Transcript REFORMING SOCIAL PROTECTION SYSTEM AND BASIC INCOME

REFORMING SOCIAL
PROTECTION SYSTEM AND
BASIC INCOME
ANDRAS UTHOFF
13th International Conference of the Basic Income
Earth Network
Basic Income as an instrument for justice and peace
CONTENT
• ADDRESSING INEQUALITY: IN SEARCH OF A NEW
PARADIGM FOR SOCIAL PROTECTION
• IMPROVING FINANCING: THE INCREASING
IMPORTANCE OF THE FISCAL SPACE
• ACKNOWLEDING RIGHTS: SOCIAL DIALOGUE,
GRADUALISM AND SOLIDARITY
• CONCLUSIONS
TWO PARADIGMS…
Two
paradigms that have marked the history of
social protection:
1. Old assistance for the neediest (non contributive
financing of low magnitude)
2. Social security for formal workers (contributive
financing with universal coverage expectations)
… THAT HAVE LIMITED ACCESS
AND GOALS
•
NON CONTRIBUTIVE COVERAGE (PUBLIC FINANCE)
–
–
–
–
•
LOW TAX BASE
LOW TAX BURDEN
HIGH LEVEL OF EVASION AND ELUSION
REGRESIVE STRUCTURE (LARGELY VALUE ADDED TAXES)
CONTRIBUTIVE COVERAGE (LABOR CONTRACTS)
–
–
–
–
ROLE INCOMPATIBILITY
LOW EMPLOYMENT GENERATION
HIGH LEVELS OF UNDEREMPLOYMENT – INFORMALITY AND UNEMPLOYMENT
PRECARIOUS FORMAL JOB CREATION
 These problems are systemic and have worsen during the crisis
 These problems are similar across countries but involve ad hoc strategies on the
basis of historical, cultural and institutional developments
LIMITING CONTRIBUTIVE COVERAGE.
AMÉRICA LATINA (16 PAÍSES): OCUPADOS a AFILIADOS A LA SEGURIDAD
SOCIAL, ALREDEDOR DE 2006
68.4
51.3
Afiliados a la seguridad
social como porcentaje
de la población en edad
de trabajar:
43.9
Cobertura promedio: 37,3%
25.5
23.9
1
Urbano
2
Rural
19.6
Urbano
3formal
Urbano
4
informal
16.3
5 5
Quintil
6 1
Quintil
15.4
7
Hombres
8
Mujeres
Fuente: Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), sobre la base de encuestas de hogares de los respectivos países.
a
Trabajadores ocupados de 15 años y más que declararon ingresos laborales. En el caso de Argentina y República Bolivariana de Venezuela,
asalariados. Promedio simple.
A NEW PARADIGM…
• New social protection paradigm
• Moving from a labor based society to a rights based
society
• integrating sources of financing to accomplish the
normative horizon of social protection
…. THAT FACES SEVERE CHALLENGES
Informality
 Low contributive coverage
 Limits social cohesión and equity.
Low tax collection
 Insufficient fiscal resources
 Limited non contributive programs
Segmented society
 Those with stable formal jobs
 Those with precarious unstable and informal job
 Those with incompatibilities to join the labor market
… AND IMPLIES A CAREFULL DESIGN OF
FINANCING
Financing design is crucial and depends on
policy aims:
 Pensions:
 Consumptions smoothing => contributive
 Poverty relief => non contributive.
 Health:
 Risk pooling => solidarity: integrating financing
schemes
 Basic income:
 Transfers to poor households => non
contributive
THE FISCAL SPACE FOR SOCIAL
PROTECTION AND BASIC INCOME
FISCAL SPACE
EFICIENCY
MACRO
PORCENTAGE OF GDP
ALLOCATED TO
SOCIAL PROTECTION
SOCIAL JUSTICE
MICRO
LIVING STANDARDS
DISTRIBUTION
….. SHARE OF GDP ON SOCIAL
SPENDING IS STILL VERY LOW
45
40
AMÉRICA LATINA (21 PAÍSES): GASTO PÚBLICO SOCIAL, COMO PORCENTAJE DEL PIB, 1990-1991 A 2004-2005
35
30
Promedio regional
2004-2005: 15,9%
2002-2003: 15,8%
2000-2001: 15,7%
25
Promedio simple regional
2008 (12 países) :
16.2%
2006-2007 (21 países) : 13.7 %
20
Promedio regional 1990-1991: 12,8%
15
10
Promedio simple (21 países)
5
SPNF
SP
GG
GCP
1990-1991
GC
2000-2001
2006-2007
2008
Fuente: CEPAL, sobre la base información proveniente de la base de datos sobre gasto social de la Comisión.
