EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE POLICIES: Contributing to Pro-poor Development, Promoting Gender Equality

Rania AntonopoulosTuesday, February 9, 2010

World Academy of Arts and Science e-Conference on the Global Employment Challenge 1

The role of the Markets revisited• Challenge: Sub-prime mortgage crisis in the USA

leads to worldwide turmoil in financial markets…

• Challenge: International market dynamics lead to the crisis of rising food prices….

• Challenge: demand is insufficient to provide jobs and hire those who need and wish

to work; poverty reduction, polarization 2

The role of Government revisited Economic and Social outcomes of Laissez faire, and small

government prove uneven and disappointing

• In financial markets it can ameliorate instability and fragility: different rules and regulation is needed

• In food production markets it can increase food security: price subsidies of staple foods, stockpiling facilities, Malawi’s subsidies of fertilizers,South Africa rethinking land-rights policy

• To address unemployment it can introduce an active labor market policy: ELR, EGP, the State as the employer of last resort

3

Changes in employment to output growth ratio

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

Central andEastern Europe

(non-EU) & CIS

DevelopedCountries and EU

South Asia Latin America andthe Caribbean

Sub-SaharanAfrica

Middle East andNorth Africa

1995-1999

2000-2005

4

Key policy challenge: Poverty Reduction• Earned Income deficits

– Low wages – Lack of employment opportunities (economic growth?

….)

• Government Spending– Social provisioning of goods and services– Social security and protection

• Household production through unpaid work – Daily reproduction of human beings– Fills in gaps in social provisioning and income

5

the state as the employer of last resort ?

the right to work employment security

employment insurance Employment Guarantee Policy

the state did not always have institutions in place to be a lender of last resort nor an investor of last resort

Why an EGS,ELR,PWP?

The right to work promotes …

• Dignity, social inclusion and expanded democracy

• Direct and indirect income creation

• Direct and indirect job creation

• Public and Private Asset creation

• Pro-poor growth

7

Why an EGS,ELR,PWP?The right to work promotes …

• Change our mentality about growth as the single developmental objective and replace it with pro-poor growth, employment creation, social inclusion, and improvement in the life experience of all people

• RESOURSE MOBILIZATION??? LABOUR!!!! But work projects ought to be designed with community

participation and with the objective to promote social cohesion and economic development!!!

and from my own perspective, that also reduce unpaid work

8

What Is Unpaid Work?• Gaining access to basic inputs for cooking,

cleaning, sanitation, food processing etc: collecting water, wood etc

• Providing Care work: children, elderly, chronically ill etc;

• Subsistence Production, family businesses

Where? at home and in the public domain

9

Use of time and gender inequalities

• Time devoted to sleep, self care and social activities

• Time devoted to earned income – Formal work: wage gap?– Informal work : social protection?– underemployment, unemployment: inactivity?

• Time devoted to household production – Unpaid work

10

Total Workload – Earnings Gap: Selected Developing Countries

11

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

India Mauritius South Africa Benin Mongolia Madagascar

Time Spent on Nonmarket Activities (Selected Developing Economies)

Female Male12

Employment Guarantee Programs

-What kinds of jobs and for what types of “projects”?

-Who is eligible? For how long?

-What is the “cost” of such projects and what are the “benefits”? Financing? Are they inflationary?

-Institutional arrangements? Technical expertise?

13

Typology of Direct Job Creation Government Programs

• The Right to Work: INDIA NREGA since 2006

• Recognition of structural unemployment during prosperity: South Africa since 2005, Sweden and Australia (1940’s-70’s)

• ILO Employment Intensive Infrastructure(since 70’s in many African countries)

• Emergency Programmes:Indonesia, Korea, Argentina post 2001 financial crisis, USA (New Deal)

• Social Funds:Bolivia (1986), Chile (1975-1987), Peru (1991)

14

Employment Guarantee Programs

SOUTH AFRICA

Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP)Infrastructure sectorEnvironment sector

