Download to read offline
More Related Content
Similar to Ahmed Elsayed - BEP launch
Ahmed Elsayed - BEP launch
- 1. Dr. Ahmed Elsayed ExecutiveDirector, J-PAL MENA Associate Professor, AUC Findings from Impact Evaluations of Social Protection Programs لبرامج األثر تقييمات نتائج االجتماعية الحماية د . السيد أحمد الفقر لمكافحة جميل عبدالطيف لمعمل التنفيذي المدير بالقاهرة األمريكية بالجامعة االقتصاد أستاذ
- 2. Informing Social ProtectionPolicies in Egypt and Globally Ahmed Elsayed Executive Director, J-PAL MENA at AUC Associate Professor, AUC May 7, 2023
- 3. - Overview onJ-PAL MENA - Randomized evaluations as tool for Impact Evaluation - Current evidence on social protection - The way ahead: Egypt Impact Lab Agenda
- 4. Abdul Latif JameelPoverty Action Lab (J-PAL) is a global research center working to reduce poverty by ensuring that policy is informed by scientific evidence.
- 5. Research Conducting randomized evaluations tounderstand impact of programs & policies Policy Synthesis & dissemination of evidence-informed recommendations Training Capacity building to build cultures of evidence use J-PAL’s mission is to ensure that policy is informed by evidence, and research is translated into action
- 6. Agriculture Firms Gender Education Crime, Violence, &Conflict Health Environment, Energy, & Climate Change Labor Markets Finance Political Economy & Governance We work across a broad range of sectors Social Protection
- 7. Host Universities Host Partner LOCALGROUNDING Our network of regional offices are hosted at universities around the world and lead research, policy engagement, and training across their regions. We also work closely with our partner organization, Innovations for Poverty Action, which has offices in 22 countries. 7 REGIONAL OFFICES
- 8. 1,640+ conducted by researchersin our network across 95 countries, building a strong body of evidence on the most (and least) effective approaches to reducing poverty. EVALUATIONS EVALUATIONS
- 9. Randomized evaluations takea scientific approach to tackling poverty
- 10. How does arandomized evaluation work? Random Assignment Measure and compare outcomes to estimate impact Program Status quo Identify eligible participants Key advantage of randomized evaluations: Due to random assignment, members of the intervention and comparison groups do not differ systematically at the outset of the evaluation. Thus, any difference that subsequently arises between them can be attributed to the program, rather than to other factors. Before a program starts, individuals are randomly assigned to two groups. With enough people, both groups have statistically identical characteristics, on average.
- 11. J-PAL co-founders andlongtime affiliated professor were awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2019 For research that has “dramatically improved our ability to fight poverty in practice” worldwide
- 12. J-PAL Middle Eastand North Africa (MENA) is J-PAL’s seventh regional office 60 54 Egypt based 6 Morocco Employment Lab 34 RCTS (completed and ongoing) 2020 8 Sectors Education Gender Social Protection Labor and Firms Agriculture E2C2 Finance Health
- 13. Since 2014, J-PALMENA has been building partnerships to respond to critical policy questions from governments and development practitioners
- 14. Evidence in SocialProtection
- 15. We define socialprotection as the wide variety of programs that aim to provide financial assistance to low-income families, insure against shocks, and break poverty traps. What do we mean by social protection? Social protection seeks to do two things: 1. Improve lives of people experiencing chronic poverty 2. Prevent people from falling into chronic poverty Cash or in- kind transfers Maternity benefits School feeding programs Public works Active labor market programs Social insurance or pensions and more!
- 16. • Social protectionexpansion in response to Covid-19 – 223 countries or territories have planned or put in place 3,856 social protection measures A massive expansion of social assistance • Research needed on social protection in LMICs World Bank, 2022; World Bank, 2017 • Social assistance programs had already been growing pre- crisis – From 2000 to 2017, the number of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) with such programs increased from 72 to 149
- 17. Systematic challenges ● High-incomecountries face key challenges in program financing, design, and delivery ● Low- and middle-income countries face these challenges plus more ○ Limited fiscal space due to lower tax collection to GDP ratios, as well as constraints to borrow ○ Challenges with targeting given large informal sector, limited information ○ Challenges with delivery given weaker institutions, incomplete markets (e.g. insurance markets, labor markets) May, 2020. Bangkok, Thailand. People waiting to receive food from the local police. Photo: Athawit Ketsak | Shutterstock.com 17
- 18. How should systemsand programs be designed or re-designed to support the recovery period, respond to future shocks, and more effectively address long term poverty?