Ecuador
Guatemala
R.Dominicana
Jamaica
T.y Tabago
Panamá
Honduras
Chile
Colombia
Uruguay
Cuba
México
Paraguay
Nicaragua
Venezuela
Perú
El Salvador
Costa Rica
Bolivia
Argentina
Brasil
0
… AND FINANCED UNDER A NON
OPTIMAL STRUCTURE OF TAXATION
•
•
•
•
LOW (BASES AND BURDENS)
REGRESIVE
SUBJET TO EVASION AND ELUSION
LARGELY DEPENDENT ON VALUE ADDED
LOW LEVELS OF TAXATION
(% GDP, 2004)
40%
35%
Total: 20.8%
Ing. Trib.+SS: 17.5%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
Otros ingresos
Venezuela
(RB)
Uruguay
Rep.
Dominicana
Perú
Paraguay
Panamá
Nicaragua
México
Honduras
Guatemala
El Salvador
Ingresos tributarios
Ecuador
Costa Rica
Colombia
Chile
Brasil
Bolivia
Argentina
0%
Haití
5%
Contribuciones seguridad social
Ingresos de capital
… USED IN A PROCYCLICAL
WAY
25
20
AMÉRICA LATINA Y EL CARIBE (21 PAÍSES): VARIACIÓN ANUAL DEL GASTO SOCIAL TOTAL Y EL PRODUCTO INTERNO
BRUTOa
(En porcentajes)
15
10
5
0
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
-5
Variación PIB en millones US$2000
Variación GASTO PUBLICO SOCIAL en millones US$2000
-10
Fuente: CEPAL, sobre la base de información proveniente de la base de datos sobre gasto social de la Comisión y de cuentas nacionales.
a Promedio ponderado de los países.
2008
2009
… CONTINGENT LIABILITIES INCREASE AS
DEMOGRAPHIC DIVIDEND ENDS
Cociente de sustentabilidad
Dependencia demográfica
0.80
110.0
0.75
100.0
0.70
0.65
90.0
0.60
80.0
0.55
70.0
0.50
60.0
0.45
50.0
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
0.40
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
40.0
Brasil
México
Chile
Uruguay
Costa Rica
MEXICO
BRASIL
COSTA RICA
URUGUAY
CHILE
Argentina
Fecha de
implementación
2004
Brasil
2001
Federal y
Subnacional
Chile
2000
Central
Colombia
2001
Gobiernos
Subnacionales
Ecuador
2005
Central y
subnacional
México
1917
Gobiernos
Subnacionales
Perú
2003
Nacional
Venezuela
2000
Nacional
Argentina
2004
Gobiernos
Subnacionales
Brasil
2001
Gobiernos
Subnacionales
Colombia
1997
Gobiernos
Subnacionales
Ecuador
2005
Central y
subnacional
País
Regla de
saldo
Regla de
deuda
Cobertura
Tipo
Federal y
subnacional
Crecimiento nominal del gasto
primario no podrá superar la
tasa de aumento nominal del
PIB
Equilibrio corriente
(subnacional); superávit
primario (federal)
Superávit global estructural
(1% del PIB)
Equilibrio corriente
Crecimiento real del gasto
corriente no podrá superar
el 3,5%
Equilibrio corriente
Reglas Adicionales
Estatuto
Legal
ímites de gasto salarial
(porcentaje del total )
Fondo de Compensación del
Cobre (FCC); Fondo de
Estabilización Económica y
Social (FEES)
Fondo Nacional del Café
(FNC); Fondo de Ahorro y
Estabilización Petrolera (FAEP)
Fondo de Estabilización
Petrolera (FEP); Fondo de
Ahorro y Contingencias (FAC)
Fondo de Estabilización de los
Ingresos Petroleros (FEIP)
Legal
Política
Legal
Legal
Legal
Déficit inferior a 1% del PIB;
Fondo de Estabilización Fiscal
crecimiento real del gasto
primario no superior a 3% por
año
Equilibrio Corriente
Fondo de Estabilización
Macroeconómica (FEM)
Legal
Límites anuales de endeudamiento, de manera tal que los
servicios no superen el 15% de
los recursos corrientes
Límites anuales de
endeudamiento
Legal
Límite al endeudamiento, de
acuerdo con indicadores de
solvencia y liquidez
Cronograma de reducción
de deuda, hasta alcanzar
40% del PIB
Legal
Legal
Legal
Límites al endeudamiento
de gobiernos subnacionales
(acervo, flujo y garantías)
Legal
THE FISCAL SPACE FOR SOCIAL
PROTECTION AND BASIC INCOME
FISCAL SPACE
EFICIENCY
MACRO
PORCENTAGE OF GDP
ALLOCATED TO
SOCIAL PROTECTION
SOCIAL JUSTICE
MICRO
LIVING STANDARDS
DISTRIBUTION
THE FISCAL SPACE FOR SOCIAL
PROTECTION AND BASIC INCOME
FISCAL SPACE
EFICIENCY
MACRO
PORCENTAGE OF GDP
ALLOCATED TO
SOCIAL PROTECTION
SOCIAL JUSTICE
MICRO
EFFICIENT
ALLOCATION
LIVING STANDARDS
DISTRIBUTION
SOCIAL SECURITY AND ASSISTANCE:
INCREASING PRIORITIES
5.1
20
17.3
18
AMÉRICA LATINA Y EL CARIBE (21 PAÍSES): EVOLUCIÓN DEL GASTO PÚBLICO SOCIAL, COMO PORCENTAJE DEL PIB, SEGÚN
16
SECTORES, 1990-1991 A 2004-2005a
14
12.2
2.6
12
10
0.64
1.4
8
6
7.4
4.8
4.6
4
3.2
0.5
3.58
2.94
1.2
2
1.7
0
Gasto social total
Gasto en educación
Gasto en salud
Gasto en seguridad y
asistencia social
Gasto en vivienda y otros
b
Fuente: CEPAL, sobre la base de información proveniente de la base de datos sobre gasto social de la Comisión.
