Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Olena nizalova ppt
Olena nizalova ppt
Olena nizalova ppt
Olena nizalova ppt
Olena nizalova ppt
Olena nizalova ppt
Olena nizalova ppt
Olena nizalova ppt
Olena nizalova ppt
Olena nizalova ppt
Olena nizalova ppt
Olena nizalova ppt
Olena nizalova ppt
Olena nizalova ppt
Olena nizalova ppt
Olena nizalova ppt
Olena nizalova ppt
Olena nizalova ppt
Olena nizalova ppt
Olena nizalova ppt
Olena nizalova ppt
Olena nizalova ppt
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Olena nizalova ppt

257

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
257
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. 1 Social Assistance System Modernization and Participation of the Poor Hanna Vakhitova, Olena Nizalova, Denys Nizalov Kyiv School of Economics GDN conference June 2013, Manila
  • 2. 2 Motivation: Post-communist countries and poverty  1989, Communist regimes in Europe  9% of the World population  14% of the World land area  Poverty (less than $4 a day)  1989: 14 million people (out of 360)  1998: > 140 million people.
  • 3. 3 Motivation: Importance of welfare system  “The last public policy instrument to prevent extreme poverty” (Cerami, 2009)  Ukraine: 19% of all families; 13000 employees  Low effectiveness of poverty reduction programs in transition countries (Verme, 2008, Moldova; Van de Walle, 2004, Vietnam; Milanovic, 2000, Latvia)  Amount of assistance (too high, too low)  Poor take-up (best performers - 36%)  Lack of capacity (Lokshin and Ravallion, 2000, Russia)
  • 4. 4 Our question Impact of the welfare system re-engineering on three outcomes:  Share of applicants among the poor;  Share of recipients among the poor;  Share of recipients among the poor who receive multiple types of assistance.
  • 5. 5 Our contribution  Focus on the poor-oriented system intervention  Look at particular activities  Include large set of controls  Account for non-randomness of Project implementation
  • 6. 6 Literature  Academic literature:  poverty spell (Okrasa, 1999a, 1999b, Poland)  probability of exit from poverty (Okrasa, 1999a, 1999b, Poland; Ravallion et al., 1995, Hungary; Van de Walle, 2004, Vietnam)  protecting from poverty (Van de Walle, 2004, Vietnam; Lokshin and Ravallion, 2000, Russian crisis)  Policy papers (WB, 2005, 2009):  Poor targeting, complicated application procedure, poor employee motivation, inadequate service quality, clients’ dissatisfaction – factors that prevent take-up.
  • 7. 77  2.5 mln families by the end of 2009 (19%)  Total annual expenditures = 17 bln UAH (310 mln USD) - 6.3% of the State Budget  MLSP, 27 regional and 754 local departments, 13,000 employees  15 national and a number of local social assistance programs  6 major programs cover 97% of recipients Brief description of the system
  • 8. 88 Modernization of the System  System re-engineering started in 2005: program based ►process based  Functional divisions (separation of the application admission, case processing, and money transfer procedures)  Single Window/ ”one-stop shop”  Other administrative changes (appointments by phone, control over transfer of cases , archive)  Renovation of offices  Modernization and improvement of the analytical capacity of the local and regional departments  Computerization  Employee training  Unified software  Unified data-base  Information campaign
  • 9. 9Project Impact on Household/ Population Behavior 9 Increase in productivity of employees Population awareness about various types of assistance Population attitude towards system of social assistance Number of processed applications Activity: Information campaign Poverty reduction Number of applications Activity: New computer equipment Activity: Facilities renovation Activity: Single application Social assistance system targeting Application timeOpportunity to submit single application for several types of assistance Psychological discomfort during the application process Readiness of applicants for application process Number of mistakes in the assistance assignment Program Impact Model
  • 10. 10 Project activities implementation Treatment indicators Year Difference 2008 2009 Renovation of premises and office equipmentA 0.0 0.287 0.287*** Computer hardware was purchased during the last year B 0.111 0.006 -0.095*** Single application procedure B 0.761 0.851 0.09*** Informational campaignA 0.0 0.544 0.544*** Data: A – Administrative data; B – Employees Survey.
  • 11. 11 Poverty-related outcomes Project outcomes Year Among non-poor Among poor Overall in the population Applied for social assistance 2008 19.4% 30.6% 23.6% 2009 18.0% 33.3% 23.4% Both years 18.7% 31.9% 23.5% Receive any social assistance 2008 18.6% 29.3% 22.5% 2009 17.0% 28.8% 21.1% Both years 17.8% 29.1% 21.8% Receive multiple assistance 2008 6.0% 9.8% 7.4% 2009 4.6% 9.9% 6.5% Both years 5.3% 9.8% 7.0%
