1. Session 3: International experience: Impact of social protection programs Puja Vasudeva Dutta World Bank

2. 53+ 53+ countries in the developing world have focused social protection strategies ▫ Big expansion of social protection, especially in the poorer countries ▫ Strategies/plans/laws just since 2010 include China, Rep. Congo, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Gabon, Honduras, Jordan, Kenya, Kyrgyz Rep., Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nepal, Philippines, Romania, Vietnam Coverage:1/3 Spending:1%-1.7%+ 1%- 7% System:53+ 1%-1.7% 1%-1.7% of GDP typically spent on safety nets 0.02%6% ▫ From 0.02% of GDP in Afghanistan to 6% in Georgia 1%-7% 1%-7% of GDP, typically, in addition on pensions deficit 0.14%18% ▫ From 0.14% of GDP in Liberia to 18% in Ukraine 1/3 1/3 of the poorest 20% are covered by social protection programs in the developing and emerging world ▫ Over 80% less than 20% ▫ Over 80% in Mongolia, Ecuador and Thailand, less than 20% in Bolivia, Mozambique and Tajikistan A global snapshot

3. 3 Immediate impact on reducing poverty and inequality Allowing HH to invest in human capital and promoting future livelihoods Building productive assets and generating income-earning opportunities Supporting economic growth and productivity Coping with natural disasters Mitigating transitional costs of reform or crisis response What explains this spread social protection policies and programs across the world?

4. 4 Some examples Mexico Oportunidades Conditional cash transfer to reduce poverty and increase human capital Positive, varied with design choices: Reduced poverty incidence in rural areas by 8% Reduced child labor, increased productive investments, improved child nutrition Philippines Pantawid Pamilya Pilipino Program Conditional cash transfer to reduce poverty and increase human capital Reduced poverty among beneficiaries by 6% points; decreased inequality in program areas by 6.6% points Brazil Bolsa Familia Conditional cash transfer to reduce poverty and increase human capital Extreme poverty was more than halved: from 9.7% to 4.3% of the population Reduced inequality by 15% Children 63% less likely to drop out from school

5. 5 Some examples Ethiopia Productive Safety Nets Program Public works program to provide temporary employment Increased food security among beneficiaries by 1 month Built ~33,000 km of rural roads Beneficiaries more likely to borrow money for productive purposes, use agricultural technology and diversify sources of income India National Rural Employment Guarantee Guaranteed employment on public works to reduce poverty and create local assets High potential impact on poverty and employment (particularly women), actual varied by implementation Various countries School feeding programs Meals or food provided to students at schools Bangladesh - increased enrolment by 14% Kenya – no impact on enrolment Most countries – no significant impact on nutrition or learning

6. 6 Some examples Cambodia Scholarships Scholarships to reduce drop-outs during high school transition Positive impact, varied with design choices: beneficiaries more likely to transition from primary to lower secondary, particularly girls and less likely to work for pay Thailand Social pensions for elderly Cash transfer to reduce poverty and vulnerability among the elderly Reduced poverty among the elderly by 5.6% Ghana Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty (LEAP) Cash and health insurance to reduce poverty and increase human capital Increased enrolment by 7% points Increased household savings by 14% points Jamaica Food stamp program Food stamps to support poor and vulnerable HH Increased HH income by 20-25%

7. 7 Summary Compelling evidence that SP programs have contributed to reducing poverty and inequality in low and middle income countries Evidence of impacts on increasing human capital (increased enrolment, greater use of nutrition and health services, lower child labor) Mixed evidence of impact on learning and nutrition outcomes; mixed evidence on creation of local assets and productivity Variation in impacts arising from differences in program design, implementation capacity, and country context Sources: Fiszbein et al 2011, Grosh et al 2008, Subbarao et al 2013, Velarde and Fernández 2011, Andrews et al 2013, World Bank 2013b