Economic/entrepreneur Social sector

15

Unemployment Rate - African, poor/ultra-poor (strict definition)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Urban formal Ultra-poor

Urban formal Poor

Urban informal Ultra-poor

Urban informal Poor

Rural com Ultra-poor

Rural com Poor

Ex-homeland Ultra-poor

Ex-homeland Poor

Female

Male

16

Total Hours Spent on Unpaid Work per Year by Household Type and Gender

0

1,00

0,00

0,00

0

2,00

0,00

0,00

0

3,00

0,00

0,00

0

4,00

0,00

0,00

0

5,00

0,00

0,00

0

6,00

0,00

0,00

0

7,00

0,00

0,00

0

8,00

0,00

0,00

0

Urban Formal African

Urban Formal Coloured/Asian

Urban Formal White

Urban Informal African

Rural Commercial African

Rural Commercial Coloured/Asian

Rural Commercial White

Ex-homeland African

Hou

seh

old

Gro

up

Total Hours Per Year

Female

Male

17

Rural Areas in India Types of Community Projects

Rural roads and access roads

Rural land development

Flood control works

Water conservation and water harvesting

Irrigation facilities to land owned by poor people and to beneficiaries of land reforms

Reactivation of traditional water harvesting and distribution systems

18

EPWPTypes of Community Projects

Road construction and maintenance Water delivery (unpaid work)

Ecological latrines (unpaid work)

Early childhood development (unpaid work)Home and community based care (unpaid work)Environmental water conservation (unpaid work)

Prevention of fires

19

EPWP: Social Sector

• Social Sector consists of – ECD/Education and– HCBC/Health

• High female intensity (60 and 69% respectively) addresses female unemployment in the short run and builds skills in the long-term

20

Background on the Study• Type of Intervention : scaling up Early Childhood

Development and Home/Community Based Care• The right to work , the right types of projects?

unpaid work and gender issues

• Research project on micro-macro impact of scaling up public job creation

• South Africa Study: Kijong Kim (Levy Institute), EPWP interviews , Irwin Friedman (Health Trust Fund)

and PROVIDE team (Dept. of Agriculture),

21

Policy Simulations• All Existing Types of Projects have the potential to reduce unpaid work

and facilitate creation and access to basic services EPWP Working for Water; environment sector (Tsitsikamma 2004/05)EPWP Social Sector (Health Trust Fund)EPWP Infrastructure;Access roads and Water Reticulation (SCIP

Engineering Group)

• Options for Job allocation scheme Jefes variation by population weights (part time year around)NREGA scheme (100 days)Poverty weights-normalized by populationUnemployment weights normalized by poverty incidence

• Target population Poor and ultra poor households comprising (50% of the

unemployed); “unskilled” wages according to programme stipulations and skilled according to SAM

22

EPWP: Social Sector

23

The SAM for South Africa

• Based on PROVIDE, Dept. of Agriculture• Factors disaggregated by skill and gender• 26 sectors• 20 types of hhs• 7 exogenous sectors

1 FGOS2 FMaleUS3 FMaleSk4 FFemUS5 FFemSk

E 53 1 SALTAXX 54 2 INDTAXO 55 3 DIRTAXG 56 4 GOVT

57 5 KAP58 6 DSTOC59 7 ROW

A 27 1 CagricC 28 2 CminingT 29 3 CfoodI 30 4 CtextV 31 5 CpaperI 32 6 CpetroT 33 7 CnonmetI 34 8 CmetalsE 35 9 CmachinS 36 10 Ccomeq

37 11 Ctrnseq38 12 Comanuf39 13 Celec40 14 Cwater41 15 Cbuild42 16 Cconstr43 17 Ctradacc44 18 Ctrnscom45 19 Cfinserv46 20 Cbusserv47 21 Ceduc48 22 Cogovserv49 23 Chealth50 24 Csocial51 25 Coserv52 26 Cdomserv

