Presentation on theme: "Performance Measurement for Social Protection"— Presentation transcript:
1Performance Measurement for Social Protection Franziska GassmannBangkok, June 2012
2ObjectivesUnderstand the importance of performance measurement as an essential tool for social protection governance.What is performance measurement?Where is it applied/can it be applied?Understand the basic principles underlying performance measurements in relation to social protection by discussing the type and characteristics of indicators and related issues of data collection and data quality.Link performance measurement to the policy making process and the dialogue with partner countries.Understand how to select indicators and set targets for EC programme management.
3Social ProtectionDefined as public interventions to support poor and vulnerable households and individuals with the objectives toSmooth consumptionProvide support during difficult timesReduce poverty and inequalityStimulate economic developmentThe focus is on non-contributory programs financed from general government revenues, such asCash transfersSubsidized goods and servicesDirect food supportPublic work programmesSocial servicesResidential care provision
4Outline Relevance of performance measurement for social protection Indicators for performance measurementDifferent types of indicatorsThe characteristics of good indicatorsPerformance indicators for social protection policiesMeasuring povertyData requirementsWrap up
5Performance measurement… …monitors at a programme level the cost and quality of services and outcomes for clients in order to account for public expenditures…is a tool for controlling and managing resources…requires the definition of outcome objectives for policies and programmes…provides regular and systematic information whether a program, policy or development strategy is implemented as planned, is achieving its objectives and whether and how it can be improved…moves the focus from inputs/outputs to outcomes and results
6Why focus on outcomes? (EC Guidelines 2009) Results matterEncourage evidence-based policy makingProtect political space of beneficiary countriesPromote domestic accountabilityStimulate demand for high quality data
7Performance measurement for social protection Non-contributory social protection policies are financed from general government revenuesSpending on social protection is heavily scrutinized and subject to constant pressureIt is vital for the government to prove that public spending on social protection achieves its objectives effectively and efficientlyThe systematic and regular monitoring and evaluation of social protection policies is therefore crucial for any national government accountable to the public.
8Regular performance measurement is especially important for social protection Social protection policies are developed at central government level, but service delivery takes place at local levelSocial programs rely on implementing agentsThe poor often live in remote areas or socially isolated surroundingsMarket forces are less prevalent in social service delivery
9Guidelines for measuring progress towards intended outcomes in social protection Use information that is already availableMonitor the extent to which social protection systems are pro-poorAgree on a common set of indicatorsInvest in building national capacity(EC, 2003)Performance indicators measuring achievements of objectives should be coherent with national and sector policiesCoherence with MDGsA programme ensuring the quality of the indicators should be in place(EC, 2009)
11A good indicator is… (World Bank, 2004) A direct and clear measure of progress (specific)Varies across areas, groups and over timeSensitive to changes in policiesNot easy to manipulate or blown off by unrelated developmentsRelevant for policy makingCan be tracked in a cost-effective way (available)Consistent with policy-making cycleEasy to understandReliableConsistent with data availability and data collection capacity
12…and supported by intelligent benchmarks (Cichon et.al, 2004) Objective-based benchmarksTime-based benchmarksComparative national benchmarksComparative international benchmarks
13Two dimensions of social protection performance Horizontal efficiency:Effectiveness of the programme in reaching the target groupUnder-coverage (exclusion) reduces horizontal efficiencyVertical efficiency:Efficiency of the programme in reaching the target groupInclusion errors reduce vertical efficiency
14Targeting efficiency – evaluation matrix Target householdNon-target householdHousehold receives transferSuccessInclusion errorType II errorHousehold does not receive transferExclusion errorType I error
15Measuring exclusion and inclusion errors Exclusion error (under-coverage) =Number of poor w/o benefitNumber of all poorInclusion error =Number of non-poor with benefitNumber of beneficiariesLeakage =Total amount of benefits received by non-poorTotal amount of benefits paid
17Measuring targeting effectiveness Share of transfers going to the poor =% of transfers received by poor% of poor in total populationExample:Poor are 40% of the total populationBenefits received by the poor = 20%Share received by the poor = 20/40 = 0.5Interpretation:Value = 1: targeting is neutralValue < 1: targeting is regressiveValue > 1: targeting is progressive
18Measuring adequacyShare of benefits in total household income (consumption) =Benefit valueHousehold incomeChange in poverty rates before and after transferAbsolute change = change in percentage pointsRelative change = change as % of pre-transfer poverty
19Measuring Poverty (a very short intro to…) Why measure poverty?Assess living standard of population, identify the poorIdentify needs/areas for policy supportEvaluate effectiveness of national poverty-reduction and redistribution policiesAssess impact and performance of development aidWhat do we need (besides data…)?ConceptIndicatorsMeasuresAnalysis and interpretationMore reasons why we need to measure poverty:Advocacy purposes (= make the poor visible)Definitely since introduction of PRSPs is poverty reduction one of the main goal for development programs and projects; most projects have as their ‘impact objective’ or ‘outcome’ a goal such as ‘to reduce poverty’ or to increase the living standard of the population.The welfare of the population is the result of all national policies. If everybody would benefit equally, there would be no need for poverty and inequality measures, but some benefit more than others. Some policies, esp. social protection policies are explicitly targeted to reduce poverty, and, consequently, we have to measure poverty regularly.
