DSA2018: Global inequalities
- Francesco Burchi (German Development Institute (DIE)) email
- Daniele Malerba (German Development Institute) email
This panel focuses on the interactions among social protection schemes or between them and economic interventions. In particular, it aims to investigate the joint effects of these programs on different dimensions of poverty and on inequality in low- and mid-income countries.
Social protection schemes play a crucial role for inequality and poverty reduction. For example, they can reduce inequality by helping people to better engage in productive activities and, through this channel, increase employment opportunities. However, social protection programs are unlike to influence these productive outcomes in a sustainable manner if they are not part of a broader strategy, or if they are not connected with other social and/or economic policies. This is true even for large programs in Latin America, such as nationwide conditional cash transfers. Recent evidence shows, for example, that cash transfers are unlikely to improve nutrition when they are not linked with nutrition education programmes or micronutrient supplementation to children and women. Similarly, Brazil and other countries have adopted a holistic strategy for poverty eradication, linking social assistance to labor market activation policies and other productive interventions.
This panel intends to focus on (i) the interactions among different social protection schemes; (ii) or between them and other economic interventions. In particular, it aims to investigate whether these programmes have relevant joint effects on monetary and non-monetary dimensions of poverty, as well as on inequality and related dimensions. The final objective is to understand whether joint interventions, which in some cases are not systematically linked, can generate benefits that are larger than the sum of individual interventions. This has been hardly explored in the empirical literature. The panel welcomes empirical, case-study analyses from different low- and middle-income countries, as well as cross-country studies.
This panel is closed to new paper proposals.
Better together than alone? Complementarities between social protection schemes and the role of socio-economic policies
The paper discusses the issues related to the complementarity between different social protection schemes, and the relevance of socio-economic policies, by briefly presenting existing frameworks and evidence; the paper subsequently focuses on the case of Brasil and its Brasil Sem Miséria plan.
Social protection schemes, and especially cash transfer programs, have proven to be effective in reducing poverty and inequality in both the short and long run. This has been accomplished by enhancing human and physical capital investments of households, as well as increasing their productivity and employability. To enhance their effects on this range of outcomes, single social protection schemes may need to be part of a holistic social protection system, but also complemented by other socio-economic policies as part of a broad development strategy. Despite the relevance of this issue, there is a lack of evidence on the interaction between these programs. This is the case as many of these programs have been run in isolation or because evaluation methodologies limit the possibility of analysing the interaction between different policies. The paper briefly discusses the available evidence and the underlining theories and frameworks. It then focuses on the case of Brasil and its Brasil Sem Miséria strategy launched in 2011. This is a relevant example as it unifies social assistance programs (such as Bolsa Família) with productive inclusion, especially in relation to labour markets, and access to goods and services. The analysis will look at how this holistic approach changed the Bolsa Família program and its impact. And it will compare these recent developments to the changes originated by the creation of Bolsa Família in 2003, which unified existing social assistance programs. Finally, the paper will also briefly compare the case of Brasil with other relevant country cases.
Cash, Training or Both? Impact assessment of the Tingathe Economic Empowerment Project in Malawi
Using a mixed-methods approach, the paper assesses the impact of the Economic Empowerment Project in Malawi, and its specific components - lump-sum transfer and/or business training - on several socio-economic outcomes. The aim is to verify whether this is a feasible solution to poverty eradication.
While social protection schemes, such as cash transfers are effective in improving benefi-ciaries' ability to meet their basic needs, the available evidence, especially in Africa, shows that they are unlikely to move them out of extreme poverty in a sustainable manner. Alternative anti-poverty programs, such as BRAC graduation strategies in Bangladesh, seem to contribute to this outcome, but they are costly and it is unclear which component of these multi-sectorial interventions really makes the difference. The present paper tries to fill this knowledge gap, by assessing the impacts of the Tingathe Economic Empowerment Pilot Project in Malawi, designed by GIZ. The project targets ultra-poor and labor-constrained households (who already receive the national social cash transfer) in the district of Mwanza. Designed as a cluster-randomized-control-trial, it provides to different village clusters: a) lump-sum transfer; b) financial/business training; c) both lump-sum transfer and train-ing. The general objective is to verify whether in comparison to a control group the lump-sum transfer, the training, or the combination of the two have a substantial impact on ag-ricultural, business activities, savings, asset accumulation, consumption and food security.
To achieve these objectives, we employed a mixed-methods approach. First, we conducted interviews and focus groups discussions immediately after project implementation to dis-cover how people were using the lump-sum and the training. Then, one year later, we carried out a detailed household survey, consisting of 803 households and covering the three treatment groups and the control group.
Lessons learnt from KMS and PKMS as supplement for social protection scheme. Case studies of Yogyakarta and Surakarta City, Indonesia
The KMS of Yogyakarta in 2009 was adopted by Surakarta in 2010 as PKMS. They became the supplemental system after the national government initiated BPJS Kesehatan in 2014. They prove to reduce the poverty in the city level as they also covered the vulnerable poor, which are not covered by BPJS.
The KMS was initiated by the Yogyakarta city government in 2009, as a social safety net for citizens in the form of free health and education services, dedicated to all poor citizens. As a safety net, the entire citizen in Yogyakarta can get free 3rd class service access in the government-owned clinics and hospital using this KMS. In 2010, the Surakarta city government adopted this scheme as: PKMS for free healthcare and BPMKS for free education. In 2014, the National Government initiated Universal Health Coverage (UHC) through BPJS Kesehatan. All of the poor in Indonesia are included in this scheme. The premium is paid through the national budget. Thus, KMS and PKMS became the supplement for social protection scheme in those cities after the initiation of BPJS Kesehatan.
This research is a part of the researcher's PhD trajectory. This in-depth case study research uses empirical exploratory approach with purposive sampling derived from a list of related participants: Local Governments officers, The Mayors, NGO person, local academia, and communities. The primary data is collected using interview with snowball sampling and focused group, while secondary data is collected from policies and reports to understand the context of problems.
The result shows that the implementation of KMS and PKMS as supplemental system for social protection reduced the poverty in Yogyakarta and Surakarta in comparison to other cities. It is because both also covered the vulnerable poor category, which is not covered in BPJS Kesehatan scheme.
This panel is closed to new paper proposals.