O slideshow foi denunciado.
Utilizamos seu perfil e dados de atividades no LinkedIn para personalizar e exibir anúncios mais relevantes. Altere suas preferências de anúncios quando desejar.

Margarita beneke conditional cash transfers and rural development in latin america

1.611 visualizações

Publicada em

This presentation is part of the programme of the International Seminar "Social Protection, Entrepreneurship and Labour Market Activation: Evidence for Better Policies", organized by the International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth (IPC-IG/UNDP) together with Canada’s International Development Research Centre (IDRC) and the Colombian Think Tank Fedesarrollo held on September 10-11 at the Ipea Auditorium in Brasilia.

  • Seja o primeiro a comentar

  • Seja a primeira pessoa a gostar disto

Margarita beneke conditional cash transfers and rural development in latin america

  1. 1. Conditional Cash Transfers and Rural Development in Latin America Country Study: El Salvador Margarita Bene ke de Sanfeliú, Amy Angel and Mauricio Shi
  2. 2. Introduction to the regional project • This research will try to understand how households react to the intervention of both Conditidonal Cash Transfers (CCT) and Rural Development Projects (RD), like those promoted by IFAD, compared with being exposed to only one of these interventions. • We aim to identify synergies and complementarities between both types of interventions. • If synergies are identified, development projects could be more effective in reducing poverty, and CCT programs could find better 'graduation strategies'.
  3. 3. Project objectives • To describe and understand the mechanisms (at the household and community levels) through which there exist or could exist synergistic effects between rural development and CCT programs. • To inform policy makers at the national level and international organizations that provide financing for CCTs and rural development projects, about the potential for synergistic effects between both types of interventions, and to suggest alternative program designs to enhance and exploit these effects. • To provide feedback and build capacity within IFAD's Country Program Managers and country teams, to take greater advantage of potential synergistic effects between IFAD projects and CCT programs.
  4. 4. Project strategy • COMPONENTS – Technical component: evaluate the effect of having access to CCT and RD, in terms of use of economic assets, poverty reduction, gender effects and financial inclusion. – Policy advocacy component : generate lessons and influence policy decisions so that key aspects such as graduation from CCTs or participation in RD projects take advantage of multiplier effects that can enhance impact in reducing poverty and improve resilience of poor rural women and men. • COUNTRIES – Group 1: Colombia, Peru, El Salvador: primary data collected – Group 2: Mexico, Brazil and Chile: analytical studies with secondary data, to provide lessons for group 1. • SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE
  5. 5. Project hypothesis • Households that are beneficiaries of CCT programs and are involved in IFAD-RD projects compared with families that just receive one type of intervention (CCT or IFAD-RD) and with families that do not receive any kind of intervention – Will be more successful  the income level of the families or in a given measure of poverty – Will have greater access to the formal financial markets  financial inclusion indicators. – Women will be more empowered  role in household decisions – Will have better opportunities to allocate and enhance economic assets  productivity of production systems within the household.
  6. 6. Methodology • Literature review, sistematization of other impact evaluations and surveys • Document programs (CCT and DR) • Mixed methods – Quantitative: Household survey. One round (trying to get ͞before͟ info from some other source). – Qualitative: focus groups and in depth interviews with households, project administrator, and communities • Dialogue with Policy makers, program administrators, politicians, other groups interested in RD
  7. 7. CCT in El Salvador: Comunidades Solidarias Rurales (CSR) • Conditional cash transfers: Education bonus (up to 6th grade), health bonus (0-5 yrs old), combination: $15 per month if only one, $20 per month if both. • Only one bonus per family (possible more than 1 per household). Current average: $15.18 • The program is in 100 municipalities (of 262): rolling entry by level of poverty. • Important: A family could join the program only they met qualifying ĐharaĐteristiĐs at the ŵoŵeŶt of the ͞ĐeŶsus͟ • Currently 75,385 beneficiaries (down from 101,000): 6% of total households, 14% poor population. Budget: 0.06% of GDP. • The prograŵ iŶǀolǀes: ͞capacitaciones͟ aŶd opportuŶities to soĐialize • Impacts: attracting older children that were out of the system, early entry to school; frequent health check-ups; nutrition protected in food shock episode.
