Conditional cash transfer (CCT) programs aim to reduce poverty by making welfare programs conditional upon the receivers' actions. The government (or a charity) only transfers the money to persons who meet certain criteria. These criteria may include enrolling children into public schools, getting regular check-ups at the doctor's office, receiving vaccinations, or the like. CCTs seek to help the current generation in poverty, as well as breaking the cycle of poverty for the next through the development of human capital. Conditional cash transfers could help reduce feminization of poverty.
Conditional cash transfers have been used in many countries:
Argentina: Universal allocation per child, established in 2009. Eligibility for the scheme was focused on families without formal employment and earning less than the minimum wage who ensured their children attended school, received vaccines and underwent health checks.[1] By 2013 it covered over two million poor families,[2] and by 2015 it covered 29 percent of all Argentinian children.[1]
Bangladesh: Female Secondary School Assistance Project, established in 1994. This CCT program, conditional only on school attendance and girls remaining unmarried, provides tuition and stipends.[3]
Brazil: Bolsa Família (formerly Bolsa Escola) started in the 1990s and expanded rapidly in 2001 and 2002. It provides monthly cash payments to poor households if their school-aged children (between the ages of 6 and 15) are enrolled in school, and if their younger children (under age 6) have received vaccinations.[4][5]
Cambodia: Cambodia Education Sector Support Project, established in 2005, is conditional on attendance and maintaining passing grades.[6]
Chile: Chile Solidario, established in 2002,[7] requires the family to sign a contract to meet 53 specified minimum conditions seen as necessary to overcome extreme poverty. In exchange, they receive from the state psychosocial support, protection bonds, guaranteed cash subsidies, and preferential access to skill development, work and social security programs.[8]
Colombia: Familias en Acción,[7] established in 2002, is a conditional cash transfer program, very similar to the Mexican PROGRESA/Oportunidades, consisting of cash transfers to poor families conditional on children attending school and meeting basic preventive health care requirements.[9]
Egypt: Program Minhet El-Osra, began in 2009, currently being piloted in an urban slum in Cairo, Ain Es-Sira, and 65 villages in rural Upper Egypt by the Egyptian Ministry of Social Solidarity
Guatemala: Mi Familia Progresa, established April 16, 2008, is a conditional cash transfer program that is intended to provide financial support to families living in poverty and extreme poverty and who have children age 0 to 15 years and/or pregnant women or nursing mothers who live mainly in rural and marginal areas of the peripheries of urban centers (cities).[10]
Honduras: The Family Allowance Program (PRAF II) created in 1998 was based on the PRAF I program created in 1990.[11] The Family Allowance Program, PRAF, founded in 1990 as a social compensation program of the government of the Republic of Honduras.[12][13]
Indonesia: Program Keluarga Harapan (PKH)[14] and Program Nasional Pemberdayaan Masyarakat-Generasi Sehat dan Cerdas, both established in 2007. The Program Keluarga Harapan is a household CCT program, while Program Nasional Pemberdayaan Masyarakat is a community-based CCT program. They are focused on reducing poverty, maternal mortality, and child mortality and providing universal coverage of basic education.[15] In 2018 also launch Program Indonesia Pintar (PIP),[16] one of their focus is to help the government meet its constitutional guarantees by providing incentives for all children to complete at least a 9-year basic education.
Jamaica: Programme of Advancement Through Health and Education (PATH), administered by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security,[7] is a conditional cash transfer (CCT) programme. It provides cash transfers to poor families, who are subject to comply with conditions that promote the development of the human capital of their members. PATH was created in 2001, as part of a wide-ranging reform of the welfare system carried out by the government of Jamaica.[17]
Mexico: Oportunidades is the principal anti-poverty program of the Mexican government. (The original name of the program was Progresa; it was changed in 2002.) Oportunidades focuses on helping poor families in rural and urban communities invest in human capital—improving the education, health, and nutrition of their children.[18][19][20] The Progresa program was one of the first large-scale conditional cash transfer programs.[21][22]
Nicaragua: The Social Protection Network, established in 2000 and implemented by the Social Emergency Fund (FISE),[7] was terminated in 2005.[23]
Panama: Red de Oportunidades is a program implemented by the Government of Panama to the population under 18 to provide them access to health services and education.[24]
Peru: Juntos was established in 2005. The program provides a monthly dividend to mothers (married or single) living in extreme poverty. Mothers can only qualify for the program if they send their children to school and take them for regular medical checkups.[25]
Philippines: Department of Social Welfare and Development —Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program is a social development strategy of the national government that provides conditional cash grants to extremely poor households to improve their health, nutrition and education particularly of children age 0–14.[26]
Turkey: Şartlı Nakit Transferi (ŞNT), Şartlı Eğitim Yardımları (ŞEY) ve Şartlı Sağlık Yardımları (ŞSY) established in 2003 and it is still being implemented by the General Directorate of Social Assistance (GDSA: Sosyal Yardımlar Genel Müdürlüğü, under the umbrella of Ministry of Family and Social Policy; Aile ve Sosyal Politikalar Bakanlığı).