20Conceptualizing poverty, cq well-being Welfarist approach:Individual utility determines well-being(Lack of) well-being expressed in the level of income, consumption, assets, etc.Monetary measuresNon-welfarist point of view:Other aspects determine well-being, such as ownership of commodities, fulfillment of basic needs, access to basic services, being socially included….Lack of capabilities to functionRational consumer theory states that everybody makes the choice that provides the highest utility. The welfarist approach assumes that hhs have preferences and they are expressed in what they consume (food or health?) and that this choice gives them the highest utility they can possibly achieve. As such money is a good representation of welfare. No value attached to the choices made by the household. It also assumes that everything can be bought/consumed. Shows immediately shortcomings of purely welfarist approach. – choices made by household may not be wise; intra-household distribution? Accessibility of services? Only works if all choices are available.But also in non-welfarist approach and capability approach, command over commodities as an instrument to increase well-being still important.
21Most common approaches Monetary poverty (income, consumption, expenditure, assets, …)Capability approach (coined by A. Sen)Social exclusion (think ‘EU’)Vulnerability (origin in disaster-risk-reduction)Monetary poverty: one-dimensional (although, implicitly multi-dimensional)Other approaches: multi-dimensionalMonetary poverty: Still most common approach used for policy evaluation and poverty assessmentsDevelopment away from simple income or consumption based concept to more sophisticated and complex concepts.Income may not enough to describe poverty. Poverty can materialize in other aspects, such as basic needs not covered, lack of access to education, health and other public services, relative deprivation, etc. Non-monetary measures gained ground over time.Why then, after all, are still most poverty assessments based on a monetary measure? All agree that poverty is multidimensional phenomenon, but many of the non-monetary concepts are difficult to be measured and valued.Monetary poverty:Concept/idea: welfarist approach where monetary status reflects a household’s utility level and preferencesEconomic welfare: goods and services consumed by householdStraightforward, easy to interpret, may not capture well-being when markets do not function properlyCapability approach:Term coined by Amartya SenThe capability approach argues that individuals are poor if they do not have the freedom to achieve their goals of well being and they are vulnerable when this lack of freedom persists over time (Sen 1999).‘Utility’ and other commodity based formulations as a metric of welfare are rejected‘Well-being’ means ‘being well’: ‘… value of living standards lies in the living and not in the possession of commodities…’ (Sen, 1987)Poverty is seen as a failure to achieve certain basic capabilitiesBasic capabilities: ‘the ability to satisfy certain crucially important functionings’ (Sen, 1993)An individual’s state of being can be viewed as a vector of functionings; i.e. achieved outcomes that determine life and living.These functionings are attained by utilising resources over which individuals have legal ownership rights, what Sen (1981) called entitlements.Measuring capabilities is difficult, since capabilities represent a set of potential outcomesIn practice: focus on functionings (e.g. life expectancy, literacy, nutrition levels…) very close basic needs approach
22Poor ≠ PoorEach approach has different perspective on what constitutes a good lifeEach requires methodological assumptionsEach has different policy implicationsMA: ensuring higher income solves problemCA: wider range of action needed (social provision of goods, improved allocation within family, efficient use of goods to achieve outcomes)SE: relative aspect important; just raising the level does not do the trick; redistribute policiesSocial exclusion1980s and 90s: social exclusion emerged as concept in EUMarginalization and deprivation can exist even in rich societies with well developed welfare systemsSE is ‘…a process whereby certain individuals are pushed to the edge of society and prevented from participating fully by virtue of their poverty, or lack of basic competencies and lifelong learning opportunities, or as a result of discrimination.’(EC, 2004)Goes beyond income poverty and includes social, cultural and political dimensions of exclusion non-welfarist aspects of deprivationClose to Townsend’s concept of deprivationAcknowledges the fact that deprivation can have multiple facesOpen method of coordination, Lisbon Agenda (2000)Laeken indicatorsMain characteristics of social exclusion approach:Relativity: Relative to a particular societyAgency: SE as result of action of an agentDynamics: Future is relevant as well, one disadvantage may lead to more disadvantagesMultidimensional: Raises aggregation issuesProblems with SE approach:Application to developing countries problematic as characteristics of SE differAggregation, causality between different dimensionsWhat is ‘normal’? What are appropriate SE characteristics?Overall, least-defined and most difficult approach to povertyVulnerability:No consensus on concept, how to define and measure itOriginates in Disaster Risk ReductionGeneral agreement that it differs from poverty and is a forward looking conceptMost often: vulnerability as risk of falling into poverty, measured as expected poverty (Calvo&Dercon, 2005; Pritchett et.al. 2002; Haughton&Khandker 2009, and more)
23In order to measure poverty, we need… Welfare indicatorWhat indicator is best suited to determine the living standard of a household or individual in a given society?What indicator allows ranking households from poorest to richest?Different welfare concepts imply different indicators, and my identify different groups of poorDefine a cut-off threshold, cq. poverty lineAbsolute versus relative povertyWhat constitutes a minimum living standard?
