2003年-世界发展银行全球_Social_Protection_in_a_Crisis___Argentinas_Plan_Jefes_y_Jefas_46页_446kb

Summary of "Social Protection in a Crisis: Argentina's Plan Jefes y Jefas"

Core Content

This paper evaluates the impact of Argentina's Plan Jefes y Jefas (Jefes), a major social protection program introduced in January 2002 in response to the severe economic and political crisis that followed the collapse of the convertibility plan in late 2001. The program provided monthly cash transfers of 150 pesos to eligible households, with the stated goal of supporting those who had lost their main income source due to the crisis. However, the program also included a work requirement, which was less stringent than its predecessor, Trabajar.

Main Questions and Objectives

The study addresses the following key questions:

• Who actually received assistance, and were the eligibility criteria enforced?
• How did participants respond to the program in terms of labor supply and household composition?
• What was the impact of the program on household incomes and poverty?
• How did the program affect aggregate unemployment and poverty rates?

Key Findings

• Eligibility and Coverage:
  The program had significant leakage, with about one third of participants not meeting the official eligibility criteria. Coverage of eligible individuals was also incomplete, with only about 80% of eligible individuals receiving the transfer.

  • The program was not as well-targeted as Trabajar, which had stricter work requirements and better coverage of the poorest households.
  • The practical eligibility criteria (used in the study) were broader than the theoretical criteria, allowing the program to reach about 50% of the poor at a 100-peso poverty line.

• Behavioral Responses:

  • Participants were more likely to be spouses of heads of households rather than heads themselves.
  • Jefes participants tended to come from larger households with more children.
  • The program did not reduce unemployment as much as claimed, as it attracted as many people into the workforce from inactivity as it did from unemployment.
  • Poverty reduction was partially achieved, but overestimation occurred due to ignoring forgone earnings of participants who might have worked casual jobs without the program.

• Income Impact:

  • Jefes participants had lower incomes than the general population, with their household per capita income being about 17% of the mean for all active adults.
  • The program partially compensated for income losses due to the crisis, but the extent of the impact depends on assumptions about forgone income.
  • The preferred estimate of foregone income (based on Trabajar data) showed a balanced income shock distribution between participants and applicants.

• Distributional Impact:

  • Jefes participants were concentrated in the poorest 60% of the population, aligning with the official poverty rate.
  • About 15% of participants were in the lowest decile of the income distribution, and 40% were in the poorest 20%.
  • The program had a progressive distribution of benefits, though not as much as Trabajar.

• Program Evaluation Methods:

  • The study uses non-experimental methods and panel data to estimate the impact.
  • A matched comparison group of applicants who had not yet received the program is used to assess the counterfactual outcomes.
  • Propensity score matching and double difference estimation are employed to control for selection bias and unobserved heterogeneity.
  • The double difference estimator is considered more reliable for assessing the program's impact, as it accounts for time-invariant selection bias.

Key Information

• Program Overview:

  • Jefes was a cash transfer program with a 20-hour work requirement.
  • It was intended to reach households with unemployed heads and dependents.
  • The program expanded rapidly, covering about two million households by late 2002.

• Crisis Context:

  • The economic crisis led to record unemployment and poverty rates, with the poverty line rising from 37% to 58% of the population.
  • The convertibility plan collapse caused liquidity constraints and widespread social unrest.

• Data and Methodology:

  • Data comes from the Encuesta Permanente de Hogares (EPH) surveys in October 2001 and October 2002.
  • A panel component of the survey allows for longitudinal analysis.
  • Matching techniques are used to compare participants and applicants.

• Limitations and Concerns:

  • There was significant leakage to families not meeting the eligibility criteria.
  • Verification of unemployment was challenging due to the prevalence of the informal sector.
  • The work requirement was likely not as effective as intended, due to weak implementation and potential administrative biases.

Conclusion

The Jefes program partially reduced extreme poverty and compensated for income losses during the crisis. However, its targeting was not as precise as intended, and it attracted some individuals from inactivity rather than unemployment. The program's impact on unemployment was limited, and the poverty reduction was overestimated due to the ignoring of forgone income. The use of panel data and matching methods allows for a more accurate assessment of the program's effects, showing that it had a progressive distribution of benefits but with incomplete coverage and leakage.