United States of America: Opportunity NYC. ONYC ended on August 31, 2010. The program built on the conceptual framework and success of international conditional cash transfer (CCT) programs and was the first major CCT initiative implemented in the United States. The principal objective of Opportunity NYC Family Rewards was to test the impact of monetary incentives on children's education, family health and adults' workforce outcomes.[27]
Effectiveness
Few development initiatives have been evaluated as rigorously as CCT programs.[28] The implementation of conditional cash transfer programs has been accompanied by systematic efforts to measure their effectiveness and understand their broader impact on household behavior,[29] a marked departure from the limited attention that was paid to rigorous impact evaluations in the past. Evaluation results are available for PROGRESA in Mexico,[30] PETI in Brazil and the Atencion a Crisis in Nicaragua.[31] These evaluations reveal that conditional cash transfers can provide effective incentives for investing in the poor's human capital. A 2015 analysis by staff at Argentina's National Scientific and Technical Research Council estimated that the Universal Allocation per Child programme had increased school attendance for children between the ages of 15 and 17 by 3.9 percent.[1]
CCTs have affected not only the overall level of consumption, but also the composition of consumption. There is a good deal of evidence that households that receive CCTs spend more on food and, in the food basket, on higher-quality sources of nutrients than do households that do not receive the transfer but have comparable overall income or consumption levels.[32]
In Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Turkey, where school enrollment rates among girls were lower than among boys, CCTs have helped reduce this gender gap.[33]
CCTs have resulted in sizeable reductions in poverty among recipients—especially when the transfer has been sufficient, well targeted, and structured in a way that does not discourage recipients from taking other actions to escape poverty. Because CCTs provide a steady income, they have helped protect poor households from the worst effects of unemployment, catastrophic illness, and other sudden income shocks. And making cash transfers to women, as virtually all CCTs do, may have increased their bargaining power.[33]
In the US, a paper by the Institute for Research on Poverty concluded in 2011:[34]
Over time, we find that expenditures have shifted toward the disabled and the elderly, and away from those with the lowest incomes and toward those with higher incomes, with the consequence that post-transfer rates of deep poverty for some groups have increased. We conclude that the U.S. benefit system is paternalistic and tilted toward the support of the employed and toward groups with special needs and perceived deservingness.
A 2022 study in the Quarterly Journal of Economics found that CCT to newborns increased their educational outcomes and young adult earnings. The economic impact was large enough that "that the transfer pays for itself through subsequent increases in federal income tax revenue".[35]
Latin America
Many countries in Latin America are now using CCT programs as a major tool of their social policy since they have been proven to be very effective in helping poor families. By 2011 CCTs had spread to 18 countries in the region and covered as many as 129 million beneficiaries.[36] Although the conditions and amounts of money may vary from country to country, ranging from $5 to $33 per child,[37] in general these programs provide money to poor families under the condition that those transfers are used as an investment on their children's human capital, such as regular school attendance and basic preventive health care. The purpose of these programs is to address the inter-generational transmission of poverty and to foster social inclusion by targeting the poor, focusing on children, delivering transfers to women, and changing social accountability relationships between beneficiaries, service providers and governments.[38] Most of these transfer schemes are now benefiting around 110 million people in the region, and are considered relatively cheap, costing around 0.5% of their GDP.[39]
Conditional cash transfer programs can be very effective in reducing poverty in the short term since they have helped to increase household income and consumption in poor families. They have also worked effectively in increasing school enrollment and attendance, especially in middle school. A substantial improvement in health and nutrition of the children that benefit from these programs has been acknowledged.[40] However, studies by the UNDP have shown that conditional cash transfers neither represented a significant increase in the quality of education and in learning nor significant increased salaries, once the recipients entered the labor force.
