The role of targeting in social
protection programmes:
what have we learned so far?
Background Paper for the SOFA 2015
Uni...
Targeting
- Maximizing programme impact
- Social equality
- Budget constraints
- Means Test (MT)
- Proxy Means Test (PMT)
...
What is Social Protection?
Social Protection is a set of policies and programmes that aim
to prevent and protect people ag...
Targeting
Poor and vulnerable groups Rural population
Agriculture Interventions
76%
24%
Geographic distribution of extreme...
Targeting as linkage between SP and Agriculture
Interventions
Low income
countries
prioritize these
areas for the
implemen...
Targeting as linkage between SP and Agriculture
Interventions
Since these policies
tend to target similar
geographic areas...
More costs
More accuracy
A very accurate targeting
strategy could better
identify beneficiaries but at
the same time could...
Targeting
Phases
Implementation
Design • Identification of target population
• Identification of elegibility criteria
• Se...
Targeting Methods
•Setting a threshold according to an observed income, consumption
or asset indicator easily verified.Mea...
Targeting Performance
 Errors in Design and Implementation
 Coady-Grosh-Hoddinott Index
Beneficiaries Non-beneficiaries
...
Challenges in Targeting Rural Population
• Income fluctuation due to agriculture seasonality
• Misreported self-consumptio...
Questions
Is targeting able to reach the poorest?
What is the best strategy for reaching the
poorest?
Is targeting able to reach the poorest?
Case studies
Programme Country and Year of programme
Implementation
Type of progra...
Is targeting able to reach the poorest?
Targeting Performance
CGH Index
(Mean score of all
programmes)
CGH Index
(Cash Tra...
What is the best strategy for reaching the poorest?
A focus on Rural Areas
•Low reliability of data in rural areasMeans Te...
What is the best strategy for reaching the poorest?
The answer cannot be found in a predetermined package of methods:
 Us...
Thanks for your attention
The role of targeting in social protection programmes what have we learned so far
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

The role of targeting in social protection programmes what have we learned so far

1,886 views

Published on

During FAO’s Preparatory Meeting for The State of Food and Agriculture 2015 (SOFA) held in Rome on June 30-July 1, IPC-IG presented the draft of the background paper “The role of targeting in Social Protection programmes: what have we learned so far?” The paper focused on the rationale for targeting Social Protection programmes and the different types of targeting, reviewing the evidence of the performance of different targeting strategies, and highlighting the strength and weaknesses of different mechanisms in rural areas.

Published in: Government & Nonprofit
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,886
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
25
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

The role of targeting in social protection programmes what have we learned so far

