Outline of the Presentation Trends in growth, poverty and inequality Economic participation of the poor Assessment of 4...
Inclusive Growth Allows participation and contributionby all members of society, withparticular emphasis on the ability o...
Recent economic growth has been remarkableSource of basic data: NIA, NSCB3.0-0.60.32.14.44.75.85.2-0.63.14.42.93.65.06.74....
33.124.9 26.4 26.528.8 28.6 27.90.05.010.015.020.025.030.035.040.019912003200620092012Poverty incidence among population (...
Inequality has declined slightly at the nationallevel; inequality in the urban areas went down butit increased in the rura...
Majority of the poor workers are atmost elementary undergraduate138634433221312626051015202530354045Poorest Second Third R...
Where do workers with elementaryeducation get employed?Agriculture, hunting &forestry, 49.8Wholesale & retailtrade, 13.4Fi...
Average daily wage of high schoolgraduate is 45% higher than an elementaryundergraduate141 169 186 2022463355981,137020040...
Proportion of children attending school, byincome group and by age group, 200786.691.7 93.4 95.1 96.7 96.1 97.7 98.6 98.7 ...
Features of the Philippine CCT Objectives:◦ Social Assistance – provide cashassistance to alleviate immediate needs(short...
Features of the Philippine CCT Target families: Extremely poor families withchildren aged 0 to 14 Components: Health and...
Features of the Philippine CCT Criteria for selection of beneficiaries:◦ Residents of poorest municipalities;◦ Households...
Features of the Philippine CCT The poorest households in theselected municipalities are identifiedthrough a Proxy-Means T...
4Ps Targeting NHTS-PR identified 5.2 million poor families, wayabove the estimated 3.9 million poor families in2009. Incl...
Features of the Philippine CCT Conditionalities:1. Pregnant women must avail of pre- and post-natal careand be attended d...
4Ps has been scaled up toorapidly0.0060.340.631.02.33.13.85.20.0001.0002.0003.0004.0005.0006.0002007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2...
4Ps is the biggest social protectionprogram-10,00020,00030,00040,00050,0002007 2008 2009 2010 20112012201350 2995,00010,00...
4Ps Targeting Based on the APIS 2011, 4Ps beneficiaries comprise6.4% of the total families. Over 82% of all 4Psbeneficiar...
4Ps beneficiaries include non-poorSource of basic data: APIS 2011, NSO32.8324.9617.0811.926.833.51.43 0.84 0.41 0.21051015...
Administrative cost of the programis substantialBudget category 2011 2012Total 21,194 39,450Cash transfer/grant to benefic...
IMPACTS OF 4PS
School attendance falls below 90%after age 13Source of basic data: APIS 2011, NSO92.6 98.0 98.4 98.9 98.8 98.3 96.4 93.6 8...
Comparison of school attendance rates ofchildren in matched 4Ps and non-4Ps families, byage group, 2011Age group 4Ps Non-4...
Lack of personal interest is the mostcommon reason for not attendingschool0.50.20.20.70.50.41.91.41.33.04.54.515.430.934.5...
Older children drop out of school towork to augment family income0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.54 0.91 2.52 5.3914.8826.1538....
Proportion of children in 4Ps families who areattending school or working, by sex and by singleyear of age, 20110.0 0.0 0....
 The 4Ps program leads to an increase in the school participation rate by 3.5percentage points among children aged 6-14 y...
Recommendations To increase employability of the poorin higher productivity and fastergrowing sectors, extend the Pantawi...
Recommendations Given the fiscal burden of extendingthe program, it becomes moreimportant to improve targeting scheme◦ Re...
Recommendations Improve program implementation◦ Lessen lag in including beneficiariesidentified through on-demand system◦...
Recommendations Pilot test changes in the programbefore scaling up◦ Bigger grants to children in high school?◦ Grants whe...
