Pro-Growth Social Policies for Latin America

  • Miguel Székely

Abstract

Most governments in the developing world explicitly consider absolute poverty reduction as their main — or at least as one of their main — priorities in the agenda. In fact, all those endorsing the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) have committed publicly to cut poverty by half between 1990 and 2015.2

Keywords

Labor Supply Poverty Reduction School Attendance Social Assistance Impact Evaluation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adato, M., D. Coady, and M. Ruel (2000) “Final report: an operation’s evaluation of Progresa from the perspective of beneficiaries, promoters, school directors, and health staff,“ International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, August.Google Scholar
  2. Aghion, P. and B. Armendâriz de Aghion (2004) “A new approach to poverty alleviation,” Mimeo, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  3. Aghion, P., E. Caroli, and C. Garcia-Penalosa (1999) “Inequality and economic growth: the perspective of the New Growth Theories,” Journal of Economic Literature, 37(4), December.Google Scholar
  4. Ahmed, A. and C. del Ninno (2001) “Food for education program in Bangladesh: an evaluation of its impact on educational attainment and food security,” International Food Policy Research Center, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  5. Alesina, R. and D. Rodrik (1994) “Distributive politics and economic growth,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108, pp. 465–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Attanasio, O., E. Fitzsimons, and A. Gómez (2005) “The impact of a conditional education subsidy on school enrolment in Colombia,” Center for the Evaluation of Development Policies, Institute of Fiscal Studies, London, March.Google Scholar
  7. Attanasio, O., E. Battistin, E. Fitzsimons, A. Mesnard, and M. Vera-Hernandez (2005) “How effective are conditional cash transfers? Evidence from Colombia,” IFS Briefing Notes, BN54, January.Google Scholar
  8. Attanasio, O., C. Meghir and M. Székely (2004) “Using randomized experiments and structural models for ‘scaling up’: evidence from the Progresa evaluation,” in F. Bourguignon and B. Pleskovic (eds), Annual World Bank Conference in Development Economics, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Attanasio, O. and M. Székely (2001) “Going beyond income: redefining poverty in Latin America,” chapter 1, in O. Attanasio and M. Székely (eds), Poverty and Assets in Latin America, Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Banerjee, A.V. and A.F. Newman (1993) “Occupational choice and the process of development,” Journal of Political Economy, 101 (2), pp. 274–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Behrman, J. and J. Hodinott (2001) “An evaluation of the impact of Progresa on preschool child height,” FCND Discussion Paper no. 104, International Food Policy Research, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  12. Behrman, J., P. Segupta, and P. Todd (2001) “Progressing through Progreso: an impact assessment of a school subsidy experiment,” Pier Working Paper no. 01–033, International Food Policy Research, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  13. Blackorby, C. and D. Donaldson (1998) “Cash versus in-kind, self selection, and efficient transfers,” American Economic Review, 78 (4), pp. 691–700.Google Scholar
  14. Bourguignon, F. (2004) The Poverty-Growth-Inequality Triangle, The World Bank, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  15. Caldés, N., D. Coady, and J. Maluccio (2004) “The cost of poverty alleviation transfer programs: a comparative analysis of three programs in Latin America,” Food Consumption and Nutrition Division, FCND Discussion Paper no. 174, International Food Policy Research, Washington, DC, April.Google Scholar
  16. Coady, D. and S. Morley (2004) “From social assistance to social development: targeted education subsidies in developing countries,” Center for Global Development, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  17. Coady, D., M. Grosh, and J. Hoddinott (2004a) “Targeting outcomes redux,” The World Bank Research Observer, 19 (1).Google Scholar
  18. Coady, D., M. Grosh, and J. Hoddinott (2004b) “Targeting transfers in developing countries: review of lessons and experience,” The World Bank, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  19. de Janvry, A. and E. Sadoulet (2006) “Making conditional cash transfer programs more efficient: designing for maximum effect of the conditionality,” The World Bank Economic Review, February 1.Google Scholar
  20. Di Tella, R. and W. Savedoff (2001) “Diagnosis corruption: fraud in Latin America’s public hospitals,” Johns Hopkins, Inter American Development Bank, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  21. Dollar, D. and A. Kraay (2002) “Growth is good for the poor,” Journal of Economic Growth, 7 (3), pp. 195–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ekman, B. (2004) “Community-based health insurance in low-income countries: a systematic review of the evidence”. Health Policy and Planning, 19, pp. 249–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Foster, J. and M. Székely (2000) “How good is growth?,” Asian Development Review, 18 (2), pp. 59–73.Google Scholar
  24. Galor, O. and J. Zeira (1993) “Income distribution and macroeconomics,” Review of Economic Studies, 60, pp. 35–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gelbach, J.B. and L. Pritchett (2002) “Is more for the poor less for the poor? The politics of means-tested targeting,” Topics in Economic Analysis and Policy, 2 (1).Google Scholar
  26. Gertler, P. and S. Boyce (2001) “An experiment in incentive-based welfare: the impact of Progresa on health in Mexico,” Mimeo.Google Scholar
  27. Hernandez Licona, G. and M. Székely (2005) “Labor productivity: the link between economic growth and poverty in Mexico,” in M.J. Bane and R. Zenteno (eds), Poverty and Poverty Reduction Strategies: Lessons from Mexican and International Experience, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  28. Hoddinot, J. and E. Skoufias (2003) “The impact of PROGRESA on food consumption,” International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Discussion Paper no. 150, Washington, DC, May.Google Scholar