  1. 1. The role of targeting in social protection programmes: what have we learned so far? Background Paper for the SOFA 2015 United Nations Development Programme – International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth (UNDP/IPC-IG)
  2. 2. Targeting - Maximizing programme impact - Social equality - Budget constraints - Means Test (MT) - Proxy Means Test (PMT) - Categorical Targeting (CT) - Geographical Targeting (GT) - Community-Based Targeting (CBT) - Self-Targeting (ST) - Administrative - Political - Private - Social - Incentive - Design - Implementation - Undercoverage and Leakage - CGH Index Rationale Methods Costs Phases Performance measures The Role of Targeting in Social Protection Programmes: What have we learned so far?
  3. 3. What is Social Protection? Social Protection is a set of policies and programmes that aim to prevent and protect people against poverty and vulnerability and to promote social inclusion and equality of opportunities. Social Protection can be provided through contributory or non- contributory programmes.
  4. 4. Targeting Poor and vulnerable groups Rural population Agriculture Interventions 76% 24% Geographic distribution of extreme poor at global level Rural area Urban area 0% 20% 40% 60% SSA SA EAP LAC MENA ECA Total Share of the rural population below $1.25/day In developing countries, social protection programmes and agriculture intervention tend to target the same population. The sinergies created by the jointly implementation of these two kinds of interventions boost the impact produced on agricultural development and hunger erradication. Social Protection programmes Targeting as linkage between SP and Agriculture Interventions
  5. 5. Targeting as linkage between SP and Agriculture Interventions Low income countries prioritize these areas for the implementation of SP programs Rural population have less access to basic services High concentration of extreme poverty in rural areas Rural population is exposed to covariate shocks
  6. 6. Targeting as linkage between SP and Agriculture Interventions Since these policies tend to target similar geographic areas and population groups, they can potentially support each other and create synergies. Positive impact of some SP programs on beneficiaries’ investments in agricultural assets and activities. Agricultural interventions can positively affect beneficiaries producing an impact on poverty and vulnerability.
  7. 7. More costs More accuracy A very accurate targeting strategy could better identify beneficiaries but at the same time could be really costly and divert resources that may be transferred to the poor. Targeting Costs • Administrative costs • Political costs • Private costs • Social costs • Incentive costs Targeting is efficient if its costs are offset by the additional impact produced on the targeted group by a greater amount of benefits received or by an increase in social equality. The Costs of Targeting
  8. 8. Targeting Phases Implementation Design • Identification of target population • Identification of elegibility criteria • Selection of targeting methods • Identification of eligible households/individuals • Selection of actual beneficiaries Programme Objectives
  9. 9. Targeting Methods •Setting a threshold according to an observed income, consumption or asset indicator easily verified.Means Test •Setting a threshold according to a score obtained taking into account and weighting different proxies of the household economic and social status or predictors of the per capita household expeenditures. Proxy Means Test •Selecting individuals , or households with individuals, belonging to a given social or age groupsCategorical Targeting •Selecting geographic areas according to a mapping of social and/or economic indicatorsGeographical Targeting •Selecting eligible households or individuals through the assessment of community members and leaders Community-Based Targeting •Self-selecting application of households or individuals for participating into the programmeSelf-Targeting
  10. 10. Targeting Performance  Errors in Design and Implementation  Coady-Grosh-Hoddinott Index Beneficiaries Non-beneficiaries Poor Non-Poor Poor Non-Poor Respecting eligibility criteria No error Inclusion error in design Exclusion error in implementation Exclusion error in implementation Do not respecting eligibility criteria Inclusion error in implementation Inclusion error in implementation Exclusion error in design No error Share of benefits going to the poorest quintiles of the population
  11. 11. Challenges in Targeting Rural Population • Income fluctuation due to agriculture seasonality • Misreported self-consumption • Migration rural-rural and rural-urban • Difficulties in defining household structure Data reliability • Data collection in remote villages • Monitoring targeting High costs
  12. 12. Questions Is targeting able to reach the poorest? What is the best strategy for reaching the poorest?
  13. 13. Is targeting able to reach the poorest? Case studies Programme Country and Year of programme Implementation Type of programme Productive Safety Net Programme (PSNP) Ethiopia, 2005 Public work and Unconditional Cash/Kind transfer Social Cash Transfer Pilot Program (SCTPP) Ethiopia,2011 Unconditional Cash Transfer Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty Program (LEAP) Ghana, 2008 Unconditional/Conditional Cash Transfer (depending on the category of beneficiaries) (including health insurance) Lesotho Child Grants Programme (CGP) Lesotho, 2009 Unconditional Cash Transfer Multiple Category Cash Transfer Program (MCP) Zambia, 2011 Unconditional Cash Transfer Kenya Cash Transfer for Orphans and Vulnerable Children (CTOVC) Kenya, 2004 Unconditional Cash Transfer Malawi Social Cash Transfer Scheme (SCT) Malawi, 2006 Unconditional Cash Transfer Mozambique’s Programa Subsídio de Alimentos (PSA) Mozambique, 1993 Unconditional Cash Transfer
  14. 14. Is targeting able to reach the poorest? Targeting Performance CGH Index (Mean score of all programmes) CGH Index (Cash Transfers only) 122 programmes Coady et al. (2004) 1.22 1.80 Programme Targeting Method CGH Index (Full sample) CGH Index (Eligible sample only) Ethiopia PSNP GT, CT and CBT 1.40 Ethiopia PSNP (DS only) GT, CT and CBT 1.37 Ethiopia PSNP (PW only) GT, CT and CBT 1.94 Ghana LEAP GT, CT, CBT and PMT 1.87 1.86 Lesotho CGP PMT and CBT 1.48 Kenya CT-OVC GT, CBT, PMT and CT 1.29 3.67 Malawi SCTS GT, CBT, and CT 3.68 2.72 Mozambique PSA CBT and CT 2.13 1.73 The selected programmes are able to reach the poorest two quintile of the population better than a random allocation.
  15. 15. What is the best strategy for reaching the poorest? A focus on Rural Areas •Low reliability of data in rural areasMeans Test •Able to capture context-based characteristics of rural and urban areas but it requires the collection of a huge amount of dataProxy Means Test •Based on easily observable characteristics that do not require the collection of a large amount of data but the correlation between each characteristic and poverty depends on the local context Categorical Targeting •Able to identify poor rural areas when there is unequal distribution of poor across areas and high concentration of them within areas, as in the case of remote rural areas with lack of access to basic services Geographical Targeting •Able to capture local specificity and to benefit by the high level of social capital within rural communities but could perpetuate the marginalization of stigmatized groups Community-Based Targeting •Able to capture local needs if it respects agricultural seasonality and takes into account differences between needs and tastes of rural and urban populations . Could discourage individuals to apply if registration centers are located far from rural areas Self-Targeting
  16. 16. What is the best strategy for reaching the poorest? The answer cannot be found in a predetermined package of methods:  Usually a sequence of several methods is implemented in order to capture different dimensions related to poverty.  The choice about targeting mechanisms depends on: type of programme; context- related costs and benefits; cultural norms; and heterogeneity in deprivation dimensions across countries, areas (rural/urban) and social groups.  Each strategy involves several strengths and weaknesses strictly affected by: administrative capacity; quality of data; areas of implementation; and by the methodological choices, made during the design phase, about the representative dimensions of poverty and deprivation.  Some method, such as the Community-Based Targeting and the Proxy Means Test, by design allow to capture specific context-based features and differences across groups.
  17. 17. Thanks for your attention

×