  • 12. 12 Methodology Y – Project outcome (application or participation); Z – Project activities vector; P – Poverty indicator Х – Household controls; V – selection factors (district and office characteristics ) Т – time i – individual j – district District-level clustering jitjjtittititjtjtjit DVXTPPZZY   76543210
  • 13. 13 Surveys: (Wave 1 - Fall 2008; Wave 2 - Fall 2009)  Households  Employees Administrative data of MOL  Program implementation log (2005-2009)  Census of Social Assistance Departments (2005-2009) General Statistics by State Statistics Committee Data
  • 14. 14 Results
  • 15. 15 Basic specifications Applied for social assistance Receive any social assistance Receive multiple assistance Renovation of premises and office equipment 0.046 0.058 -0.008 Modernization of computer networks -0.201*** -0.189*** -0.056* Single application procedure 0.016 0.035 -0.01 Informational campaign 0.008 0.011 0.031 Poor * Renovation -0.026 -0.002 0.005 Poor * Computer 0.391*** 0.411*** 0.197** Poor * Single application 0.057 0.037 0.013 Poor * Informational campaign 0.044 0.033 -0.004 Poor 0.053 0.048 0.027 Pseudo R2 0.032 0.03 0.023 Observations 2,142 2,142 2,142 Probit marginal effect reported. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1.
  • 16. 16 Adding controls: household Applied for social assistance Receive any social assistance Receive multiple assistance Renovation of premises and office equipment 0.065 0.076 0.002 Modernization of computer networks -0.204*** -0.189*** -0.036* Single application procedure 0.016 0.035 -0.008 Informational campaign -0.007 -0.003 0.027 Poor * Renovation -0.045 -0.019 -0.013 Poor * Computer 0.507*** 0.529*** 0.249*** Poor * Single application 0.062 0.042 0.005 Poor * Informational campaign 0.058 0.038 -0.013 Poor -0.023 -0.026 -0.001 Pseudo R2 0.102 0.102 0.205 Observations 0.102 0.102 0.205 Probit marginal effect reported. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1.
  • 17. 17 Adding controls: districts Applied for social assistance Receive any social assistance Receive multiple assistance Renovation of premises and office equipment 0.250** 0.278*** 0.012 Modernization of computer networks -0.198* -0.193** -0.082 Single application procedure 0.09 0.119** 0.07 Informational campaign 0.089 0.078 0.014 Poor * Renovation 0.006 0.024 -0.017 Poor * Computer 0.353*** 0.378*** 0.309** Poor * Single application 0.114** 0.118** 0.039 Poor * Informational campaign 0.022 0.01 0.009 Poor 0.054 0.026 0.03 Pseudo R2 0.118 0.119 0.126 Observations 2,013 2,008 1,385 Probit marginal effect reported. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1.
  • 18. 18 Adding controls: household + district Applied for social assistance Receive any social assistance Receive multiple assistance Renovation of premises and office equipment 0.248** 0.283*** 0.02 Modernization of computer networks -0.190* -0.181** -0.035 Single application procedure 0.084 0.117** 0.034 Informational campaign 0.054 0.045 0 Poor * Renovation -0.004 0.019 -0.023 Poor * Computer 0.501*** 0.537*** 0.279*** Poor * Single application 0.122** 0.123** 0.009 Poor * Informational campaign 0.022 0.003 -0.013 Poor -0.051 -0.071* 0.007 Pseudo R2 0.205 0.213 0.359 Observations 1,998 1,993 1,377 Probit marginal effect reported. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1.
  • 19. 19 Final specification (with household, district and office controls) Applied for social assistance Receive any social assistance Receive multiple assistance Renovation of premises and office equipment 0.262** 0.314** -0.028 Modernization of computer networks -0.208 -0.193* -0.01 Single application procedure 0.104* 0.146** 0.041* Informational campaign 0.05 0.055 -0.031 Poor * Renovation -0.045 -0.022 -0.023* Poor * Computer 0.430*** 0.470*** 0.205** Poor * Single application 0.151** 0.147*** 0.014 Poor * Informational campaign -0.03 -0.047 -0.020* Poor -0.043 -0.064 0.013 Pseudo R2 0.2 0.21 0.357 Observations 1,665 1,660 1,099 Probit marginal effect reported. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1.
  • 20. 20 Social Assistance System re-engineering does improve targeting of the system towards poor and simplifies the application process:  Renovation of premises and purchase of new office equipment increases both the application rate and the participation rate of the population in the system. Conclusions
  • 21. 21  Single Window Application Procedure increases the participation rate of both non- poor and poor, with the latter effect being twice larger.  Single Window Application Procedure also encourages application among the poor, without increasing the system load among non-target group. Conclusions
  • 22. 22  Purchase of Computers and Modernization of Computer Networks discourages the application and participation in the system among the non-poor, while having the opposite, and quite large in magnitude, effect on the poor.  Informational campaign has no significant impact on any of the studied outcomes. Conclusions

×