- 19. Responding to shocks Howto insure beneficiaries against economic, health, climatic, or other risks? A few important questions Program Design What type of assistance do we provide? Delivery How to ensure assistance reaches eligible families? Targeting Who is eligible to receive assistance and how do we identify them?
- 20. How to identifyeligible (poor) individuals to enroll in the social assistance programs? 20 • There are different methods – Existing social registries – Proxy Means Testing (PMT) Method – Community targeting – Self-targeting • Differ in terms of data availability/cost/time to implement • Complementing some methods might be useful, especially in the context of COVID-19
- 21. Community-based targeting andself-targeting can improve flexibility in identifying the poor without increasing targeting errors
- 22. Indonesian villagers participatingin a meeting. Ritwik Sarkar Community-based targeting can offer flexibility in identifying the poor without increasing targeting error • Idea: Give each community a fixed number of slots (perhaps based on poverty level), and allow local community institutions to identify beneficiaries • Potential advantages: Reduce exclusion error, capture recent shocks, adapt to local understanding of poverty • Evidence: In Indonesia, researchers found that beneficiary lists better correspond with local understanding poverty, and overall does about as well on targeting as a PMT Alatas, et al. 2012; Basurto et al. 2019; Karlan and Thuysbaert 2013 22
- 23. And can alsoimprove community satisfaction 23 IMPACT OF THREE METHODS ON COMMUNITY SATISFACTION Alatas, et al 2012 Number of households that should be added to beneficiary list Number of households that should be removed from beneficiary list Number of complaints in suggestion box * Statistical significance noted at the 1% level
- 24. Self-targeting can bean effective way to include eligible beneficiaries and keeping out ineligible beneficiaries • Idea: Allow people to apply to be included in beneficiary list; impose requirements that are costlier for high-income households, inducing them to self-select out • Potential advantages: May screen in people who really need assistance, and screen out those who have higher incomes, reducing costs • Evidence: In Indonesia, adding an on-demand step helped improve screening compared to PMT with similar eligibility. Non-poor households were less likely to get benefits because rich households did not bother to apply. Source: Alatas et al, 2016 Nichols and Zeckhauser 1982; Gupta 2017; Alatas et al, 2016
- 25. The design oftransfer programs matter
- 26. • The designand implementation of transfer programs matter in terms of their ability to reach poor households and give them the tools to make decisions that work best for their families – What to give? – The amount and timing of when to give it – Whether to include conditions for program access The details of transfer programs matter
- 27. What to give? CashVouchers In-kind ● Allows choice ● Political concerns about misspending ● May increase prices when supply is limited ● Allows some choice and some government control ● May help local business ● Government controls spending choices ● Ensures supply of a basic necessity ● Quality may be low, may be leakages More choice, less government involvement More restricted, more government involvement
- 28. Many open questionsabout relative effectiveness There is limited evidence comparing across programs, particularly at scale. Cunha, et al., 2019; Aker, 2017; Hidrobo, et al., 2013, Banerjee et al., 2022 1. Cash vs. in-kind (rural Mexico): In-kind transfers caused prices to decline in remote areas 2. Cash vs. vouchers (IDP camp in DRC): Vouchers and cash saw no difference in food consumption or well-being. 3. Cash vs. vouchers vs. in-kind (urban Ecuador): All three increased and improved food consumption ● Food increased calories consumed the most and vouchers increased dietary-diversity the most, but effects were small. ● Food is least cost-effective (in-kind program was more than twice as expensive given higher administrative costs associated with moving/sourcing the food) 4. Vouchers vs. in-kind (Indonesia): Moving from an in-kind to an electronic, voucher-based program led to a large reduction in poverty by allowing aid to be better targeted
- 29. Labelling can beas effective as formal conditionality
- 30. Labelling can beas effective as formal conditionality • Enforcing conditions can lead to the exclusion of the poorest and discourage some households from even applying for the transfers • Labeling or encouraging behaviors may have similar effects • In Morocco, labelled cash transfers improved educational outcomes more than conditional cash transfers by increasing the salience of education Benhassine et al. (2015) COMPARISON OF IMPACTS FROM LCT VS CCT
- 31. Baird et al(2012) Photo: Sarah Baird Conditionality may have unintended consequences In Malawi, CCT compared with UCT: • CCT increased test scores relative to both comparison and UCT • But the UCT had a larger effect in reducing marriage amongst schoolgirls and childbearing rates • Why? UCT provided flexibility in accessing benefits, even to non-compliers Calls for a careful consideration of conditionalities and their indirect impact on beneficiaries