Most CCT programs are very well-targeted and effective in reaching the poor and the excluded groups, notably the extreme poor living outside the reach of social protection programs tied with formal sector employment. On average, 80% of the benefits go to the 40% poorest families.[38] The programs have also promoted equality of gender since they provide larger funds to girls since they often drop out earlier, so it has increased their enrollment and attendance to secondary levels of education. In the long run, these investments may also yield to significant changes in women's empowerment and insertion in economic networks.[38]
Africa
While most conditional cash transfer programs are in Latin America, a significant amount of research has been conducted regarding the implementation of these programs in Africa. In addition, programs are looking to the Latin America for examples on how to implement these programs. While there are a few unconditional cash transfer programs in Africa being tested, two conditional cash transfer programs in Africa are currently being implemented. For CCTs to be successful, they require sufficient infrastructure. Poor education and health systems limit the benefits of CCT programs. Impacts should be seen in regard to the effectiveness of health and education institutions of the country.
South Africa
In South Africa unconditional cash transfer and social assistance spending amounts to approximately US$20-billion per annum or 15.2% of its total Governmental expenditure (while the country has a GDP of only US$368-billion).[41][42][43][44] The number of individual programme beneficiaries totalled 17.5-million in 2018 (76.1% of its total labour force),[45] compared to Bolsa Família in Brazil which has 12-million families as beneficiary[46]
The impact on the country's labour force participation has been found to be "ambiguous and dependent on a number of factors", according to the Southern African Labour and Development Research Unit, while "education and health-care conditions attached to many transfers can also increase human capital formation and therefore create a long-term positive impact on labour market participation".[47]
Morocco
Since 2007 a pilot conditional cash transfer program has been researching its effectiveness in Morocco, organized by the World Bank. The program targets poor regions of Morocco with high dropout rates and should cover 160,000 households by 2010.[48] The pilot program is a comparative test that has four treatment groups. One group is receiving unconditional cash transfers, regardless of child school attendance. The next three are given conditional cash transfers to families of children grades 3-6 based on the child's attendance at school.
The three treatment groups vary in how attendance is monitored, ranging from monitoring attendance based on teacher's report, all the way to a sophisticated system involving monitoring through biometric fingerprint machines.[48]
In addition, within each classroom, which parent (the mother or father) is randomized to see if the family benefits more from having the money targeted to one or the other. This study will bring research that assesses the importance of conditionality, monitoring, and targeting within a conditional cash transfer program.[48]
Europe
Conditional cash transfer programs are not used widely in Europe. In the UK, in 2011 CentreForum proposed an additional child benefit dependent on parenting activities.[49]
Turkey
In Turkey, CCT program has still been implemented by GDSA since 2003 with education and health components in which almost 6 billion Turkish Liras (app. 2 billion Euros) have been spent to about 3.5 million beneficiary households. In order to be paid regularly in CCT program, students (ages 5–20) have to attend to their school regularly and children (ages 0–6) have to be taken to health centres regularly. All the conditions are being monitored by GDSA from the databases of Ministry of Health and Ministry of Education by the means of an interactive web-based MIS.
The conditional education grants are provided to children of the target group on school enrollment condition, from the first grade through the end of the twelfth grade. Once qualified as beneficiaries, children should maintain at least 80 per cent attendance rate to continue to receive the grant.