  29. IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute) (2003) “Proyecto PRAF/BID: impacto condicional,” Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  30. Irarrâzaval, I. (2004) “Sistemas ünicos de informacion sobre beneficiarios en América Latina,” Dialogo Regional de Politica, Inter American Development Bank, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  31. Jakab, M., C. Krishnan, A. Preker, A. Gumber, A. Kelly, K. Ranson, P. Schneider, and S. Supakankunti (2001) “The impact of community financing on health, protection against impoverishment and social inclusion: what do household data tell us?,” The World Bank HNP Discussion Paper submitted as a Background Report for the Commission on Macro-Economics and Health, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  32. Kakwani, N., B. Prakash, and H. Son (2000) “Growth, inequality and poverty: an introduction,” Asian Development Review, 18 (2), pp. 1–21.Google Scholar
  33. Kanbur, R., M. Keen, and M. Tuomala (1994) “Labor supply and targeting in poverty alleviation programs,” The World Bank Economic Review 8 (May), pp. 191–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kanbur, R. (1987a) “Structural adjustment, macroeconomic adjustment and poverty: a methodology of analysis,” World Development, 15 (12), pp. 1515–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kanbur, R. (1987b) “Measurement and alleviation of poverty,” IMF Staff Papers, no. 34, pp. 60–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kanbur, R. (1985) “Poverty: measurement, alleviation and the impact of macroeconomic adjustment,” University of Essex Discussion Paper no. 125, Essex, England.Google Scholar
  37. Machinea, J.L., A. Bârcena, and A. Leon (2005) Objetivos de Desarrollo del Milenio: una mirada desde América Latina y el Caribe, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), Santiago de Chile.Google Scholar
  38. Maluccio, J. and R. Flores (2005) “Impact evaluation of a conditional cash transfer program: the Nicaraguan Red de Proteccion Social,” International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  39. Navarro, J.C. (2003) “Who are the teachers? Teaching careers and incentives in Latin America,” Johns Hopkins/Inter American Development Bank, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  40. Parker, S. and E. Skoufias (2000) “Final Report: the impact of PROGRESA on work, leisure, and time allocation,” International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  41. Persson, T. and G. Tabellini (1994) “Is inequality harmful for growth?,” American Economic Review, 84, pp. 600–621.Google Scholar
  42. Rawlings, L.B. (2004) “A new approach to social assistance: Latin America’s experience with conditional cash transfer programs,” Social Protection Discussion Paper no. 0416, The World Bank, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  43. Rawlings, L.B. and G. Rubio (2003) “Evaluating the impact of conditional cash transfer programs: lessons from Latin America,” The World Bank Policy Research Working Paper no. 3119, The World Bank, Washington, DC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rodriguez, E. and S. Levy (2005) “El Programa de Educacion, Salud y Alimentacion, PROGRESA-Programa de Desarrollo Humano Oportunidades,” chapter 4, in S. Levy, (ed.), Ensayos sobre el Desarrollo Econômico y Social de México, Fondo de Cultura Economica, México, D.F.Google Scholar
  45. Sadoulet, E., F. Finan, A. de Janvry, and R. Vakis (2004) “Can conditional cash transfer programs improve risk management?,” SP Discussion Paper no. 0420, The World Bank, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  46. Savedoff, W. (1998) “Organization matters: education and health in Latin America,” Johns Hopkins, Inter American Development Bank, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  47. Savedoff, W., R. Levine, and N. Birdsall (2006) “When will we ever learn? Recommendations to improve social development through enhanced impact evaluation,” consultation draft of a Center for Global Development Working Group Report, Center for Global Development, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  48. Schultz, T.P. (2001) “School subsidies for the poor: evaluating a Mexican strategy for reducing poverty,” International Food Policy Research, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  49. Sedlacek, G., N. Ilahi, and E. Gustafsson-Wright (2000) “Targeted conditional transfer programs in Latin America: an early survey,” The World Bank, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  50. Skoufias, E., B. Davis, and J. Behrman (2004) “Final Report: an evaluation of the selection of beneficiary households in the Education, Health, and Nutrition Program (PROGRESA) of Mexico,” International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  51. Székely, M. (2006) “Midiendo el grado de institucionalidad de la politica social en América Latina,” Mimeo.Google Scholar
  52. Székely, M. and E. Rascon (2005) “México 2000–2002: reduccion de la pobreza con estabilidad y expansion de programas sociales,” Economia Mexicana, 14 (2).Google Scholar
  53. Székely, M. (1998) The Economics of Poverty, Inequality and Wealth Accumulation in Mexico, MacMillan, Basingstoke.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tabor, S. R. (2002) “Assisting the poor with cash: design and implementation of social transfer programs,” Social Safety Net Primer Series, The World Bank Institute, The World Bank, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  55. Victora, C.G. (1995) “A systematic review of UNICEF-supported evaluations and studies, 1992–1993,” no. 3, UNICEF Evaluation & Research Working Paper Series, New York.Google Scholar
  56. World Bank (2001a) “Brazil, an assessment of the Bolsa Escola Program,” Human Development Department, Latin American and the Caribbean Region, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  57. World Bank (2001b) Poverty Reduction and the World Bank: Progress in Fiscal 2000, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  58. World Bank (1999) Poverty Reduction and the World Bank: Progress in Fiscal 1998, Washington, DC.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Miguel Székely

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations