Ideas For
The data published by INDEC on the incidence of poverty and destitution have prompted many reactions on the effects of manipulations on the official statistical system. This opaque one become even more important, are clear indications that are not meeting expectations about the child allowance. Reach
Indec data to highlight that homelessness is far from eradicated even when you're investing a huge amount of resources to do so. The reason is the low quality of design and program management.
One of the few policies that captures broad technical and political agreements is the Universal and Son. The shared expectation is that through this instrument achieves a significant reduction (not elimination) of poverty and a drastic reduction (almost elimination) extreme poverty or indigence. Conditional transfers
For about two decades, similar interventions being implemented in almost all Latin American countries and in many other parts of the world. Obviously, in each country and each time the design and management have peculiarities. But all cases fall within what is technically called "conditional cash transfer programs."
The basic idea is that financial support to vulnerable households (care component) is combined with the commitment of families investing in health and education of children (component class).
by The Universal Son is, in Argentina, the program looks for this dual role and promotional assistance. A comparative case near the Argentine program is non-contributory family allowances implemented in Uruguay in 2008. It is interesting to compare the two experiences: In our country, the poverty rate in 2010 was 2.8% of the population while in Uruguay the poverty rate stood at 1.2% of the population.
It is striking that none of the two countries succeeded in eliminating poverty. This suggests that there are a lot of families who suffer with such depth of marginality, which display a greater effort still not reached even eradicate extreme poverty.
Notwithstanding this common element, it is notable that in Uruguay with far fewer health care resources are achieved significantly better results than in Argentina. Moreover, if the information was corrected by Argentina INDEC manipulation would be more striking contrasts. Uruguay spends just over half in family allowances, but would have a poverty rate of less than one third of Argentina's suffering. Explanation
In explaining the difference operates a multitude of factors. Particularly relevant is the gap in quality of design and management of both programs. Unlike the Argentine case, the amount of the benefit in Uruguay is higher for young people learning high school, but less by size of household. Much more important as a determinant of the results is that in Uruguay, the Ministry of Social Development conducted a census among the most vulnerable population to identify the poorest households in the country. Then, set at about 500 000 the benefits of non-contributory family allowances can be granted without compromising fiscal sustainability.
In Argentina, the funding is not sustainable because it is based on the misappropriation of pension funds. In parallel, the low effectiveness in eliminating poverty is associated to be appealed to the allocation granted to every household whose parents declare themselves unemployed or working in the informal sector. No census or assessments on the socioeconomic status of households, the coverage is a very partial to the indigent and many benefits are diluted among indigent population and even non-poor. Comparison
In Argentina, the Universal for Child involves nearly $ 10 billion in 2010 prices, representing approximately 0.7% of GDP.
In Uruguay, the program involves non-contributory family allowances approximately 0.4% of GDP.
In our country, the poverty rate in the year 2010 was 2.8% of the population while in Uruguay the poverty rate stood at 1.2% of the population.
politicaydesarrollo.com.ar, 04/11/1928
0 comments:
Post a Comment