1 HUF_Af1_32 HUF_Af43 HUF_Af54 HUF_Co1_35 HUF_Co46 HUF_Co57 HUF_Wh8 HUI_Af1_39 HUI_Af4

10 HUI_Af511 HRF_Af1_312 HRF_Af413 HRF_Af514 HRF_Co1_315 HRF_Co416 HRF_Co517 HRF_Wh18 HRI_Af1_319 HRI_Af420 HRI_Af5

24

Types of Households1 HUF_Af1_32 HUF_Af43 HUF_Af54 HUF_Co1_35 HUF_Co46 HUF_Co57 HUF_Wh8 HUI_Af1_39 HUI_Af4

10 HUI_Af511 HRF_Af1_312 HRF_Af413 HRF_Af514 HRF_Co1_315 HRF_Co416 HRF_Co517 HRF_Wh18 HRI_Af1_319 HRI_Af420 HRI_Af5

Urban Formal African Non-PoorUrban Formal African PoorUrban Formal African Ultra PoorUrban Formal Colored Non-PoorUrban Formal Colored PoorUrban Formal Colored Ultra PoorUrban Formal White Non-PoorUrban Informal African Non-PoorUrban Informal African PoorUrban Informal African Ultra PoorRural Commercial African Non-PoorRural Commercial African PoorRural Commercial African Ultra PoorRural Commercial Colored Non-PoorRural Commercial Colored PoorRural Commercial Colored Ultra PoorRural Commercial White Non-PoorEx-homeland African Non-PoorEx-homeland African PoorEx-homeland African Ultra Poor

25

Impact of EPWP Injectionex-ante evaluation of policy scenariosex-ante evaluation of policy scenarios

• Direct and indirect job creation (skill level/gender/sector)

• Direct and indirect income received by type of hh• Depth of poverty reduction • GDP growth? Pro-poor growth?Sectoral growth?• Fiscal space expansion?• Impact of new assets and service delivery for participants

and community

26

Simulation Results

9 billion Rand, full time-year around jobs

• Direct job creation (1,2million)

• Indirect job creation: for every 3 EPWP, another one in the economy is created

• GDP (+1.7%), tax expansion (1/3 recovered)

• Poverty reduction: pro-poor growth! 27

Costs and Benefits

• Social inclusion • Income-Poverty reduction? This depends on the length

and duration of jobs, wages and targeting method• Asset poverty reduction!!! • Service delivery!!!• Gender equality in unpaid and paid work• Pro-poor development• Monetary cost: 1% of GDP ….?3% of GDP?• Opportunity cost of not mobilizing domestic

resources? 28

Social impacts of this crisis

• ILO: 200 m. more working poor • ILO: Unemployment to rise by 51m• World Bank: 53 million more people in poverty

This is on top of the 130-155 million people pushed into poverty in 2008 because of soaring food and fuel prices

• Social spending is at risk – decline in state revenues– ODA volatility and financing for MDGs

• Rising social unrest• Crisis is expected to lead to greatest security risks

29

A framework to understand the economy and this crisis from a gender perspective

Financial sector

Market Production sector

Government Sector

Household production sector, plus Care, Reproduction and fulfillment of basic needs of people

Paid formal

Unpaid Work

Paid informal

30

A framework that can lead to a different path of development

Financial sector

Market Production sector

Government sector

Household production, Reproduction and fulfillment of basic needs of people

Functional Distribution of Income ?

Washington Consensus, Inflation

targetingDeficits, IMF, Social

spending???

Neglect of domestic demand, reliance on exports, commodity

chain production Financial market

Liberalization

31

Thank you

Appendix

33

EPWP: Working for Water

2

Input composition –matching budget report to SAM structure

Tsitsikamma Working for Water program 2004/05 (unit: Rand) Basic salary 244,800 Admin costs 636,188 Inventory 27,636 Equipment 21,684 Building (rental) 1,500 Professional service 1,238,246 Running costs 2,000 Equipment maintenance 43,850 (management) Equipment maintenance 38,602 (contractors) Service providers 373,039 Contracts (labor) 702,986 Contractors and workers 77,769 (training days) Total 2,170,054

Source: Tsitsikamma Working For Water program 2004/05.

