2015年-世界发展银行全球_Effectiveness_of_Targeting_Mechanisms_Utilized_in_Social_Protection_Programs_in_Bolivia_36页_1mb

Summary of the Document: Effectiveness of Targeting Mechanisms in Social Protection Programs in Bolivia

Core Content

This document evaluates the effectiveness of targeting mechanisms in three key social protection programs in Bolivia: the Juancito Pinto Educational Grant (BJP), the Juana Azurduy Mother-Child Grant (BJA), and the My First Decent Job (MPED) program. The analysis is based on the 2012 Ongoing Household Survey (ECH) and aims to assess the accuracy and efficiency of the mechanisms used to identify and register beneficiaries. The study also examines the recently introduced Single Registry of Beneficiaries by the Ministry of Development Planning.

Main Viewpoints

• Social Protection Transformation: Bolivia has significantly transformed its social protection policies over the past decade, aligning with broader Latin American trends.
• Targeting Mechanisms: These mechanisms are essential for identifying the target population efficiently and effectively. There are three main types:
  • Individual/family evaluation
  • Categorical and geographic selection
  • Self-targeting
• Effectiveness Trade-offs: Targeting mechanisms can result in inclusion and exclusion errors, and there is a trade-off between the two. More stringent criteria reduce inclusion errors but increase the risk of exclusion errors.
• Cost Considerations: Targeting mechanisms involve administrative costs. It is important to compare these with the costs of universalization, such as the transfer of resources to non-poor individuals.

Key Programs and Their Targeting Mechanisms

1. Juancito Pinto Educational Grant (BJP)

• Objective: Increase school enrollment and reduce desertion in the formal education system.
• Target Population: Children and youth aged 18 or younger enrolled in the first 8 years of formal education in public or private institutions with state agreements.
• Mechanism: Categorical selection based on the type of educational institution and the presence of state funding.
• Inclusion and Exclusion Errors:
  • Exclusion Errors: About 18.7% of students in public institutions and 24.4% in private institutions with agreements are not receiving the grant, despite being eligible.
  • Inclusion Errors: The use of public funding as a proxy for poverty leads to inclusion of non-poor students in public schools and those with state agreements.
  • Poverty Incidence: Students in public schools have a higher incidence of poverty (58.76%) compared to those in private schools with agreements (40.63%) and private schools (18.47%).

2. Juana Azurduy Mother-Child Grant (BJA)

• Objective: Reduce maternal and infant mortality and chronic malnutrition among children under age 2.
• Target Population: Pregnant women and children under age 2 without formal healthcare coverage.
• Mechanism: Categorical selection based on the presence of children under age 2 and participation in healthcare services.
• Inclusion and Exclusion Errors:
  • Exclusion Errors: A significant portion of women without children under age 2 are not receiving the grant, indicating possible exclusion errors.
  • Poverty Incidence: The program covers a population with a high incidence of poverty, as it is directed at those without formal healthcare coverage.

3. My First Decent Job (MPED)

• Objective: Improve employability and labor force insertion among youth aged 18 to 24.
• Target Population: Unemployed youth from low-income families, defined by per capita income and electricity consumption.
• Mechanism: Categorical selection based on income and electricity usage.
• Implementation Challenges:
  • The program started as a pilot in 2009 and expanded in 2010.
  • Despite budget increases, the program has not consistently executed more than 50% of its allocated resources.
  • The targeting mechanism is based on the assumption that youth from public or state-agreed schools are low-income.

Key Information

• Inclusion and Exclusion Errors: These errors are influenced by both the design and implementation of the targeting mechanisms.
• Single Registry of Beneficiaries: This new mechanism is expected to improve both efficiency (by reducing identification costs) and effectiveness (by minimizing errors).
• Data Sources: The analysis is based on the 2012 ECH survey, which provides detailed socioeconomic data.
• Policy Objectives: The programs aim to reduce poverty, improve human capital accumulation, and enhance employability.
• Geographic and Institutional Criteria: Programs often use geographic and institutional data as proxies for poverty, which may not always be accurate.
• Ethical and Practical Considerations: While universal programs may be more ethically sound, targeted programs are more efficient in resource allocation.

Conclusion and Future Challenges

• The categorical selection mechanisms used in the three programs are effective in reaching the poorest population.
• However, they present distinct levels of inclusion and exclusion errors due to design and implementation issues.
• The introduction of a single registry aims to enhance both efficiency and effectiveness by standardizing the targeting process.
• Future challenges include improving the accuracy of targeting mechanisms, ensuring consistent implementation, and addressing administrative costs.

Key Terms

• Targeting Mechanisms: Methods used to identify eligible beneficiaries.
• Inclusion Errors: Including non-poor individuals in the program.
• Exclusion Errors: Excluding poor individuals from the program.
• Poverty Incidence: Proportion of the population living below the poverty line.
• Single Registry of Beneficiaries: A new mechanism aimed at improving program targeting.