Individual payment amounts differ according to components. Girls are paid higher amounts than boys in education component to encourage poor families to send their daughters to school. Besides, due to increasing drop-out rates in higher grades, secondary school (9th–12th grades) students are paid higher amounts than primary school ones in order to ensure the effect of the program on decreasing the drop-out rates.[50]
The project named "Strengthening the Impact of the Conditional Cash Transfer Programme in Turkey for Increasing High School Attendance" (Liseye Devam Senden, Destek Bizden) has been started up in December 2014 by GDSA through EU co-finance. The project has been integrated to Turkey's CCT implementation and designed for high school CCT beneficiaries in order to ensure them to get a degree and decrease early school leaving rates which also is one of the most important topics for 2020 European Union targets for a sustainable growth.[50]
In the scope of the project, extra incentives were added into CCT education programme aiming to support high school education attendance which would provide stronger reinforcement for the CCT families. Grants (€60 in 2014 and €70 in 2015 for each eligible student) is provided for parents (preferably mothers) of high school (9th, 10th and 11th grades and 12th for 2015) CCT beneficiaries suffering from lack of financial resources to cover educational expenditures especially in the beginning of each year.[51]
Medical applications
Modest financial incentives delivered in routine clinical practice have been found to significantly improve adherence to, and completion of, vaccination programmes.[52][53]
Obstacles and failed programs
Although the benefits of conditional cash transfer programs across the world have been widely noted, there remains a series of obstacles to their success that have caused some programs to be stunted or terminated completely.[54]
External factors
According to a comprehensive study done by senior research analysts Laura Rawlings and Gloria Rubio of the World Bank, the beginning stages of program implementation present the challenge of creating a reliable implementation schedule.[55] On many occasions, changes in political leadership, natural disasters, or changes in program administration have delayed the implementation schedule and lead to decreased efficiency or program termination.[55]
An example of the negative outcomes of one such delay is provided by the UN Development Programme's in-depth study of the short-lived Nicaragua's Social Protection Network. According to the study, the movement of the program administration to the country's Ministry of the Family caused a delay in efficiency and resources that, among other factors, led to the program's termination.[23] Delays can also be caused by difficulties in developing the program management information system (MIS).[56]
One such delay in Mexico's Oportunidades program caused 27% of its targeted population not to receive any transfers after two years of implementation.[56]
In addition to unscheduled delays, other external factors that can hinder a CCT's success pertain to unexpected financial crisis.[57] According to a comprehensive assessment provided by the World Bank, the structure of conditional cash transfer programs has not yet been adjusted to retain success in the event of a large financial crisis.[57]
Primarily, conditional cash transfer programs are not flexible enough to extend benefits to households that fall into the program's targeted population only during economic downturns. Thus, those not normally covered by the program's benefits may be harder hit than those who are but will not be able to be assisted.[57]
Exclusion
Another common obstacle to success in most CCTs is exclusion of needy homes in the targeting process. In an assessment by the World Bank, much exclusion was due to remote communities' inability to access schools or clinics. Many such communities fall into developing countries' most poverty-stricken populations but cannot follow through with conditionalities since the transportation costs to attend schools or hospital visits outweigh the benefits.[58] Furthermore, an evaluation of Mexico's Progresa-Oportunidades program addresses the issue that those in poverty with debilitating illnesses can be excluded from CCTs due to their physical inability to accomplish the conditionalities.[59]
Exclusion has been noted by both the World Bank study and the Progresa-Oportunidades evaluation evident in community-based targeting and self-targeting approaches. In the case of self-targeting, used by Mexico's Progresa-Oportunidades, working women may be excluded from the program because they are unable to miss work to register or accomplish all conditions.[60] In the case of community-based targeting, the World Bank study notes that the extremely poor who may live in generally middle-class communities will be excluded.[61]
Distrust
Targeted populations' distrust of the program due to lack of adequate information has been noted by at least three case studies to be a leading factor in the CCT programs' downfalls. The extensive study by the UN Development Programme on Nicaragua's Social Protection Network (RPS) reveals that the level of distrust of the program was so high that a domestic publicity campaign could have possibly saved the RPS from extinction.[23] This high level of domestic distrust was due, in part, to efforts to politicize the program.[62]
One report addressed in the UN Development Programme's study stated that RPS employees were approached by members of the government, who demanded that half their salaries be donated to the party in power. Although the RPS was successful in avoiding the threats, it was later revealed that the RPS was the only Nicaraguan institution of its kind not making government contributions.[62]
This same level of distrust is reflected in a study on the feasibility of a Haitian CCT made by the International Food Policy Research Institute. In the focus group they interviewed, almost all subjects expressed a "profound lack of faith" in the Haitian government. Instead, they preferred that the conditional cash transfer programs be implemented by community committees or NGOs.[63]
However, this distrust in governments' ability to fairly implement CCTs fairly is not strictly limited to developing countries. In an article in The New York Times addressing the termination of the pilot CCT, Opportunity NYC, the committee leader of one of its lending institutions stated that people were distrustful and confused by the program's intricacies. New York City's deputy mayor for health and human services added that many busy and stressed households were not being able to handle the many conditions they had to complete since they were not efficiently educated about the program.[64]
There is currently[when?] much discussion about whether conditionality, or conditions for the cash transfer, is necessary or important to a cash transfer program. Research, such as the pilot conditional cash transfer program in Indonesia called Generasi, examined the importance of conditionality.[65] One report looks at data from Mexico's Oportunidades/Progresa program, which looks at families who accidentally did not receive forms that monitor school attendance and therefore received unconditional cash transfers. It then compares them with those households that did receive the forms. It was shown that conditionality had the strongest impact on children's attendance to secondary school, as enrollment rates in secondary school were higher for those that received the forms.[66]
Another report on an experiment in Malawi is researching the importance of conditionality among families with school-age girls. The program was conducted, with data collected between October 2007 and June 2010.[67] It was found that the treatment arm providing conditional cash transfer programs had higher enrollment rates, as well as higher scores in independently administered tests of cognitive ability, mathematics and English reading comprehension. However, the UCT treatment arm had a much lower incidence of pregnancy and marriage among school-age girls.
