Conditional Cash Transfers

Fiszbein, Ariel; Schady, Norbert; Ferreira, Francisco; Grosh, Margaret; Keleher, Niall; Olinto, Pedro; Skoufias, Emmanuel

doi:10.1596/978-0-8213-7352-1

Cited by 1,224 publications

(539 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

425

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The likelihood of falling back into poverty is also greater in Montevideo than in rural areas. With respect to the previous result and taking into account that the coverage of households with children through CCT programs is already one of the more generous in the region (Fiszbein and Schady 2009), the policy response to ensuring greater protection of the poor and vulnerable from falling back into poverty during a potential future crisis should not be focused on raising the value of transfers, but on (1) improving the flexibility of program design and implementation to target the poor more effectively and to facilitate scaling down, (2) building mechanisms into existing safety nets so that these can expand the support available to highly vulnerable people who may fall into poverty, and (3) redesigning existing programs to address simultaneously the differentiated structural and transient causes of poverty and the vulnerability of falling back into poverty, while creating programs aimed at population groups currently underserved by the system, such as households composed of young adults with no children. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 73%

Is Uruguay More Resilient This Time? Distributional Impacts of a Crisis Similar to the 2001–02 Argentine Crisis

Cabanillas

Lugo²,

Nielsen

et al. 2015

JBFE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 2001-02 Argentine crisis had a profound impact on Uruguay's economy. Uruguay's gross domestic product shrank by 17.5 percent, and the proportion of people living below the poverty line doubled in only two years. It took almost 10 years for the poverty rate to recover to its precrisis level. This paper uses a macro-micro simulation technique to simulate the impact of a similar crisis on the current Uruguayan economy. The simulation exercise suggests that Uruguay would now be in a better place to weather such a severe crisis. The impact on poverty would be considerably more moderate; inequality would not change significantly; and household incomes would be 8 percent lower than in the absence of a crisis (almost 9 percent lower among households in the bottom 40 percent of the income distribution). The paper also explores the changes in social welfare policy that took place in the last decade that are protecting vulnerable groups from new macroeconomic shocks. We find that, despite the new policies, young individuals, woman-headed households, residents of Montevideo, and people who have not completed secondary education are more vulnerable to falling into poverty were the crisis to strike.JEL classification: E32, E37, F6, I3, O54

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 73%

Is Uruguay More Resilient This Time? Distributional Impacts of a Crisis Similar to the 2001–02 Argentine Crisis

Cabanillas

Lugo²,

Nielsen

et al. 2015

JBFE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Safety nets that are targeted to the poor may have dynamic efficiency effects if they help overcome constraints to productive investments in human capital or self-employment activities. A large literature on conditional cash transfers (CCTs), the early part of which was summarized by Fiszbein et al (2009), has documented gains in terms of access to education and health services, with larger effects on improved access among the poorest. Yet, conditional cash transfers have shown mixed evidence on nutrition and learning outcomes, limiting their stated role in promoting equality of opportunity in the long run.…”

Section: Re-distributionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shared Prosperity: Concepts, Data, and Some Policy Examples

Ferreira¹,

Galasso²,

Negre³

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and not those of IZA. Research published in this series may include views on policy, but IZA takes no institutional policy positions. The IZA research network is committed to the IZA Guiding Principles of Research Integrity. The IZA Institute of Labor Economics is an independent economic research institute that conducts research in labor economics and offers evidence-based policy advice on labor market issues. Supported by the Deutsche Post Foundation, IZA runs the world's largest network of economists, whose research aims to provide answers to the global labor market challenges of our time. Our key objective is to build bridges between academic research, policymakers and society. IZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be available directly from the author. Shared Prosperity: Concepts, Data, and Some Policy Examples * "Shared prosperity" has become a common phrase in the development policy discourse. Terms of use: Documents inThis short paper provides its most widely used operational definition -the growth rate in the average income of the poorest 40 percent of a country's population -and describes its origins. The paper discusses how this notion relates to well-established concepts and social indicators, including social welfare, poverty, inequality, and mobility, and reviews some of its design shortcomings. The paper then looks at household survey data to assess recent progress in this indicator globally. The analysis finds that during 2008-13, mean incomes for the poorest 40 percent rose in 60 of 83 countries. In 49 of them, accounting for 65 percent of the sampled population, it rose faster than overall average incomes. Finally, the paper briefly reviews a (non-exhaustive) range of 'pre-distribution' and 'redistribution' policies with a sound empirical track record of raising productivity and well-being among the poor, thus contributing to shared prosperity. JEL Classification:D30, D63, I30

show abstract

“…Thus, donors tend to work with particular pro-poor state governors rather than across states on structural issues. This has meant that pilot programmes and donor interventions often centre on the same few states (Eldon and Gunby, 2009). It is unsurprising that donors choose to work in states that appear the most likely to adopt responsive behaviour in governance and service delivery in order to provide best practice examples.…”

Section: Governance Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%