Thank you!www.pids.gov.ph
Distribution of 4Ps and poor families, byregion, share to total (%)10.810.09.07.47.16.4 6.3 6.3 5.9 5.8 5.74.9 4.64.22.4 1...
Various Implementation Issues Delays in transferring the cash grants(currently every 2 months) Cash card system (Cash ca...
Comparison of school attendance rates ofchildren in 4Ps and Non–4Ps families, by singleyear of ageAge 4Ps Non-4Ps6 92.6 92...
Age 4Ps Non-4Ps6 92.9 87.47 97.6 95.78 98.9 97.29 98.8 97.110 99.0 97.111 97.9 96.612 96.6 95.113 94.1 89.214 88.2 84.115 ...
Comparison of school attendance rates ofchildren in matched 4Ps and non-4Ps families, bysingle year of age, 2011Sample 4Ps...
Proportion of poor, 4Ps and non-4Psfamilies who experienced hunger, 2011Group PercentPoor 15.94Ps 14.4Matched 4Ps 14.7Matc...
Frequency of experiencing hunger amongpoor, 4Ps and non-4Ps families, 2011Frequency Poor 4PsMatched4PsMatchedNon-4PsAt lea...
Proportion of children in 4Ps families whoare attending school, by type of family, 2011AgeProportion of children aged 6-18...
Distribution of children aged 6-14 not attendingschool in 4Ps families by family size, % to totalShare of ChildrenAgeSmall...
Proportion of children in matched 4Ps and non-4Ps families who are attending school and/orworking, by sex and by single ye...
Promotin g Inclusive growth through the 4Ps
Próxima SlideShare
Cargando en…5
×

Promotin g Inclusive growth through the 4Ps

2.989 visualizaciones

Publicado el

Celia M. Reyes slides during the GDN 14th Annual Global Development Conference,
June 19-21, 2013
ADB, Manila

  • Sé el primero en comentar

Promotin g Inclusive growth through the 4Ps

  1. 1. Outline of the Presentation Trends in growth, poverty and inequality Economic participation of the poor Assessment of 4Ps Conclusions and RecommendationsBased on PIDS DP 2013-09 and Chapter 4 of the EPM 2012Promoting Inclusive Growth Through the 4Ps
  2. 2. Inclusive Growth Allows participation and contributionby all members of society, withparticular emphasis on the ability ofthe poor and disadvantaged toparticipate in growth (ADB) The main instrument for a sustainableand inclusive growth is productiveemployment (WB)
  3. 3. Recent economic growth has been remarkableSource of basic data: NIA, NSCB3.0-0.60.32.14.44.75.85.2-0.63.14.42.93.65.06.74.85.26.64.21.17.63.96.6-10123456789 GDP Growth rateGDP Growth rate
  4. 4. 33.124.9 26.4 26.528.8 28.6 27.90.05.010.015.020.025.030.035.040.019912003200620092012Poverty incidence among population (%), 1991-2012Annual Estimates Semestral EstimatesSource: NSCBYet slow progress in poverty reduction
  5. 5. Inequality has declined slightly at the nationallevel; inequality in the urban areas went down butit increased in the rural areasSource: Celia M. Reyes, Aubrey D. Tabuga, Ronina D. Asis and Maria Blessila G. Datu, 2012, Poverty andAgriculture in the Philippines: Trends in Income Poverty and Distribution (PIDS DP 2012-09)0.48030.47350.51830.50450.4871 0.48370.47430.47360.46020.48500.47820.4513 0.4496 0.44620.3941 0.39420.41900.4255 0.4288 0.4296 0.42780.350.370.390.410.430.450.470.490.510.530.55All Areas Urban RuralGini
  6. 6. Majority of the poor workers are atmost elementary undergraduate138634433221312626051015202530354045Poorest Second Third Richest%No grade completed Some elementary Elementary graduateSome high school High school graduate Some collegeAt least college graduateSource of basic data: Matched files of FIES 2009 and LFS January 2010, NSO