A strong argument against the conditionality of social cash transfers is proposed by proponents of a rights-based approach to development. From a human rights perspective, cash transfers are a means to ensure the human rights to social protection and an adequate standard of living for all members of society, including first and foremost the fundamental right to food. States have the duty to ensure those rights with a maximum of available resources. While reducing poverty in general, conditional cash transfers have shown to often exclude those who need it the most, violating the human rights principle of non-discrimination and equality.[68]
The following program in Malawi is an example of an unconditional cash transfer:
The Mchinji Pilot Social Cash Transfer Scheme is part of the larger Malawi Social Protection Policy and Framework, and began in April 2006. It is mainly financed by UNICEF and the National AIDS Commission.[69] The objectives of the scheme are to reduce poverty of people in the pilot area who are ultra poor and labor constrained, increase school enrolment and attendance, and to generate information regarding the feasibility of a cash transfer program as part of a Social Protection Programme for Malawi. The goal for this program is to reduce the ultra poverty rate from the 22% rate in 2007 to 10% by 2015.[69]
This program targets those households that are ultra poor (See poverty for definition) and those who are labor constrained, defined as either a household in which no able-bodied members 19–64 can work due to chronic sickness or disability or a household with one-able bodied member that has to care for more than three dependents. About 22% of Malawi as of 2007 was ultra-poor, living on less than 20 cents a day, and of that group 10% are labor constrained.[69]
The program would give anywhere from 600 kwacha ($4 US) monthly for a one-person household to 1800 kwacha ($13 US) monthly for a four or more person family. There is also an extra bonus of 200 kwacha for children enrolled in primary school and 400 kwacha for children enrolled in secondary school.[69] The location for the program is in the Mchinji District, the 14th poorest district out of 28 in Malawi.
It was chosen for its average poverty level of all the districts in Malawi and its proximity to the capital, Lilongwe.[69]
The first comprehensive systematic review of evidence on health effects of cash transfers found that the relative effectiveness of conditional and unconditional cash transfers remains very uncertain. The review found only three studies that compared conditional cash transfers with unconditional ones directly, and it recommended additional randomized controlled trials of conditional compared with unconditional cash transfers.[70]
Fome Zero is a program of the Government of Brazil introduced by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in 2003, with the goal to eradicate hunger and extreme poverty in the country.
Bolsa Família is the current social welfare program of the Government of Brazil, part of the Fome Zero network of federal assistance programs. Bolsa Família provided financial aid to poor Brazilian families. In order to be eligible, families had to ensure that children attend school and get vaccinated. If they exceeded the total of permitted school absences, they were dropped from the program and their funds were suspended. The program attempted to both reduce short-term poverty by direct cash transfers and fight long-term poverty by increasing human capital among the poor through conditional cash transfers. It also worked to give free education to children who couldn't afford to go to school, to show the importance of education. In 2008, The Economist described Bolsa Família as an "anti-poverty scheme invented in Latin America [which] is winning converts worldwide." The program was a centerpiece of former president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's social policy and is reputed to have played a role in his victory in the general election of 2006. Bolsa Família was the largest conditional cash transfer program in the world, though the Mexican Oportunidades was the first nationwide program of this kind.
Oportunidades is a government social assistance program in Mexico founded in 2002, based on a previous program called Progresa, created in 1997. It is designed to target poverty by providing cash payments to families in exchange for regular school attendance, health clinic visits, and nutrition support. Oportunidades is credited with decreasing poverty and improving health and educational attainment in regions where it has been deployed. Key features of Oportunidades include:
Opportunity NYC was an experimental conditional cash transfer program (CCT) by the Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg. Announced in April 2007, it was the first CCT program to be launched in the United States. Its initial phases were funded by a number of private partners including The Rockefeller Foundation, Robin Hood Foundation, the Open Society Institute, Starr Foundation, AIG, and Mayor Bloomberg's own Bloomberg Family Foundation. The program is being evaluated by MDRC, a nonprofit research firm, using a random assignment research design. Opportunity NYC is administered by Seedco, a nonprofit community development organization. The program ended on 31 August 2010.