To follow input composition of Government services.

Business service

Other manufacturing

Wage for skilled staff

Workers’ wage (skilled/unskilled)

34

EPWP: Working for Water

4

Daily wage computation –EPWP Environmental WfW project

Title Daily wage Men Women

Contractor 120 3 3 Foreman 60 2 1

Chain saw 50 3 0 Herbicide applicator 40 1 8

Brush cutter 35 2 0 Laborer 35 3 10

Source: Tsitsikamma Working For Water program 2004/05.

Skilled labor

(120*6/12) +(60*3/12) +(50*3/12) = 88 Rand

Unskilled labor

(40*9/24)+(35*2/24)+(35*13/24) = 37 Rand

35

EPWP: Infrastructure, Water Reticulation

• A sample of EPWP infrastructure projects needed.

• Data sources

(a) cash flow information of Makhwilema Construction Company on a water reticulation contract-Tweenfontein B.

(b) a tender submitted for a bulk water master plan for Jackaroo Ringfeed by SCIP Engineering Group.

36

Name of Contractor: Makhwilema Construction ccProject Name Water Reticulation - Tweefontein BContract Value: 754,908.00 Start Date Completin Date

754,908.00 2007/03/09 2007/06/15Financial Institution: Contact Person Contact NumberABSA Andries Pretorius (013) 656-5401Period No 1 2 3 4 5 Total

25-Mar-07 25-Apr-07 25-May-07 25-Jun-07 25-Jul-07 TotalProgress payment %age 13.42% 33.54% 40.25% 12.79% 100.00%Period ending dateReceiptsOwn Capital/opening balance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Progress payment 0.00 101,308.65 253,196.14 303,850.47 96,552.73 754,908.00Other income 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Income from previous period 0.00 (160,885.00) (168,236.35) (50,700.20) 172,490.27Total Receipts (A) 0.00 (59,576.35) 84,959.80 253,150.27 269,043.00 754,908.00

Expenses 0.00Site establishment 12,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12,000.00Equpment Hire / Purchase and tools 36,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 36,500.00Maintenance of equip& running 725.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 725.00Rent 900.00 900.00 900.00 900.00 900.00 4,500.00Insurances 5,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,500.00Wages 18,000.00 18,000.00 35,000.00 20,000.00 15,000.00 106,000.00CLO 1,600.00 1,600.00 1,600.00 1,600.00 0.00 6,400.00WCA 7,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7,500.00Salaries 13,000.00 13,000.00 13,000.00 13,000.00 13,000.00 65,000.00Materials 55,000.00 65,000.00 75,000.00 35,000.00 0.00 230,000.00Fuel 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 10,000.00Accounting Fees 1,500.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 0.00 6,000.00Toilet 2,160.00 2,160.00 2,160.00 2,160.00 0.00 8,640.00Phone 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 0.00 4,000.00Computer running costs 400.00 400.00 400.00 400.00 400.00 2,000.00Statienery 350.00 350.00 350.00 350.00 0.00 1,400.00Bank charges 750.00 750.00 750.00 750.00 750.00 3,750.00Interest Repayment 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 10,000.00Total Expenses (B) 160,885.00 108,660.00 135,660.00 80,660.00 34,050.00 519,915.00Closing Balance (A-B) (Loan Required) (160,885.00) (168,236.35) (50,700.20) 172,490.27 234,993.00Profit / Loss

EPWP:Infrastructure

37

EPWP: Social Sector

• Social Sector consists of ECD/Education and HCBC/Health

• High female intensity (60 and 69% respectively) addresses female unemployment in the short run and builds skills in the long-term

• Data source: Friedman, Irwin, Bhengu, L., Mothibe, N., Reynolds, N., and Mafuleka, A., (2007) Scaling up the EPWP,Health Systems Trust, November, Volume 1-4. Study commissioned by Development Bank of South Africa and EPWP.