  7. 7. Where do workers with elementaryeducation get employed?Agriculture, hunting &forestry, 49.8Wholesale & retailtrade, 13.4Fishing, 7.2Private householdactivities, 6.4Manufacturing, 5.9Construction, 5.6Transport, storage &communications, 5.1Othercommunity, social &personal serviceactivities, 1.9Public administration &defense, 1.8Hotels &restaurants, 1.2 Mining & quarrying, 0.8Real estate, renting &business activities, 0.4Electricity, gas & watersupply, 0.1Education, 0.1Health & socialwork, 0.1Financialintermediation, 0Source of Basic Data: LFS (July 2011), NSO
  8. 8. Average daily wage of high schoolgraduate is 45% higher than an elementaryundergraduate141 169 186 2022463355981,13702004006008001,0001,200No grade completedElementary undergraduateElementary graduateHigh school undergraduateHigh school graduateCollege undergraduateCollege graduatePostgraduatePhpSource of basic data: LFS (July 2011), NSO
  9. 9. Proportion of children attending school, byincome group and by age group, 200786.691.7 93.4 95.1 96.7 96.1 97.7 98.6 98.7 99.280.686.0 87.2 89.2 91.9 93.2 95.7 97.2 98.798.447.9 50.453.7 55.357.9 60.966.873.580.790.50.020.040.060.080.0100.0120.0Poorest 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Richest6 to 11 12 to 14 15 to 18Source of basic data: APIS 2007, NSO
  10. 10. Features of the Philippine CCT Objectives:◦ Social Assistance – provide cashassistance to alleviate immediate needs(short-term poverty alleviation); and◦ Social Development – to break theintergenerational poverty cycle throughinvestments in human capital
  11. 11. Features of the Philippine CCT Target families: Extremely poor families withchildren aged 0 to 14 Components: Health and Education Health: P6,000 annually (P500 permonth)/family Education: P3,000/child/school year(P300/child/month for 10 months); up to amax. of 3 children in each family
  12. 12. Features of the Philippine CCT Criteria for selection of beneficiaries:◦ Residents of poorest municipalities;◦ Households whose economic condition is equalto or below the provincial poverty threshold;◦ Households that have children 0-14 years oldand/or have a pregnant woman at the time ofassessment; and◦ Households that agree to meet conditionsspecified in the program.
  13. 13. Features of the Philippine CCT The poorest households in theselected municipalities are identifiedthrough a Proxy-Means Test. The DSWD selects the beneficiariesthrough the National HouseholdTargeting System for PovertyReduction (NHTS-PR).
  14. 14. 4Ps Targeting NHTS-PR identified 5.2 million poor families, wayabove the estimated 3.9 million poor families in2009. Including all these families will lead to evenhigher leakage rate. On-demand system (families who claim eligibilitybut are not selected have to go through the on-demand system); they are entered into thedatabase of eligible beneficiaries in the NHTS-PR; there is a lag before they can beaccommodated into the 4Ps database ofbeneficiaries
  15. 15. Features of the Philippine CCT Conditionalities:1. Pregnant women must avail of pre- and post-natal careand be attended during childbirth by a trained healthprofessional;2. Parents must attend family development sessions;3. 0-5 year old children must receive regular preventivehealth check-ups and vaccines;4. 3-5 year old children must attend day care or preschoolclasses at least 85% of the time;5. 6-14 year old children must enrol in elementary or highschool and must attend at least 85% of the time.6. 6-14 years old children must receive de-worming pillstwice a year
  16. 16. 4Ps has been scaled up toorapidly0.0060.340.631.02.33.13.85.20.0001.0002.0003.0004.0005.0006.0002007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014Source of basic data: DSWD
  17. 17. 4Ps is the biggest social protectionprogram-10,00020,00030,00040,00050,0002007 2008 2009 2010 20112012201350 2995,00010,00021,19439,45044,250Source of data: DSWD