Impact evaluation assesses the changes that can be attributed to a particular intervention, such as a project, program or policy, both the intended ones, as well as ideally the unintended ones. In contrast to outcome monitoring, which examines whether targets have been achieved, impact evaluation is structured to answer the question: how would outcomes such as participants' well-being have changed if the intervention had not been undertaken? This involves counterfactual analysis, that is, "a comparison between what actually happened and what would have happened in the absence of the intervention." Impact evaluations seek to answer cause-and-effect questions. In other words, they look for the changes in outcome that are directly attributable to a program.
Social protection, as defined by the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, is concerned with preventing, managing, and overcoming situations that adversely affect people's well-being. Social protection consists of policies and programs designed to reduce poverty and vulnerability by promoting efficient labour markets, diminishing people's exposure to risks, and enhancing their capacity to manage economic and social risks, such as unemployment, exclusion, sickness, disability, and old age. It is one of the targets of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 10 aimed at promoting greater equality.
Education policy in Brazil has been given importance by the federal and local governments since 1995. At that time, the government of President Fernando Henrique Cardoso and the Brazilian Ministry of Education began to pursue three areas of national education policy:
The Center for Effective Global Action (CEGA), earlier known as the Center of Evaluation for Global Action, is a research network based at the University of California that advances global health and development through impact evaluation and economic analysis. The Center's researchers use randomized controlled trials and other rigorous forms of evaluation to promote sustainable social and economic development around the world.
The social protection floor (SPF) is the first level of protection in a national social protection system. It is a basic set of social rights derived from human right treaties, including access to essential services and social transfers, in cash or in kind, to guarantee economic security, food security, adequate nutrition and access to essential services.
The Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP) is a federal unconditional cash transfer poverty reduction program in Pakistan. Launched in July 2008, it was the largest single social safety net program in the country with nearly Rs. 90 billion distributed to 5.4 million beneficiaries in 2016.
In Brazil, universal basic income has been discussed at least since the 1980s. In 2001 a law was introduced by Senator Eduardo Suplicy of the Brazilian Workers Party which mandated the progressive institution of such a welfare system. By this move Brazil became the first country in the world to pass such a law. Suplicy had previously introduced a bill to create a negative income tax, but that bill failed to pass. The new bill called for a national and universal basic income to be instituted, beginning with those most in need. The bill was approved by the Senate in 2002 and by the Chamber of Deputies in 2003. President Lula da Silva signed it into law in 2004, and according to the bill it is the president's responsibility to gradually implement the reform. Since then Brazil has started to implement the bill through the Bolsa Família program, which was a centerpiece of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's social policy, and is reputed to have played a role in his victory in the Brazilian presidential election, 2006.
Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program, also known as 4Ps and formerly Bangon Pamilyang Pilipino, is a conditional cash transfer program of the Philippine government under the Department of Social Welfare and Development. It aims to eradicate extreme poverty in the Philippines by investing in health and education particularly in ages 0–18. It is patterned on programs in other developing countries like Brazil and Mexico (Oportunidades). The 4Ps program now operates in 17 regions, 79 provinces and 1,484 municipalities and 143 key cities covering 4,090,667 household beneficiaries as of June 25, 2014.
Universal basic income in India refers to the debate and practical experiments with universal basic income (UBI) in India. The greatest impetus has come from the 40-page chapter on UBI that the Economic Survey of India published in January 2017. It outlined the three themes of a proposed UBI programme:
Social determinants of health in Mexico are factors that influence the status of health among certain populations in Mexico. These factors consist of circumstances in which people grow, live, work, and age, as well as the systems put in place to deal with illnesses.
Malnutrition is a condition that affects bodily capacities of an individual, including growth, pregnancy, lactation, resistance to illness, and cognitive and physical development. Malnutrition is commonly used in reference to undernourishment, or a condition in which an individual's diet does not include sufficient calories and proteins to sustain physiological needs, but it also includes overnourishment, or the consumption of excess calories.