38

EPWP: Social Sector

39

EPWP: Social SectorMatching Gender Decomposition

Titles Matching activity Male Female Male FemaleSchool nutrition workers Domestic services 0.17 0.83 0.22 0.78Sports coaching facilitators Education 0.51 0.49 0.39 0.61School caretakers Building 0.96 0.04 0.90 0.10Adult education workers Education 0.51 0.49 0.39 0.61Special school teaching aide EducationSchool clerical workers Government services 0.77 0.23 0.61 0.39Peer educators EducationSocial security workers Social care 0.52 0.48 0.20 0.80Food security workers Government servicesVCT counselors Health care 0.26 0.74 0.34 0.66Community health facilitators Health careCommunity health workers Health careCommunity caregivers Health careTB & DOTS supporters Health careTreatment supporters Health careMalaria workers Health care

Unskilled SkilledMatching into SAM activities

40

EPWP: Social Sector

8

Unskilled jobs

Skilled jobs

Wage payment

Follow the expenditure of corresponding sector.

Skilled Wage payment

41

Matching input composition to SAM

Social Sector No ag & food Double 60 40 Working for Water

(%) mill. Rand (%) mill. Rand (%) mill. Rand (%) mill. Rand Male Skilled 1.9% 180 3.3% 309 3.0% 275 19.5% 1809

Female Skilled 3.2% 296 5.5% 509 4.9% 454 13.7% 1276

EPWP Male 13.4% 1248 23.1% 2143 24.0% 2230 6.3% 587 EPWP Female 18.6% 1733 32.0% 2978 36.0% 3346 24.9% 2318

Agriculture 10.5% 974 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.1% 12

Mining 0.1% 9 0.2% 16 0.2% 14 0.1% 14 Food 31.3% 2910 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.2% 17

Textile 0.4% 40 0.7% 68 0.7% 60 0.6% 58

Paper 0.5% 42 0.8% 72 0.7% 64 0.7% 61 Petroleum 0.4% 37 0.7% 63 0.6% 56 0.6% 53

Nonmetal 2.3% 215 4.0% 370 3.5% 330 3.0% 275

Metal 0.2% 21 0.4% 37 0.3% 33 0.2% 23 Machinery 0.7% 65 1.2% 111 1.1% 99 1.1% 100

Comm. equipment 1.1% 102 1.9% 175 1.7% 156 1.6% 147

Transp. equipment 2.5% 236 4.4% 406 3.9% 362 5.0% 462 Other Mfg. 0.5% 43 0.8% 74 0.7% 65 1.5% 142

Electricity 0.1% 13 0.2% 23 0.2% 21 0.2% 19

Water 0.1% 7 0.1% 12 0.1% 11 0.1% 11 Building 0.5% 42 0.8% 72 0.7% 65 0.3% 31

Construction 0.3% 31 0.6% 52 0.5% 47 0.4% 36

42

Simulation Results:comparisons across projects

• Direct job creation

• Indirect job creation

• GDP, pro-poor growth, tax-base expansion

• Poverty reduction for participating households (job allocation acc to two diff methods)

43

EPWP Intervention - Direct job creation (# of annual jobs - 240 working days)

Types of Male Male Female Female Total Intervention (9.29 bn) Unskilled Skilled Unskilled Skilled JobsSocial sector 228,184 9,928 317,007 16,386 571,505Double 60 40 407,948 15,235 611,922 25,143 1,060,248Working for Water 87,353 113,428 344,864 80,026 625,670Water reticulation 127,374 36,488 3,036 2,294 169,192McCord L 373,218 13,824 0 0 387,043McCord M 70,291 26,832 0 0 97,124

Social sector 39.9% 1.7% 55.5% 2.9% 100.0%Double 60 40 38.5% 1.4% 57.7% 2.4% 100.0%Working for Water 14.0% 18.1% 55.1% 12.8% 100.0%Water reticulation 75.3% 21.6% 1.8% 1.4% 100.0%McCord L 96.4% 3.6% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%McCord M 72.4% 27.6% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