  18. 18. 4Ps Targeting Based on the APIS 2011, 4Ps beneficiaries comprise6.4% of the total families. Over 82% of all 4Psbeneficiaries are rural families. Only 70.81% of the 4Ps beneficiaries in 2011 are incomepoor (after taking out the cash grant).◦ Leakage rate is 29% (Fernandez and Olfindo finds that 72% of thebeneficiaries belong to the bottom 20 % of the population) Among the 4Ps beneficiaries who are poor, only 7.2%became non-poor when given cash transfers. So far, the 4Ps has already reached 20.32% of thecountry’s total poor families (exclusion rate is 79.7%)
  19. 19. 4Ps beneficiaries include non-poorSource of basic data: APIS 2011, NSO32.8324.9617.0811.926.833.51.43 0.84 0.41 0.2105101520253035Percent(%)
  20. 20. Administrative cost of the programis substantialBudget category 2011 2012Total 21,194 39,450Cash transfer/grant to beneficiaries 17,138 35,453Implementation support* 4,056 3,997Trainings 1,625 703Salaries and allowances for 1,800 new personnel 716 1,877Bank service fee 171 346Information, education and advocacy materials;printing of manuals and booklets 649 252Capital outlay 218 133Monitoring, evaluation and administration support 677 686Share of cash transfer to total budget 80.9% 89.9%Source: DSWD, available online http://pantawid.dswd.gov.ph/index.php/pantawid-pamilya-financialsShare of Cash Transfer to Total Budget
  21. 21. IMPACTS OF 4PS
  22. 22. School attendance falls below 90%after age 13Source of basic data: APIS 2011, NSO92.6 98.0 98.4 98.9 98.8 98.3 96.4 93.6 89.777.560.043.633.801020304050607080901006 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18Percent(%)Age
  23. 23. Comparison of school attendance rates ofchildren in matched 4Ps and non-4Ps families, byage group, 2011Age group 4Ps Non-4Ps DifferenceSignificance(α=0.05)Aged 6-14 96.3 92.8 3.5 significantAged 6-11 97.8 95.0 2.8 significantAged 12-14 93.1 89.0 4.1 significantAged 15-18 57.1 54.3 2.8 not significantNote: Figures are estimates from the Nearest Neighbor (1), or One-to-one, matching with replacement.Source of basic data: Matched files of APIS 2011 and LFS July 2011, NSO
  24. 24. Lack of personal interest is the mostcommon reason for not attendingschool0.50.20.20.70.50.41.91.41.33.04.54.515.430.934.50.20.20.30.40.50.81.92.02.22.72.93.915.724.841.40 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45Finished schoolingNo school within the barangayToo young to go to schoolProblem with birth certificateProblem with school recordNo regular transportationOthersSchool are very farCannot cope with school workHousekeepingMarriageIllness/DisabilityEmployment/looking for workHigh cost of educationLack of personal interestReasons for not attending school among children in 4Ps families (aged 6-18)4Ps Non-4PsSource of basic data: APIS 2011, NSO
  25. 25. Older children drop out of school towork to augment family income0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.54 0.91 2.52 5.3914.8826.1538.2946.1092.196.9 96.5 95.7 94.4 92.6 88.7 84.875.263.148.433.624.301020304050607080901006 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18%Ageout-of-school, working studying, not workingSource of basic data: Matched files of APIS 2011 and LFS July 2011, NSO
  26. 26. Proportion of children in 4Ps families who areattending school or working, by sex and by singleyear of age, 20110.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.5 4.2 8.522.1 36.450.259.292.5 96.7 95.6 95.4 92.490.3 84.580.968.155.338.329.816.601020304050607080901006 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18%Ageout-of-school, working studying, not workingBoys, 4Ps0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.8 2.28.314.224.229.891.797.1 97.5 96.0 96.5 95.2 93.188.782.470.260.138.1 33.901020304050607080901006 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18%Ageout-of-school, working studying, not workingGirls, 4Ps
  27. 27.  The 4Ps program leads to an increase in the school participation rate by 3.5percentage points among children aged 6-14 years old. The 4Ps program does not influence the participation of children beyond theage coverage of the program. There is no significant difference between theschool participation rate of children aged 15-18 in 4Ps families and non-4Pschildren (using matched samples). The current coverage of 4Ps to 6- to 14-year-old children is intended toenable the child to finish elementary. School attendance rate is lower for older children than for younger ones. The gap between the richest households and the poorest ones is much widerfor the older children than for the younger ones. The average daily wage of someone who has finished high school is 45percent higher than the wage of someone who has reached some years inelementary. Education builds up human capital gradually. Therefore, sustained investmentis required to realize significant results.Conclusions
  28. 28. Recommendations To increase employability of the poorin higher productivity and fastergrowing sectors, extend the PantawidPamilya program or harmonize withother government programs to ensurethat the children finish at least highschool.◦ Will lead to more inclusive growth andincrease potential earnings of 4Ps
  29. 29. Recommendations Given the fiscal burden of extendingthe program, it becomes moreimportant to improve targeting scheme◦ Reduce leakage rate by updating the PMTmodel◦ Reduce exclusion rate by moving awayfrom strategy of focusing on “pockets ofpoverty”◦ Focus on the chronic poor; transient poor
  30. 30. Recommendations Improve program implementation◦ Lessen lag in including beneficiariesidentified through on-demand system◦ Monthly disbursement of cash transfer◦ Use of regular savings account for 4Ps Reduce administrative cost byadopting unified data collection systemfor NHTS-PR; will also reducepotential response bias
  31. 31. Recommendations Pilot test changes in the programbefore scaling up◦ Bigger grants to children in high school?◦ Grants when children graduate from highschool?◦ Maximum number of years in theprogram?
  32. 32. Thank you!www.pids.gov.ph
  33. 33. Distribution of 4Ps and poor families, byregion, share to total (%)10.810.09.07.47.16.4 6.3 6.3 5.9 5.8 5.74.9 4.64.22.4 1.71.46.89.98.27.17.75.53.17.65.76.110.64.74.05.22.7 3.41.80.02.04.06.08.010.012.0Share to total poor families, FIES 2009 Distribution of 4Ps families, DSWD (Dec 2012)Sources of basic data: DSWD and FIES 2009, NSO
  34. 34. Various Implementation Issues Delays in transferring the cash grants(currently every 2 months) Cash card system (Cash card system -used for merely transferring; does not worklike a regular ATM savings account;grantees do not have the option to keepmoney in the bank) Grants are still distributed in cash (ex.Naujan, Oriental Mindoro) Venue: Municipalhall next to a tiangge
  35. 35. Comparison of school attendance rates ofchildren in 4Ps and Non–4Ps families, by singleyear of ageAge 4Ps Non-4Ps6 92.6 92.07 98.0 97.28 98.4 98.49 98.9 98.210 98.8 98.111 98.3 97.812 96.4 97.013 93.6 93.914 89.7 90.715 77.5 86.216 60.0 71.317 43.6 58.718 33.8 48.2Source of basic data: APIS 2011, NSO
  36. 36. Age 4Ps Non-4Ps6 92.9 87.47 97.6 95.78 98.9 97.29 98.8 97.110 99.0 97.111 97.9 96.612 96.6 95.113 94.1 89.214 88.2 84.115 76.5 78.216 59.1 59.517 42.6 41.518 31.0 30.5Comparison of school attendance rates ofchildren in 4Ps and Non-4Ps families belonging tobottom 40%, by single year of ageSource of basic data: APIS 2011, NSO
