2013年-世界发展银行全球_Kyrgyz_Republic___Minimum_Living_Standards_and_Alternative_Targeting_Methods_for_Social_Transfers_40页_1mb

Kyrgyz Republic: Minimum Living Standards and Alternative Targeting Methods for Social Transfers

Core Content

This policy note examines the relationship between different minimum living standards in the Kyrgyz Republic and their impact on the targeting and adequacy of the Monthly Benefit for Poor Families (MBPF), a key social transfer program. It evaluates the effectiveness of current targeting methods and explores alternative approaches that could enhance poverty reduction outcomes.

Main Purpose

The main objective is to improve the targeting performance and poverty-reduction effectiveness of the MBPF by either adjusting the Guaranteed Minimum Income (GMI) threshold or switching to alternative targeting methods. The analysis also aims to understand the discrepancies between various minimum standards and their implications for social policy design.

Key Minimum Living Standards

Standard	Monthly Value (KGS)	Poverty Rate (%)
Absolute Poverty Line	1,745	33.7
Extreme Poverty Line	1,050	5.3
Minimum Subsistence Level (MSL)	3,502	86.9
MSL (Food)	2,276	58.3
Guaranteed Minimum Income (GMI)	310	0.0

National Poverty Lines

• Definition: Derived from the Kyrgyz Integrated Household Survey (KIHS), these lines are used to assess poverty levels and the effectiveness of social protection policies.
• Calculation: Based on average consumption, the absolute poverty line includes non-food needs, while the extreme poverty line is based solely on food requirements.
• Update Frequency: Recalculated every 5 years by a working group; quarterly adjustments based on consumer price indices.

Minimum Subsistence Level (MSL)

• Legal Basis: Governed by Law No. 170 of May 26, 2009.
• Composition: Includes both food and non-food components, with food accounting for 65% of the total MSL in 2011.
• Purpose: Used to assess living standards, identify social policy needs, and determine minimum state labor guarantees.
• Update Mechanism: Reviewed every 5 years; quarterly updates based on registered prices.

Guaranteed Minimum Income (GMI)

• Definition: A budget-driven threshold for determining MBPF eligibility.
• Legal Basis: Governed by Law No. 318 of December 29, 2009.
• Value Trends: Initially set at 50% of the extreme poverty line in 1998, it dropped to 28% in 2011. No regular indexation mechanism is in place.
• Impact on MBPF: Despite being set below the extreme poverty line, the GMI is not sufficient to identify any households as being in poverty, yet 11% of the population receives MBPF benefits.

Discrepancies Between Standards

• The MSL and FPL (Food Poverty Line) both assume a minimum daily calorie intake of 2,100 kcal, but their composition and costs differ significantly.
• The MSL reflects a balanced, healthy diet, while the FPL is based on actual consumption habits of low-income households.
• The MSL food basket costs 2,853 KGS per person per month, while the FPL basket costs 1,340 KGS, which is less than 50% of the MSL value.
• Differences in price data (registered vs. reported) and consumption patterns contribute to the disparity in costs between the two baskets.

Alternative Targeting Methods

Categorical Targeting

• Focuses on families with several children, who are more vulnerable to poverty.
• Based on the KIHS, children are at a higher risk of poverty than the general population.
• This method may improve targeting performance by ensuring support for families with the most severe poverty.

Proxy Means-Test

• Uses observable indicators (e.g., demographic composition, housing conditions, asset ownership, employment status, and location) to estimate household living standards.
• Empirical analysis assigns scores to each indicator to determine eligibility.
• This method could enhance targeting accuracy and reduce administrative burden, though it may require significant initial investment.

Current Means-Test with Increased GMI

• Eligibility is based on family income relative to the GMI.
• Increasing the GMI could expand the number of eligible families, potentially increasing the number of actual beneficiaries.
• However, it may not directly reduce the poverty rate unless the GMI is set above the extreme poverty line.

Cost Efficiency and Outcomes

• The proxy means-test is found to be the most cost-effective method for achieving better targeting performance and extreme poverty reduction.
• It reduces both exclusion and inclusion errors, though real-world outcomes may differ from simulations due to potential non-participation in the program.
• Abandoning the GMI and moving to a proxy means-test could yield better results under current budget constraints.

Conclusion

• The current targeting methodology of the MBPF is based on a GMI that is too low to effectively identify the poor, leading to a paradox where 11% of the population receives benefits despite no one being officially identified as living below the GMI.
• Linking the GMI to the MSL could provide a more stable and regular adjustment mechanism, improving its real value over time.
• Alternative targeting methods, particularly the proxy means-test, show promise in enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of social transfers, though they require careful implementation and may involve initial costs.