage
Indicator Value, Urban Area
Indicator Value, Rural Area
Poorest 10 percent
Poorest 30 percent
All Poorest 10 percent
Poorest 30 percent
Poorest 60 percent
All
Ages 0–5: Stunted development
Family receives Progresa transfers
n.a
ECD coverage n.a. Ages 6–14 Low human capital development
Receives scholarship to attend school (6–11)
2.8% 2.0% 2.0% 3.1% 3.4% 3.9% 4.1%
Violence/crime Receives scholarship to attend school (12–14)
1.6% 1.7% 2.2% 3.4% 5.6% 5.0% 4.5%
Ages 15–24 Low human capital development
Receives scholarship to attend school (ages 15–17)
3.6% 1.5% 3.6% 1.9% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3%
Low income Receives scholarship to attend school (ages 18–24)
0% 5.6% 5.0% 0% 0% 3.3% 2.8%
Ages 25–64 Low income Has attended training
program 0% 2% 12% 0% 0% 0.2% 2%
Has access to social security system
9% 19% 43% 0.2% 0.9% 3% 11%
Receives ‘ayuda alimentaria o dispensa’
1.6% 4% 12% 0% 0.1% 0.7% 3%
Ages 65+ Low income Receives pension 2% 7% 22% 0% 0.1% 0.2% 7% General population
Low-quality housing
Access to housing credit 0.7% 4% 16% 0% 0.1% 0.4%
Low access to savings/credit facilities
Taking the next step: mapping programs onto risk groups
Incidence of programs targeted to key social risks by decile and region
Composition of Spending (3, cont’d)Gaps, duplications, horizontal inequities
across programsAnother important aspect in analyzing the mix of social programs is the extent to which they incur duplications or gaps in coverage, which result in horizontal inequitiesExamine which households receive:No benefits (if poor, a gap)Benefits from one programBenefits from multiple programs
Composition of Spending (3, cont’d)Gaps, duplications, horizontal
inequities across programsData needed: Representative household survey data with
comprehensive listing of main (nation-wide) programs
Such data are not regularly collected in Brazil PNAD do not include comprehensive list of main
social programs POF survey will yield some such data for first time
since 1996... an important opportunity for policy feedback
Overlap between Social Risk Management Arrangements
File: tt_hh.dta ( 7 Feb 2002 ) 8 Feb 2002
Venn Diagram N = 7276
Social_Protection Private_Transfers
(76 %) (28 %)
1306 (18 %)
1649 23 %
408 6 %
3913 54 %
% of total File: tt_hh.dta ( 7 Feb 2002 ) 8 Feb 2002
Venn Diagram N = 7276
Social_Insurance Social_Assistance
(8 %) (75 %)
1714 (24 %)
484 7 %
4968 68 %
110 2 %
% of total
File: tt_hh.dta ( 7 Feb 2002 ) 8 Feb 2002
Venn Diagram N = 7276
Local_Remittances Foreign_Remittances
(15 %) (8 %)
(13 %) Charity
5219 (72 %)
45 1 %
401 6 %
699 10 %
10 0 %
448 6 %
308 4 %
146 2 %
% of total File: tt_hh.dta ( 7 Feb 2002 ) 8 Feb 2002
Venn Diagram
N = 7276
School_Feeding
Scholarships
( 39 %)
(3 %)
( 21 %) (6 %)
School_Material_Assistance
Other_Social_Assistance
4164 ( 57 %)
41 1 %
49 1 %
1223 17 %
64 1 %
111 2 %
118 2 %
1235 17 %
11 0 %
13 0 %
8 0 %
32
0 %
13
0 %
2 %
167 0 %
1
26 0 %
% of total
Composition of Spending (3, cont’d) Gaps, duplications, horizontal inequities across programs, example
How Adequate?... A Judgment CallJudgments: Does the program mix have the appropriate blend of social
assistance and social insurance? Appropriate mix of public – private provision/financing? Given the country’s profile of poverty and vulnerability, does
the program mix provide an adequate balance of efforts to assist:
The chronic poor (structural poor) The transient poor (due to shocks) Special vulnerable groups (young children, youths, disabled, etc.) Of formal/informal sectors?
Are there big gaps in intervention? Significant overlaps, duplication, fragmentation? Is the overall level of effort sensible? Too high? too low?
Program Analysis: What do you get for the money?
Indicators to Evaluate(for each of main programs)
Institutional Aspects: Objectives Institutional Arrangements & Delivery Mechanisms Sustainability
Performance Indicators (What do you get for the spending?) Adequacy (Coverage, benefit levels) Equity Efficiency Impact (poverty, inequality, human capital, etc.)