  37. 37. Comparison of school attendance rates ofchildren in matched 4Ps and non-4Ps families, bysingle year of age, 2011Sample 4Ps Non-4Ps DifferenceSignificance(α=0.05)Aged 6 91.2 83.5 7.7 significantAged 7 98.2 95.5 2.7 significantAged 8 98.4 96.9 1.6 significantAged 9 98.7 96.0 2.7 significantAged 10 98.6 96.3 2.3 significantAged 11 98.1 95.8 2.3 significantAged 12 96.6 94.1 2.5 significantAged 13 93.3 89.3 4.0 significantAged 14 89.5 81.6 7.9 significantAged 15 76.9 76.7 0.3 not significantAged 16 59.7 56.5 3.2 not significantAged 17 44.2 43.8 0.4 not significantAged 18 34.0 32.0 2.0 not significantNotes: Figures are estimates from the Nearest Neighbor (3) matching with replacementSource of basic data: Matched files of APIS 2011 and LFS July 2011, NSO
  38. 38. Proportion of poor, 4Ps and non-4Psfamilies who experienced hunger, 2011Group PercentPoor 15.94Ps 14.4Matched 4Ps 14.7Matched Non-4Ps 12.8Note: 4Ps and non-4Ps families with children aged 6-18 who are attending school were matchedusing Propensity Score Matching (One-to-one matching with replacement).Source of basic data: Matched files of APIS 2011 and LFS July 2011, NSO
  39. 39. Frequency of experiencing hunger amongpoor, 4Ps and non-4Ps families, 2011Frequency Poor 4PsMatched4PsMatchedNon-4PsAt least once ineach week31.7 28.1 30.6 35.3At least once ineach month40.4 39.8 38.6 37.8At least once inthree months27.9 32.1 30.8 26.9Note: 4Ps and non-4Ps families with children aged 6-18 who are attending school were matched usingPropensity Score Matching (One-to-one matching with replacement).Source of basic data: Matched files of APIS 2011 and LFS July 2011, NSO
  40. 40. Proportion of children in 4Ps families whoare attending school, by type of family, 2011AgeProportion of children aged 6-18 in 4Ps families3 or less 4 or more6 92.2 93.17 98.6 97.08 99.4 97.19 98.9 98.810 99.1 98.511 98.2 98.312 96.6 96.113 93.7 93.514 91.2 87.915 77.8 77.216 62.5 58.217 43.9 43.418 32.0 35.0Source of basic data: APIS 2011, NSO
  41. 41. Distribution of children aged 6-14 not attendingschool in 4Ps families by family size, % to totalShare of ChildrenAgeSmaller families(at most 3 eligible children)Larger families(4 or more eligible children)All6 19.4 18.5 19.17 6.8 3.9 5.88 3.1 6.9 4.49 3.0 3.2 3.110 3.5 3.8 3.611 5.6 5.0 5.412 10.9 8.9 10.213 21.2 17.8 20.114 26.6 32.1 28.5All 100 100 100Source of basic data: APIS 2011, NSO
  42. 42. Proportion of children in matched 4Ps and non-4Ps families who are attending school and/orworking, by sex and by single year of age, 20110.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.5 4.2 8.522.1 36.450.259.292.5 96.7 95.6 95.492.490.3 84.580.968.155.338.329.816.601020304050607080901006 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18%Ageout-of-school, working studying, not workingBoys, 4Ps0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.8 2.28.314.224.229.891.797.1 97.5 96.0 96.5 95.2 93.188.782.470.260.138.1 33.901020304050607080901006 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18%Ageout-of-school, working studying, not workingGirls, 4Ps0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.0 2.4 4.79.518.626.737.790.8 96.4 97.1 96.4 96.295.2 93.087.6 83.675.561.149.438.801020304050607080901006 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18%Ageout-of-school, working studying, not workingBoys, Non-4Ps0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.8 1.3 2.88.914.320.392.897.1 97.8 97.5 96.9 96.7 95.8 93.3 90.685.168.757.248.501020304050607080901006 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18%Ageout-of-school, working studying, not workingGirls, Non-4Ps

×