- 32. Policymakers seeking tosustainably improve the lives of very low-income people should consider “big-push” assistance policies to support graduation from poverty
- 33. Do the timingand size of transfers matter? Lumpy cash transfers ● GiveDirectly evaluation compared lump- sum vs. 9 monthly transfers ○ At 9 months, some evidence that monthly increased food security, while lumpy increased assets ○ At 3 years, no difference ● Lump-sum CCT in Colombia ○ Modified CCT so one-third of payments made in lump-sum at time of next school enrollment ○ Secondary and long-run tertiary enrollment increased relative to stream of payments 33 Lumpy asset transfers ● Pioneered by BRAC, Graduation approach ○ Generally consists of a lumpy productive asset (often livestock), bundled with regular cash transfers, skills training, savings, health education, and regular coaching visits ○ Results in Bangladesh and West Bengal, India show substantial effects on consumption at 7 years Haushofer and Shapiro, 2016, 2018; Barrera-Osorio, et al., 2011, 2019; Bandiera, et al., 2017; Banerjee, et al., 2016
- 34. Graduation: A holisticapproach to improving livelihoods 736 million people live in extreme poverty A multifaceted “big push” helps families “graduate” out of poverty Now reaching 20 million households in 75 countries Photo: BRAC
- 35. Graduation program consistsof six components 1. Transfer of a productive asset such as a cow, goat, or supplies for petty trade 2. Technical skills training to manage the asset 3. Regular cash or food support 4. Access to a savings account or encouragement to save 5. Frequent home visits to provide accountability, coaching, and encouragement 6. Health education, healthcare access, and/or life skills training
- 36. Graduation program wasconsistently effective in most contexts Program costs and returns per participant: Long-run benefits outweigh up-front costs in most contexts Banerjee, et al. 2015; Bandiera, et al. 2017 (Bangladesh) Honduras: Program costs: $1,406 Returns: -189% Peru: Program costs: $2,697 Returns: 190% Ghana: Program costs: $2,135 Returns: 133% Bangladesh: Program costs: $344 Returns: 244% Ethiopia: Program costs: $1,054 Returns: 260% India: Program costs: $358 Returns: 433% Pakistan: Program costs: $1,160 Returns: 179%
- 37. • Policymakers seekinga program to sustainably improve the lives of very low-income people should consider investing in the Graduation approach • Long-run benefits of the Graduation approach outweigh up-front costs • The Graduation approach may be more effective in creating sustained change than alternative approaches that target extremely low-income people, such as cash transfers • More research can help shed light on which components of the Graduation program drive results Graduation approach: Key takeaways
- 38. • How canwe most effectively target social assistance programs in light of rapidly changing poverty contexts, especially for marginalized groups? • What type of assistance should we provide? What are the gender implications of certain design features? More generally, how can social protection promote gender equality? • How can we most effectively deliver social assistance? What is the best way to leverage technology? • What are the impacts of providing social benefits like maternity and sick leave? • What are the long-term impacts of assistance on poverty and well-being? How can we design social protection programs to break intergenerational cycles of poverty? Many open research questions on social protection
- 39.
- 40. Government making majorinvestments in social protection, family development, employment, and gender. What are most effective and cost-effective programs to pilot and scale? EIL is structured around government policy priorities, is embedded in government, and was co-designed by MPED and J-PAL MENA. MPED, MoSS, MSMEDA, NCW, and NIGSD are poised to be government leaders for using rigorous evidence to inform program design and scale. Rigorous evidence can help achieve Egypt’s top development policy goals 40
- 41. MPED partnered withJ-PAL MENA at AUC to build the Egypt Impact Lab with four strategic government partners, centered around three thematic areas, and with initial funding for five years. EIL is made possible with support from founding partners Sawiris Foundation for Social Development and Community Jameel, and additional support from UNICEF Egypt Partners 41
- 42. Thematic areas reflectgovernment priorities 42 Social protection and poverty alleviation EIL will have a major focus on the Hayah Karima Initiative, a multidimensional poverty alleviation program. It will also support MoSS’s existing commitments to evidence-informed social solidarity policy. Employment & MSME development Employment remains at the top of development challenges and policy priorities for the Government of Egypt, and is a key component in the country’s strategies to reduce poverty and inequality. Gender empowerment and family development EIL will also focus on the National Family Development Program, a coordinated effort across government to curb population growth and support healthy families, and other efforts to promote women’s empowerment.
- 43.