Indicators to Monitor Investment in Social Protection

Simone CecchiniSocial Development Division

Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) 

New Horizons in Economic and Social Rights Monitoring , CESR, Madrid, 22-23 March 2012

Third Annual Meeting of Metrics for Human Rights and Development

 The right to social protection

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966)

• American Convention on Human Rights (1969) and Protocol of San Salvador (1988)• Rights to social security, work, adequate standard of living,

health, nutrition, education• At ECLAC we believe that the State has to play a crucial role in the

provision of social protection• Ensure sufficient social investment and funding sources

Social investment has increased over the last two decades (it now stands at 17.9% of GDP in LAC),

but varies considerably among countries

Source: Cecchini and Martinez (2012)

 Investment in conditional cash transfer (CCT) programmes in Latin America and the Caribbean

stands at 0.4% of GDP

• Non-contributory social protection programmes• Cash transfers to poor families with children, on condition they

fulfill certain commitments in education, health and nutrition• CCTs began in Brazil and Mexico in the mid-1990s, now present in

18 Latin American and Caribbean countries• Growth of CCTs has been continuous

• CCTs reach 25 million families (close to 113 million people) in Latin America and the Caribbean (19.3% of total population)

• Several criticisms made from a rights perspective• Targeting contradicts the principle of universality• Conditionalities generate an improper distinction between the

“deserving” and “undeserving” poor

In several countries the number of CCT beneficiaries is greater than the number of extremely poor persons, but

there are exclusion and inclusion errorsLATIN AMERICA (17 COUNTRIES): COVERAGE OF CONDITIONAL CASH TRANSFER PROGRAMMES (CCT), 2006/2009

(as percentage of the poor and indigent population)

Source: Cecchini and Madariaga (2011). Note: CCT coverage in relation to the poor and indigent does not take into account inclusion and exclusion errors.

Ecuad

or (2

010)

Urugu

ay (2

009)

Brasil

(201

0)

Mex

ico (2

010)

Colom

bia (2

009)

Chile

(200

8)

Argen

tina

(201

0)

Domini

can.

Rep

. (20

09)

Panam

a (2

009)

Guate

mala

(201

0)

Peru

(201

0)

Costa

Rica

(200

9)

Bolivia

(Plr.

S. o

f) (2

009)

El Salv

ador

(200

9)

Parag

uay

(201

0)0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0228.3 341.0 272.0 187.9 124.6 189.7 139.1

89.0

81.0

70.5

60.6

52.2 50.7

38.7

25.2

100.2

84.6 84.6

62.8

56.5

51.7

46.4 46.3

39.5 39.7

21.217.4

32.4

17.113.9

People living in extreme poverty People living in poverty

CC

T b

enef

icia

ries

/ E

xtre

mel

y p

oo

r an

d p

oo

r p

op

ula

tio

n

> 100

...

> 100 > 100 > 100 > 100 > 100 > 100

 Monitoring the right to social protection

• General Comment no. 19 on the right to social security, which includes both contributory and non-contributory schemes, by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) (2008): • “benefits, whether in cash or in kind, must be adequate in

amount and duration in order that everyone may realize his or her rights to family protection and assistance [and] an adequate standard of living”

• “States parties should develop a national strategy for the full implementation of the right to social security, and should allocate adequate fiscal and other resources at the national level”

• “To assist the monitoring process, right to social security indicators should be identified in order that the State party's obligations can be monitored at the national and international levels”

 Indicator to monitor if the State is allocating adequate resources in CCTs to eradicate

extreme poverty (MDG1)

• Ratio between CCT investment and the aggregate resource deficit of the extremely poor population• Aggregate deficit calculated by dividing GDP by the resources

needed to lift all the country extremely poor population out of extreme poverty

• Aggregate deficit underestimates the scale of real monetary flows necessary to eradicate extreme poverty permanently• Calculation assumes that the transfer of resources is perfectly

targeted (both in terms of beneficiary selection and setting of transfer sums for each person) and does not generate administrative costs

• Poverty cannot be eradicated using current income transfers alone, but requires multidimensional and long-term interventions aimed at breaking its intergenerational transmission

 LATIN AMERICA (14 COUNTRIES): SPENDING IN CCT OVER THE ANNUAL

AGGREGATE RESOURCE DEFICIT AMONG THE INDIGENT POPULATION,

2009 (%)

Source: Cecchini and Madariaga (2011). Notes: a 2008; b 2007.

CCTs cover on average 30% of the annual aggregate resource deficit of the extremely poor population with

respect to the indigence line

Simple averages in countries with high human development: 120.7%

Simple averages in countries with medium human development: 12.9%

Urugu

ay

Costa

Rica

Ecuad

or

Brasil

Mex

ico a

Chile

Panam

a a

Colom

bia

Domini

can

Rep.

Bolivia

(Plur

. Sta

te o

f) b

Parag

uay

Guate

mala

b

Hondu

ras

El Salv

ador

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

93.0

31.7

27.625.0

22.1 20.9

14.5

6.4

10.8

6.23.1 2.7 1.4 0.4

 LATIN AMERICA (14 COUNTRIES): SPENDING IN CCT OVER THE ANNUAL

AGGREGATE RESOURCE DEFICIT AMONG THE POOR POPULATION, 2009

(%)

Source: Cecchini and Madariaga (2011). Notes: a 2008; b 2007.

CCTs cover on average 7% of the annual aggregate resource deficit of the poor population with respect to

the poverty line

Simple averages in countries with high human development: 22.2%

Simple averages in countries with medium human development: 3.4%

 Indicators to monitor if the amounts of CCT benefits are adequate

• Value of transfer as a percentage of extreme poverty/poverty lines

• Value of transfer as a percentage of monthly income deficit of extremely poor/poor• National extreme poverty/poverty lines calculated by ECLAC• Minimum and maximum transfer values (according to rules of

operations or own estimates)• Transfer values compared against lines for the same year, by

geographical area• Values of transfers and poverty lines in per capita terms

CCT transfers as a percentage of poverty and extreme poverty lines (urban and rural)

Source: Cecchini and Madariaga (2011).

Source: Cecchini and Madariaga (2011).

CCT transfers as a percentage of average monthly resource deficit population living in extreme

poverty (urban and rural)

On average, transfers manage to bring CCT recipients closer to the extreme poverty line, but

they are insufficient to overcome it

Source: Cecchini and Madariaga (2011).

Minimum monthly per capita amounts of the transfers (simple average) 

Dollars % indigence line % poverty line % monthly deficit, indigents

% monthly deficit, poor

Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural

6 11 12 5 7 28 31 14 17

Maximum monthly per capita amounts of the transfers (simple average) 

Dollars % indigence line % poverty line % monthly deficit, indigents

% monthly deficit, poor

Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural

16 29 35 20 81 98 40 5315

LATIN AMERICA (12 COUNTRIES): VALUE OF CCT TRANSFERS AND PERCENTAGES THEY REPRESENT OF THE EXTREME POVERTY AND POVERTY LINES AND OF THE MONTHLY RESOURCE DEFICIT OF THE EXTREMELY POOR

AND POOR POPULATION, AROUND 2008