Institutional AspectsObjectives of Program: Ideally should evaluate program against these Often, programs have multiple objectives
Institutional Arrangements & Delivery Mechanisms: Agencies responsible for design, implementation Administrative structures Resources and systems (adequacy) Incentive structures Targeting mechanisms Delivery of benefits
Sustainability: Is the burden on the budget sustainable? How would predicted
demographic, poverty or fiscal changes affect this?
Adequacy of ProgramsCoverage Who benefits from the spending? disaggregated as relevant: urban/rural, poverty groups,
region, formal/informal
Adequacy of benefit level What is the average transfer? Benchmarks vary by program, e.g.,:
Average pensions compared to average wages Unemployment insurance to average wages Social assistance to poverty line, etc.
Data sources: Institutional data Household survey data (coverage)
Adequacy: Coverage (of poor)
Figure 12.3 – Coverage of SA Programs by Poverty Group (ENCOVI 2000)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%S
ha
re o
f p
opu
lati
on
in
rec
ipie
nt
ho
us
eh
old
s
Non Poor All Poor Extreme Poor
Adequacy: Benefit LevelsFigure 12.1 - Average Benefit Levels and Dispersion among Social Protection Programs
0
2500
5000
7500
10000
12500
15000
17500
20000
Pen
sio
ns
Su
rviv
ors
hip
Alim
on
y
Sch
ool
Fe
edin
g
Sch
ola
rsh
ips
Sc
hool
ma
teri
als
Sc
hoo
ltr
ans
port
Ele
ctr
icit
ysu
bsid
y
Oth
er
SA
Qz
/ H
ou
seh
old
/ Y
ea
r
Note: Vertical bands indicate the dispersion of benefit levels, from 5th to 95th percentile. World Bank calculations using the ENCOVI 2000, Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas – Guatemala
Poverty Line
Equity Examine: Who receives how much? (distributional incidence of
benefits received across deciles/quintiles) Errors of exclusion, inclusion By welfare group (decile, quintile) Also by other pertinent groups (urban/rural,
informal/formal, gender, race etc.)
Data Needed: Nationally representative household survey data that
includes questions on receipt of program benefits (and how much received)
Such data are currently weak in Brazil (PNAD don’t include social programs)... POF opportunity
Equity: Distributional IncidenceGuatemala: Targeting Outcomes of SP Programs
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
Soc
ial
Insu
ranc
e
Soc
ial
Ass
ista
nce
Sch
ool
Fee
ding
Sch
olar
ship
s
Tra
nspo
rtS
ubsi
dy
Ele
ctric
ityS
ubsi
dy
% o
f ben
efits
rec
eive
d by
poo
rest
(Q
1) a
nd r
iche
st (
Q5)
qui
ntile
s
Q1
Q5
Overall Effectiveness: Coverage, benefits, equity
Figure 12.6 - Effectiveness of Social Assistance in Reducing Poverty
School Feeding
Scholarships
School materials
assistance
Electricity subsidy
Other SA
School transport subsidy
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
-20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Coverage of the poor: % of ex-ante poor receiving the benefit
Note: The size of the bubbles is proportional to the relative importance of the transfer in the consumption of the recipient
Targ
etin
g In
cid
enc
e: %
fund
s g
oin
g t
o e
x-a
nte
poo
r
World Bank calculations using the ENCOVI 2000, Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas – Guatemala
Efficiency
Specific indicators vary by program. Some examples: Social assistance: administrative costs Unit costs: how compare with international
practice or local benchmarks? Pensions: Effective rate of return All programs: does intended budget reach
beneficiaries or are there indications of resources being siphoned off for unintended uses?
Impact on labor markets (discourage work?)
ImpactImpact on relevant outcomes: Changes in poverty, inequality Changes in employment Human capital outcomes (e.g., do more kids
attend school due to conditional transfer?) etc.
Numerous methodologies for assessing these Simulations using household survey data
Simple simulations (given transfer amount received) Simulations taking into account behavioral effects
Ex post impact evaluations (with/without; before/after; control/treatment groups)
ConclusionsImportant to look both at individual programs Efficiency, effectiveness, impact
But also at spending across programs in sector Gaps, duplications, fragmentation Appropriate mix or major biases Multiple providers:
Levels of government (federal, state, local) Various agencies / ministries
Uses of such analyses: Management and planning feedback Possibly suggestive of needed overhaul, integration,
rebalancing of safety net