44

EPWP Intervention - Indirect job creation (# of annual jobs - 240 working days)Types of Male Male Female Female Total Intervention (9.29 bn) Unskilled Skilled Unskilled Skilled Jobs(daily wage) 83 317 47 195Social sector 69,875 33,455 66,053 23,511 192,893Double 60 40 65,449 35,032 61,948 28,098 190,526Working for Water 61,197 33,631 61,292 25,211 181,331Water reticulation 47,933 26,037 46,264 17,835 138,069McCord L 55,578 27,189 50,148 18,257 151,172McCord M 51,919 25,394 45,557 16,749 139,618

Social sector 36.2% 17.3% 34.2% 12.2% 100.0%Double 60 40 34.4% 18.4% 32.5% 14.7% 100.0%Working for Water 33.7% 18.5% 33.8% 13.9% 100.0%Water reticulation 34.7% 18.9% 33.5% 12.9% 100.0%McCord L 36.8% 18.0% 33.2% 12.1% 100.0%McCord M 37.2% 18.2% 32.6% 12.0% 100.0%

45

GDP, Tax, and Income change by household typeTypes of ULTRA NONIntervention (9.29 bn) GDP TAX POOR POOR POORSocial sector 1.8% 1.5% 5.6% 9.2% 1.3%Double 60 40 2.1% 1.5% 9.3% 16.2% 1.3%Working for Water 2.1% 1.6% 5.5% 9.0% 1.7%Water reticulation 1.7% 1.3% 2.8% 4.3% 1.3%McCord L 1.7% 1.5% 4.4% 7.2% 1.3%McCord M 1.4% 1.5% 2.0% 2.8% 1.2%

46

Poverty impact Household Depth of Poverty No

EPWP social sector intervention Population participation Household Income (Rand) Adult equiv. Reduction ofweights rate Before After Change Poverty line Before After % HHs

Urban Formal African Poor 16.1% 14% 15033 21753 45% 15,513 (480) 6240 1399% 87965Urban Formal African Ultra Poor 7.7% 14% 7818 14538 86% 18,770 (10952) (4232) 61% 41962Urban Formal Colored Poor 2.6% 14% 16029 22749 42% 16,458 (429) 6291 1567% 14057Urban Formal Colored Ultra Poor 1.0% 14% 7417 14137 91% 16,277 (8861) (2141) 76% 5514Urban Informal African Poor 7.8% 14% 11336 18056 59% 12,196 (860) 5860 781% 42615Urban Informal African Ultra Poor 4.1% 14% 6134 12854 110% 14,630 (8496) (1776) 79% 22210Rural Commercial African Poor 7.7% 14% 12750 19470 53% 13,801 (1051) 5669 639% 42094Rural Commercial African Ultra Poor 7.2% 14% 7801 14521 86% 18,595 (10794) (4074) 62% 39014Rural Commercial Colored Poor 1.1% 14% 13420 20140 50% 13,622 (203) 6517 3313% 5748Rural Commercial Colored Ultra Poor 0.2% 14% 7733 14453 87% 15,833 (8100) (1380) 83% 1213Ex-homeland African Poor 21.2% 14% 12746 19466 53% 14,079 (1333) 5387 504% 115463Ex-homeland African Ultra Poor 23.4% 14% 7021 13741 96% 17,375 (10354) (3634) 65% 127621

47

Poverty impactHousehold Depth of Poverty No

EPWP social sector intervention Population participation Household Income (Rand) Adult equiv. Reduction ofweights rate Before After Change Poverty line Before After % HHs