Wealth inequality in Latin America and the Caribbean refers to economic discrepancies among people of the region. A report release in 2013 by the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs entitled Inequality Matters. Report of the World Social Situation, observed that: ‘Declines in the wage share have been attributed to the impact of labour-saving technological change and to a general weakening of labour market regulations and institutions. Such declines are likely to affect individuals in the middle and bottom of the income distribution disproportionately, since they rely mostly on labour income.’ In addition, the report noted that ‘highly-unequal land distribution has created social and political tensions and is a source of economic inefficiency, as small landholders frequently lack access to credit and other resources to increase productivity, while big owners may not have had enough incentive to do so.
Mexico offers social welfare assistance designed to meet needs of the Mexican population including assistance for low-income populations, young people, the elderly, and people with disabilities. Mexico has been offering social welfare since 1999. Despite the fact that Mexico offers welfare to its citizens through various programs, the poverty level in Mexico is currently at 46.2%. More than 10% of those living in poverty are living in extreme poverty, earning $1.25/ day or less.
Mexico has sought to ensure food security through its history. Yet, despite various efforts, Mexico continues to lack national food and nutrition strategies that secure food security for the people. As a large country of more than 100 million people, planning and executing social policies are complex tasks. Although Mexico has been expanding its food and nutrition programs that have been expected, and to some degree, have contributed to increases in health and nutrition, food security, particularly as it relates to obesity and malnutrition, still remains a relevant public health problem. Although food availability is not the issue, severe deficiencies in the accessibility of food contribute to insecurity.
John Hoddinott, is a Canadian economist and the Howard Edward Babcock Professor of Food, Nutrition and Public Policy at Cornell University. In 2002–2015, Hoddinott was a Deputy Division Director at the International Food Policy Research Institute. Since 1997, he has been a research associate at the Centre for the Study of African Economies at the University of Oxford. Hoddinott received his DPhil in 1989 from Oxford University.
Petra Elisabeth (Crockett) Todd is an American economist whose research interests include labor economics, development economics, microeconomics, and econometrics. She is the Edward J. and Louise W. Kahn Term Professor of Economics at the University of Pennsylvania, and is also affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania Population Studies Center, the Human Capital and Equal Opportunity Global Working Group (HCEO), the IZA Institute of Labor Economics and the National Bureau of Economic Research.
↑ Glewwe, Paul; Kassouf, Ana Lucia. "The Impact of the Bolsa Escola/Familia Conditional Cash Transfer Program on Enrollment, Drop Out Rates and Grade Promotion in Brazil." August 2010
↑ "Can Conditional Cash Transfers Reduce Poverty and Crime? Evidence from Brazil". "Archived copy"(PDF). Archived from the original(PDF) on 2013-06-02. Retrieved 2013-07-21.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
↑ Palma, Julieta; Urzúa, Raúl. "Anti-poverty Policies and Citizenry: the Chile Solidario Experience." UNESCO Management of Social Transformations Policy Papers/12. Department of Public Policy. Institute of Public Affairs. University of Chile.
↑ "PROGRAMA DE ASIGNACIÓN FAMILIAR (PRAF)." Gobierno de Unidad Nacional. "Programa de Asignación Familiar". Archived from the original on 2012-02-27. Retrieved 2012-03-04. Domingo, 4 de marzo de 2012
↑ Damayanti, Arie (LPEM FEUI, Jakarta), Moeis, Jossy P. (LPEM FEUI, Jakarta), Sparrow, Robert (ISS, The Hague), Herawati, Yulia (World Bank Office, Jakarta). "Program Keluarga Harapan and PNPM-Generasi Baseline Survey – Preliminary Findings." World Bank. January 24, 2008
↑ Ayala, Francisco. "The Programme for Advancement through Health and Education (PATH), Jamaica Inter-Regional Inequality Facility Policy Briefs 4, February 2006." Overseas Development Institute.
1 2 3 Moore, Charity. "Nicaragua's Red de Proteccion Social: An Exemplary but Short-lived Conditional Cash Transfer Program." International Policy Center for Inclusive Growth, no.17, (2009): 1-42.
↑ "Opportunities Network: Impact on Child Labor." Republic of Panama. MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. October 2007. "Busco Trabajo"(PDF). Archived from the original(PDF) on 2010-04-01. Retrieved 2012-03-04.
↑ "Juntos Program and Corda Technologies Improve the Lives of Peruvian Children and Their Families." Government of Peru Juntos Program. "Archived copy"(PDF). Archived from the original(PDF) on 2011-06-28. Retrieved 2012-03-04.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
↑ Rawlings, Laura B.; Rubio, Gloria M. "Evaluating the Impact of Conditional Cash Transfer Programs: Lessons from Latin America." World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3119, August 2003.