  8. 8. IFAD and MAG RD Programs PAF: Family Agricultural Plan • Value Chains (VC): – Small and medium commercial farmers – Field schools – Assistance to joint purchases of inputs and marketing of products – Transfer of production technology and credit (in one program) – 35% most be women and younger men • Food Security (FS) – Subsistence farmer families – Field schools for traditional crop improvement and crop diversification, natural resource management and home health. – Uses demonstration families who transfer knowledge and technology to secondary families through demonstration plots and direct training – Inputs and time saving equipment (stoves and water containers) – 35% most be women
  9. 9. Comparison groups RD Projects RD Projects Beneficiaries Others CCT CCT A B No CCT C D Possible ͞graduation͟ strategy Beneficiaries Others A B Exited AC BD Never C D No CCT
  10. 10. Sample frame • Sample frame constructed combin ing several sources of info: – Ministry of Agriculture: 5 listings (FS and VC 2010-2013) – FISDL: CSR Census (info for ALL households in 100 municipalities) and complete CCT beneficiaries data base We were able to match 19,342 individuals in 14,184 households • From the complete sample frame, we eliminated households: – With more than one CCT participant (5%), so remaining households would have similar transfer values – Exited CCT or entered a RD program before 2012 – Without at least one child two years below or above the limit for CCT at the time of selection into the program (So treatment and ĐoŶtrol households ǁould ďe ͞alŵost͟ eligiďle to reĐeiǀe CCTͿ – Households in municipalities without RD programs (so all remaining could potentially participate).
  11. 11. • Each observation in the sample frame was classified into one of the groups: A,B,C,D, AC, BD – Comparisons among groups with RD beneficiaries can be done directly  A, C and AC – Comparisons involving groups with and without RD beneficiaries cannot be done directly (possible selection bias):  B, D and BD • Beneficiaries of FS and VC programs appear to be different in variables in Proxy means test used by CSR (according to descriptive statistics using origiŶal ͞ĐeŶsus͟ dataͿ . • We used discriminant analysis to classify non-RD beneficiaries into one of the B, D and BD (separating by FS and VC) Using variables in CCT Proxy means test Sample frame… ;cont)
  12. 12. Sample selection (cont…Ϳ • To assign each observation to a treatment a control group for eaĐh ͞strategLJ͟ aŶd tLJpe ;F“ or VCͿ - We used Propensity Score Matching (PSM) for each pair of treatment and control. We left only those observations in the area of common support - We only found comparison-pairs that were sufficiently similar for the following strategies: 6,176 households in 54 municipios No. Treatment Comparison FS VC 1 A (CCT+RD) C (RD) YES YES 2 A (CCT+RD) B (CCT) NO NO 3 A (CCT+RD) D (None) NO NO 4 C (RD) D (None) NO NO 5 B (CCT) D (None) NO NO 6 A (CCT+RD) AC (CT + RD) YES NO 7 AC (CT + RD) BD (CT) YES NO 8 AC (CT + RD) C (RD) YES NO
  13. 13. Sample design Available observations FS VC A CCT + RD 918 287 1,205 C RD 325 185 510 AC CCT + RD 643 643 BC CCT 3,818 3,818 Total 5,704 472 6,176 Randomly selected from all available in each group RD type Group Total RD type FS VC Group Total A CCT + RD 250 287 537 C RD 250 185 435 AC CCT + RD 250 250 BC CCT 250 250 Total 1,000 472 1,472
  14. 14. Similar to: Actual Intersection Geographical location of final sample of CCT and RD VC and FS FS only Field work: 27 Jan- 1 april FS VC A CCT + RD 241 239 480 C RD 213 152 365 AC CCT + RD 230 230 BC CCT 226 226 910 391 1,301 Group RD type Total Total Final sample
  15. 15. Survey Questionnaire Modules A. Identification B. Household composition (HC) C. Education (HC) D. Health (HC) E. Ocupation and labor market (W) e.1 Ocuations details (I) (D) e.2 Job search F. Information about land (PC) G. Agricultural production g.1 Crops (D) g.2 Animales (D) g.3 Equipamiento (CF) H. Associations and social capital h.1 Participation in associations h2. Community relationship I. Rural Development proyects i.1 Food security i.2 Value chains J. Housing conditions and assets (PC) K. Remittances and other income (I) (D) L. Food security (Proxy, I) M. Expectations, aspirations and empowement m.1 General perceived self-efficacy m.2 Mood and self-esteem m.3 Locus of control m.4 Aspirations m.5 Decision making (W) N. Delinquency and other security issues O. Financial services(FI) m.1 Debts m.2 Savings P. Shocks CH: Human capital PC: Physical captal D: Economic Diversification I: Income FI: Financial inclusion W: Rol of women
