Social protection response to the COVID-19 crisis: options for developing countries

Gérard, François; Imbert, Clément; Orkin, Kate

doi:10.1093/oxrep/graa026

Cited by 134 publications

(102 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Dealing with this economic crisis for the poor may call for interventions by the government and other local agencies in the rural areas of developing countries. Such responses could include cash transfers to the poor and vulnerable households, expansion of existing social safety nets, and ensuring assistance in harvesting and selling of crops in rural areas as relief to distressed farmers (Gerard, Imbert, and Orkin 2020; Mishra and Rampal 2020). In the Indian context, the national government provided food aid of essential staples and cash transfers to women beneficiaries of Jan Dhan account holders.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic Impacts of the COVID−19 Lockdown in a Remittance‐Dependent Region

Gupta¹,

Zhu²,

Doan³

et al. 2020

American J Agri Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The economic impacts of COVID‐19 lockdowns on poor and vulnerable households living in rural areas of developing countries are not well understood due to a lack of detailed micro‐survey data at the household level. Utilizing weekly financial transaction data collected from households residing in a rural region of India, we estimate the impacts of India's COVID‐19 lockdown on household income, food security, welfare, and access to local loan markets. A large portion of households living in our study region is reliant on remittances from migrants to sustain their livelihoods. Our analysis reveals that in the month immediately after India's lockdown announcement, weekly household local income fell by INR 1,022 (US$ 13.5), an 88% drop compared to the long‐term average with another 63% reduction in remittance. In response to the massive loss in earnings, households substantially reduced meal portions and consumed fewer food items. Impacts were heterogeneous; households in lower income quantiles lost a higher percentage of their income and expenditures, but government food aid slightly mitigated the negative impacts. We also find an increase in the effective interest rate of local borrowing in cash and a higher demand for in‐kind loans, which are likely to have an adverse effect on households who rely on such services. The results from this paper have immediate relevance to policymakers considering additional lockdowns as the COVID‐19 pandemic resurges around the globe and to governments thinking about responses to future pandemics that may occur.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic Impacts of the COVID−19 Lockdown in a Remittance‐Dependent Region

Gupta¹,

Zhu²,

Doan³

et al. 2020

American J Agri Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Figure 3 plots the results with one example c, but one can see how varying (that is, shifting the vertical line in Figure 3 to the left or to the right) would change the balance of inclusion and exclusion error. 3 Say that the government aims to assist those who are actually poor. Intuitively, not giving out the program to anyone (and setting c = 0) means no transfers, and hence very high exclusion error, because you are excluding everyone below the poverty line, but it also means no inclusion error, since no higher-income people who should not be receiving assistance are getting it.…”

Section: The Inclusion Versus Exclusion Error Tradeoffmentioning

confidence: 99%

Universal Basic Incomes versus Targeted Transfers: Anti-Poverty Programs in Developing Countries

Hanna

Olken

2018

Journal of Economic Perspectives

187

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals articulated by the United Nations, number one is the elimination of extreme poverty by 2030. While future economic growth should continue to reduce poverty, it will not solve the problem by itself; thus, there is a potentially important role for national-level transfer programs that assist poor families in developing countries. Such programs are often run by developing country governments. Many countries have implemented transfer programs that seek to target beneficiaries: that is, to identify who is poor and then to restrict transfers to those individuals. Some people have begun to advocate for “universal basic income” programs, which dispense with trying to identify the poor and instead provide transfers to everyone. We begin by considering the universal basic income as part of the solution to an optimal income-taxation problem, focusing on the case of developing countries, where there is limited income data and inclusion in the formal tax system is low. We examine how the targeting of transfer programs is conducted in these settings, and provide empirical evidence on the tradeoffs involved between universal basic income and targeted transfer schemes using data from Indonesia and Peru—two countries that run nationwide transfer programs that are targeted to the poor. We conclude by linking our findings back to the broader policy debate on what tools should be preferred for redistribution, as well as the practical challenges of administering them in developing countries.

show abstract

“…Thus, in their opinion, the public policy effectively counteracted the impact of the pandemic on income, which led to a reduction in poverty and an increase in low-income percentiles in a number of demographic groups and geographic regions. Authors from France suggest that developing countries use a wider range of social protection and support measures during a pandemic than developed countries [18].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

State Support for Households with Children in COVID 19 Conditions: Comparative Analysis

Kostina

Bannykh

2021

SHS Web of Conf.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research background: The restrictions introduced by nation states to overcome the spread of the COVID19 pandemic had a negative impact on the situation of families with children due to lower incomes of the population, increased unemployment, and reduced opportunities for using social infrastructure (education, health, culture and sports). In order to overcome the consequences of the restrictions introduced during the COVID19, national states proposed various support measures not only for business, but also for the population, especially for families with children. Purpose of the article: The purpose of the article is to conduct a comparative analysis of government support measures for families with children aimed at overcoming the socio-economic consequences of COVID 19, using the example of the Russian Federation and a number of countries in Europe and Asia. Methods: as the main research methods are the analysis of documents, the analysis of statistical data. Findings & Value added: The analysis presents systematic data on measures of state support for families with children in various European and Asian countries. It is concluded that these measures are of a monetary nature (in the form of direct payments), and non-monetary nature (in the form of guarantees, benefits, material assistance of various kinds). At the same time, the question of the effectiveness of these measures to restore the socio-economic situation of families with children during and after СOVID19 remains controversial.

show abstract

Social protection response to the COVID-19 crisis: options for developing countries

Cited by 134 publications

References 24 publications

Economic Impacts of the COVID−19 Lockdown in a Remittance‐Dependent Region

Economic Impacts of the COVID−19 Lockdown in a Remittance‐Dependent Region

Universal Basic Incomes versus Targeted Transfers: Anti-Poverty Programs in Developing Countries

State Support for Households with Children in COVID 19 Conditions: Comparative Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About