↑ Stampini, M. and L. Tornarolli. 2012. "The growth of conditional cash transfers in Latin America and the Caribbean: did they go too far?" IDB Policy Brief n. 185, and IZA policy paper n. 49.
↑ Societies on the Move (September 11, 2010). The Economist. 396(8699), pp. 11-15
1 2 3 De la Brière, Bénédicte and Rawlings, Laura B. (2006). Examining Conditional Cash Transfer Programs: A Role for Increased Social Inclusion? Social Safety Net Primer Papers. The World Bank
↑ Societies on the Move (2010, September 11). The Economist. 396(8699), pp. 11-15
↑ Actuar Sobre el Futuro: Romper la Transmisión Intergeneracional de la Igualdad (2010). Regional Human Development Report for Latin America and the Caribbean. UNDP
1 2 3 "Morocco: Conditional Cash Transfers and Education." Middle East and North Africa - Morocco: Conditional Cash Transfers and Education. World Bank, 2007. Web. .
↑ Rawlings, Laura and Gloria Rubio. Evaluating the Impact of CCT Programs: Lessons from Latin America. World Bank Working Paper Research Policy, no. 3119 (August 2003): 1-25.
1 2 Rawlings, Laura and Gloria Rubio. "Evaluating the Impact of CCT Programs: Lessons from Latin America." World Bank Working Paper Research Policy, no. 3119 (August 2003): 23
1 2 Rawlings, Laura and Gloria Rubio. "Evaluating the Impact of CCT Programs: Lessons from Latin America." World Bank Working Paper Research Policy, no. 3119 (August 2003): 20.
1 2 3 Fizbein, Ariel and Norbert Shaby. "Conditional Cash Transfers: Reducing Present and Future Poverty." The World Bank. (2009): 125.
↑ Fizbein, Ariel and Norbert Shaby. "Conditional Cash Transfers: Reducing Present and Future Poverty." The World Bank. (2009): 1- 245
↑ Latapi, Augustín and Mercedes González de la Rocha. "Girls, Mothers, and Poverty Reduction in Mexico: Evaluating Progresa-Oportunidades" in Shahra Razavi (ed.), "The Gendered Impacts of Liberalization: Towards 'Embedded Liberalism?' London and New York: Routledge: 267- 289.
↑ Latapi, Augustín and Mercedes González de la Rocha. "Girls, Mothers, and Poverty Reduction in Mexico: Evaluating Progresa- Oportunidades" in Shahra Razavi (ed.), "The Gendered Impacts of Liberalization: Towards 'Embedded Liberalism?'" London and New York: Routledge: 267- 289.
↑ Fizbein, Ariel and Norbert Shaby. "Conditional Cash Transfers: Reducing Present and Future Poverty." The World Bank. (2009): 1- 245.
1 2 Moore, Charity. "Nicaragua's Red de Proteccion Social: An Exemplary but Short-lived Conditional Cash Transfer Program." International Policy Center for Inclusive Growth, no.17, (2009): 40.
↑ Cohen, Mark and Dora Weissman. "Implementing a Conditional Cash Transfer Program In Haiti: Opportunities and Challenges." The International Food Policy Research Center. 2007
↑ Bosman, Julie. "City will stop paying poor for good behavior." The New York Times. March 30, 2010
↑ Baird, Sarah, Craig McIntosh, and Berk Ozler. Cash or Condition? Evidence from a Cash Transfer Experiment. Working paper no. 5259. Vol. 45. World Bank, 2010. Print. Impact Evaluation Ser.
↑ Künnemann, Ralf and Ralf Leonhard. A Human Rights View of Social Cash Transfers for Achieving the Millennium Development Goals. Brot für die Welt, Evangelischer Entwicklungsdienst, 2008.
1 2 3 4 5 Schubert, Bernd, and Mayke Huijbregts. The Malawi Social Cash Transfer Pilot Scheme, Preliminary Lessons Learned. Tech. New York: UNICEF, 2006. Print. Social Protection Initiatives for Children, Women and Families: An Analysis of Recent Experiences.
Hanlon, Joseph, Armando Barrientos and David Hulme (2010). Just Give Money to the Poor: The Development Revolution from the Global South. Sterling, VA: Kumarian Press.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