  16. 16. Qualitative strategy • Stage 1. Before survey (to inform data collection) – Focus groups with: • CSR regional staff • IFAD program coordinators • Field staff RD programs – Interviews with CSR and RD administrators • Stage 2. After survey (to explain and further explore findings and possible RD program modifications) – Feedback from survey fieldwork personnel – Focus groups and semi-structured interviews (perceptions of 106 individuals selected from survey sample) • A, C, AC and BD, to explore the ͞why͟ of results) – Interviews with community leaders – Interviews with CSR and RD staff
  17. 17. Identification strategy From survey results we noted: - From the original CSR census (2005 to 2009) to the survey in 2014, there was some household restructuring (some ŵeŵďers left CCT households aŶd ͞took͟ transfers with them, or new members ͞ďrought͟ transfers to non-CCT households). - Some households that were identified as users of RD programs in the official listings, responded that they were not actual beneficiaries Identification strategy: Intent to Treat Effect, using single difference with PSM (variables in original census)
  18. 18. Additional research questions: In El Salvador, what generates synergy between RD and CCT programs, ͞Đash͟ or ͞something else͟? Is adding RD a good ͞graduation strategy͟? Given that:  The $ transferred is very small (avg. $15.18 per month, currently payable $60 every 4 months); amount is the same since 2005  Previous evaluations of CSR showed that women´s empowerment (mainly in the domestic domainͿ iŶĐreased due to ͞capacitaciones͟ and opportunities for social interaction provided by the program We test the (additional) hypothesis that the $ amount is NOT what generates the synergy: Results [A (CCT + RD)] = Results [AC (CCT + RD)] If this is the Đase, theŶ addiŶg RD after ͞edžitiŶg͟ CCT prograŵ ǁould ďe a good ͞graduatioŶ strategLJ͟ Results [AC (CCT + RD)] > Results [BD (CCT)]
  19. 19. In El “alvador, ͞something else͟ generates synergy between RD and CCT programs… and adding RD is a good ͞graduation strategy͟ … • We did not find a significant d ifference in outcomes for those still receiving CCT and those who exited the program Group Differences A (TMC+DR) AC (TMC+DR) BD (TMC) A vs AC Característica AC vs BD Empowerment Empowerment Index 66.3% 68.4% 64.8% 3.6% ** Domain: Production 71.6% 77.2% 66.6% 10.6% *** Domain: Resources 54.8% 56.8% 50.6% 6.2% ** Domain: Income 87.3% 88.9% 80.3% 8.6% *** Financial Inclusion: Accounts or formal credit formal inst. 22.4% 21.7% 15.0% 6.7% ** Income proxy: Asset index (productive or household) 7.70 8.47 7 .63 0 .84 *** Reduced assets because of food insecurity 22.8% 22.6% 28.3% -5.7% * N 241 230 226 • Adding RD produĐes ͞gains͟…. even in empowerment
  20. 20. … especially for women Empowerment increased, even iŶ ŶoŶ ͞domestic͟ domains Group Differences A (TMC+DR) AC (TMC+DR) BD (TMC) A vs AC WOMEN Selected variables AC vs BD Empowerment Empowerment Index 58.5% 62.4% 59.0% 3.4% * Domain: Production 50.0% 66.3% 53.9% 12.5% ** Domain: Resources 41.4% 48.9% 42.7% 6.2% * Domain: Income 82.3% 87.5% 77.1% 10.4% ** Financial Inclusion: Accounts or formal credit formal inst. 20.2% 16.7% 14.1% Income proxy: Asset index (productive or household) 7.69 8.14 7.39 0.75 ** Reduced assets because of food insecurity 22.6% 20.0% 32.4% -12.4% ** N 124 120 142 MEN Empowerment Empowerment Index 74.6% 74.8% 74.6% Domain: Production 94.4% 92.3% 88.0% Domain: Resources 68.9% 65.5% 63.9% Domain: Income 92.7% 90.5% 85.7% Financial Inclusion: Accounts or formal credit formal inst. 24.8% 27.3% 16.7% 10.6% * Income proxy: Asset index (productive or household) 7.71 8.83 8.06 0.77 ** Reduced assets because of food insecurity 23.1% 25.5% 21.4% N 117 110 84 Financial inclusion increased
  21. 21. Results • We could identify some positive synergies (Intent to Treat Effects) in all domains evaluated (income, empowerment, financial inclusion) • There is eǀideŶĐe that the ͞other͟ aĐtiǀities of the CCT prograŵ ;͞capacitaciones͟ aŶd opportuŶities of soĐial interaction) combined with RD, produce gains, especially for women. • Results in terms of empowerment in areas other than ͞doŵestiĐ͟, are larger for ǁoŵeŶ. • There is evidence that RD programs could be good ͞graduatioŶ strategies͟ for CCT ďeŶefiĐiaries • Preliminary qualitative results suggest that there is substantial potential for improving results  we should be able to suggest modification to program design and implementation, including further inter-agency coordination
  22. 22. Conditional Cash Transfers and Rural Development in Latin America Country Study: El Salvador Margarita Bene ke de Sanfeliú, Amy Angel and Mauricio Shi