Urban Formal African Poor 16.1% 14% 15033 21753 45% 15,513 (480) 6240 1399% 87965Urban Formal African Ultra Poor 7.7% 14% 7818 14538 86% 18,770 (10952) (4232) 61% 41962Urban Formal Colored Poor 2.6% 14% 16029 22749 42% 16,458 (429) 6291 1567% 14057Urban Formal Colored Ultra Poor 1.0% 14% 7417 14137 91% 16,277 (8861) (2141) 76% 5514Urban Informal African Poor 7.8% 14% 11336 18056 59% 12,196 (860) 5860 781% 42615Urban Informal African Ultra Poor 4.1% 14% 6134 12854 110% 14,630 (8496) (1776) 79% 22210Rural Commercial African Poor 7.7% 14% 12750 19470 53% 13,801 (1051) 5669 639% 42094Rural Commercial African Ultra Poor 7.2% 14% 7801 14521 86% 18,595 (10794) (4074) 62% 39014Rural Commercial Colored Poor 1.1% 14% 13420 20140 50% 13,622 (203) 6517 3313% 5748Rural Commercial Colored Ultra Poor 0.2% 14% 7733 14453 87% 15,833 (8100) (1380) 83% 1213Ex-homeland African Poor 21.2% 14% 12746 19466 53% 14,079 (1333) 5387 504% 115463Ex-homeland African Ultra Poor 23.4% 14% 7021 13741 96% 17,375 (10354) (3634) 65% 127621

Poverty- Household Depth of Poverty No of AveragePopulation Participation Household income (Rand) Adult equiv. Reduction ParticipatingHH incomeweights rate Before After Change Poverty line Before After % HHs change

Urban Formal African Poor 1.5% 19% 15033 15514 3% 15,513 (480) 1 100% 119331 2%Urban Formal African Ultra Poor 16.8% 30% 7818 14538 86% 18,770 (10952) (4232) 61% 91652 18%Urban Formal Colored Poor 0.2% 19% 16029 16459 3% 16,458 (429) 1 100% 19018 1%Urban Formal Colored Ultra Poor 1.8% 24% 7417 14137 91% 16,277 (8861) (2141) 76% 9744 14%Urban Informal African Poor 1.3% 19% 11336 12197 8% 12,196 (860) 1 100% 57287 2%Urban Informal African Ultra Poor 6.9% 23% 6134 12854 110% 14,630 (8496) (1776) 79% 37637 16%Rural Commercial African Poor 1.6% 19% 12750 13802 8% 13,801 (1051) 1 100% 56517 2%Rural Commercial African Ultra Poor 15.4% 30% 7801 14521 86% 18,595 (10794) (4074) 62% 83988 17%Rural Commercial Colored Poor 0.0% 19% 13420 13623 2% 13,622 (203) 1 100% 7767 1%Rural Commercial Colored Ultra Poor 0.4% 22% 7733 14453 87% 15,833 (8100) (1380) 83% 1959 12%Ex-homeland African Poor 5.6% 19% 12746 14080 10% 14,079 (1333) 1 100% 155011 2%Ex-homeland African Ultra Poor 48.3% 29% 7021 13741 96% 17,375 (10354) (3634) 65% 263525 19%

48

Job creation due to an additional expenditure of one million dollars in the US stimulus

package ($USD)Green Energy*

InfrastructureSocial Care

Number of jobs created 17 11 24

Distribution of jobs created by level of

education

High School or less 8 8 16

Some college 5 1 4

College Graduate 4 2 3

Total 17 11 24

49

member institutions...

 

member institutions...we are...a group of economists working towards building a global informal network of academics, policy advisors, institutions, advocates and members of government, committed to the realization of the right to work…

www.economistsforfullemployment.org

we are committed to...joining forces with all who foster public dialogue and seek to promote employment guarantee around the world. Together, we can provide coherent, viable policy alternatives that lead to inclusive and just outcomes for all…

50

We aim to…Promote public dialogue and build towards a worldwide campaign

Leverage and influence the policies and programs of development agencies and financial institutions for improved employment outcomes.

Build communities of learning and foster public awareness on existing country level experiences.

Engage in teaching and policy oriented research

Explore linkages between development, poverty reduction and macroeconomic coordination policies

51

COUNTRIES REPRESENTED

Morocco South AfricaIndia

Costa Rica

ArgentinaColumbia

Bulgaria

United StatesTunisia

Ghana

MexicoAustralia

Canada

Djibouti

Belgium

Turkey

Georgia

Luxembourg

Switzerland

Iran

Brazil

52