24Proportion of health deprived children by income quintile, Vietnam 2006 24
25Relative vs. absolute Relative poverty line Absolute poverty line Set as a share of average or median income or expendituresMoving concept; there will ‘always’ remain a class of poor peopleClosely linked with income distributionExamples: EU social indicator (60% of median income)Absolute poverty lineBased on minimum consumption basket (food plus?)Survey-based or derived from other standards (e.g. national legislation, WHO)Examples: 1$ per day line, national poverty linesIssue:Relative poverty lineallows comparison between countriesMedian or mean? What share?absolute poverty line has also relative aspectswho determines what needs to be covered?Goods/services in minimum basket differ per country, ev. Even per region- think for example of Russia with very warm and very cold regions – needs for heating )Choice of poverty line also depends on purpose of poverty analysisinternational lines not useful for national policy makingInternational lines can be close or far off national lines
26Example: Poverty in Country X Absolute poverty is defined regardless of the general welfare level or distribution in a given society. An individual is considered poor if he/she is not able to obtain the minimum necessities to maintain a purely physical existence .Relative poverty identifies those people that are poorest within the overall distribution in a given society. The concept changes with the ideas and values prevailing in a society.
27How to determine the minimum living standard? In monetary terms:Objectively defined minimum, e.g. based on a basket of goods and services – absolute levelAs a percentage of the average living standard – relative levelIn non-monetary terms:Minimum years of schoolingAccess to primary health carePossession of x household appliancesHaving one hot meal per day…Many different ways to define minimum standards. Think of MDGs, or CRC. Regarding the latter: formulated rather generally, minimum still has to be defined; varies per society.
28Examples of poverty lines International absolute poverty lines:1.25 USD PPP per capita per dayUseful for international comparison, but not necessarily for national policy makingInternational relative poverty lines:60% of median income per adult equivalentWorld Bank methodology based on actual consumption for national poverty lines:Extreme poverty: costs to obtain a minimum food basketAbsolute poverty: Minimum food basket plus allowance for non-food goods and servicesSubjective poverty linesDerived from minimum income questionFrequently higher than ‘objective’ poverty linesGuaranteed minimum income (budget based)Other methods: e.g. food share (show engel curve); this can also be applied to other expenditure items, e.g. housing (to determine housing allowance), but has its own problems in latter case – preference of hh where and how to live. No general acceptable standard.Minimum subsistence level – very popular in former SU countries! Not based on hbs, but on scientifically determined consumption standards.
30Poverty incidence (headcount) The 3 most common poverty indicators n=total population; q=poor; yi=welfare level; z=poverty linePoverty incidence (headcount)P0 = q/n = number of poortotal populationPoverty gap = average gap as a percentage of the poverty lineP1 = 1/n ∑ q [(z – yi) / z];non-poor: gap is zero!Poverty severity = weighted average gapP2= 1/n ∑q [(z – yi) / z]2 INDEX!
31Example: Kyrgyz Republic 2005 Source: WB (2010) Poverty indicators by region (absolute poverty line)Total country: % %
33Data requirements – Types of data Administrative dataProvide information on inputs and outputsCollected by line ministries or special agenciesLess suitable for analysis of policy outcomesHousehold survey dataRepresentative sample of populationEssential for poverty analysisEssential for assessing policy outcomesPopulation censusBasic information on all inhabitants (limited indicators)Very costly, at most every 10 yearsNeeded for poverty mapsUsually not suitable for assessing policy outcomes
34Data requirements – household surveys Essential for analysis of policy outcomesAvailability improved considerably over the past decadeMany variations, but not all equally suitableHBS, LSMS, MICS, DHS, etc.Have their own shortcomingsReliability of information (e.g. income from transfers)Questionnaires not always in line with latest policiesTarget groups cannot always be identified (e.g. disabled, war veterans)How frequent should they be available?No general ruleAt least every 2-3 years, if financially affordable
35Data requirements – qualitative data Provides information not provided in surveysSubjective dimensions of well-beingIntra-household inequalityBarriers to access (benefits, services)Cultural, political or social factors that determine policy outcomes and impactsIn-depth interviews, focus group discussionsTo inform survey design or to validate findings from survey
36Wrap upPerformance measurement ensures the accountability of the policy maker and the transparency of the decisions takenAvailability and measurement of performance indicators is essential for social protection policy makingEnsure regular and systematic collection of reliable informationAnalyse the collected information from various perspectivesData requirements need to be carefully assessed as resources are often scarceBetter have a limited set of core indicators which are regularly collected and analysedPerformance measurement is part of the policy process and the interpretation of indicators needs to be placed in the political and economic context