a Promedio ponderado de los países, excluida Nicaragua.
b La información disponible no permite separar ambas partidas de gasto. Según antecedentes de estudios nacionales, la seguridad social
representaría alrededor de 78% del monto de recursos aquí consignados.
BUT LARGE WELFARE STATE GAPS
12
NÚMERO DE DEPENDIENTES POR TRABAJADOR FORMAL
11
Hnd 2002
HIGH GAP
10
Bol 2006
Bol 2002
9
Pry 2002
Gtn2006
Hnd 2006
Per 2002
Pry 2006
Nic 2002 Gtm 2002
Per 2006
Nic 2006
Els 2002
8
7
6
Ecu 2006
Els 2006
Rdo 2002
MEDIUM
GAP
Rdo 2006
5
Mex 2002
D/F real
Ven 2002
Pan 2006
Pan 2002
Cri 2002
Ven 2006
Bra 2002
Cri 2006 Ury 2002
4
Bra 2006
3
Chi 2002
Mex 2006
arg 2002
Chi 2006
arg 2006
Ury 2006
2
1
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Pib p/cUS$2000
6000
7000
LOW GAP
8000
9000
WITH DIVERSE NEEDS AND LIMITED
ACCESS DOORS
DEPENDIENTES/ POR TRABAJADOR FORMAL
1. Menores
2. Inactivos
3. Desempleados
4. Informales
5. Adultos mayores
PIB pc
GS pc
GS (%PIB)
INFORMALIDAD
ASALARIADOS pobres
DESEMPLEO
Capacidad de
entrada no
contributiva
Capacidad de
entrada
contributiva
COBERTURA (cotizantes/ocupados)
1. Total
2. Formales
3. Informales
4. Asalariados
GRUPO I
GRUPO II
GRUPO III
7.29
40.6
19.8
3.0
27.1
9.5
4.39
37.7
23,4
3.8
23.8
11.3
3.28
37.8
21.8
5.0
20.2
17.6
1766
137
9,2
5710
508
10.0
6047
994
17.9
67.3
37.5
6.1
52.6
17.5
7.1
41.1
11.6
8.6
20.8
53.5
4.0
37.7
44.6
75.3
10.6
61.0
57.6
78.9
27.3
71.2
Grupo I. Bolivia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Paraguay Perú, República Dominicana
Grupo II, México, Panamá, Venezuela
Grupo III. Argentina, Brasil. Chile, Costa Rica, Uruguay
THE FISCAL SPACE FOR SOCIAL
PROTECTION AND BASIC INCOME
FISCAL SPACE
EFICIENCY
MACRO
PORCENTAGE OF GDP
ALLOCATED TO
SOCIAL PROTECTION
SOCIAL JUSTICE
MICRO
EFFICIENT
ALLOCATION
LIVING STANDARDS
DISTRIBUTION
THE FISCAL SPACE FOR SOCIAL
PROTECTION AND BASIC INCOME
FISCAL SPACE
EFICIENCY
MACRO
PORCENTAGE OF GDP
ALLOCATED TO
SOCIAL PROTECTION
SOCIAL JUSTICE
MICRO
EFFICIENT
ALLOCATION
LIVING STANDARDS
FAMILY
MARKET
STATE
DISTRIBUTION
FINANCIAL CRISIS HAVE RETARDED
POVERTY ALLEVIATION
Porcentaje de población pobre
50,0
49,0
1990
48,0
47,0
46,0
1994
45,0
44,0
2002
1997
1986
2001
43,0
2000
42,0
2004
41,0
1980
40,0
2005
39,0
38,0
37,0
2006
36,0
2007 a/
35,0
34,0
Fuente: Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), estimaciones y proyecciones a partir de las encuestas de
hogares 3200
y cifras oficiales de los
países.
3400
3600
3800
4000
4200
4400
a/ Proyecciones.
PIB per cápita (en dólares de 2000)
BASED ON THREE MECHANISMS
• FAMILY INCOME
– AFFECTED BY THREE DETERMINANTS
• PRODUCTIVITY OF THEIR EMPLOYED MEMBERS
• EMPLOYABILITY OF ITS ACTIVE MEMBERS
• ELEGIBILITY FOR TRANSFERS OF ITS MEMBERS
ALL THREE SHOULD BE OPERATIVE
1.0
5
0.9
4
Distribución del ingreso per cápita por deciles 2003/05
0.7
Distribución del ingreso per cápita por deciles 1990
0.6
3
0.5
Población pobre
(2003/05)
0.4
Población pobre
(1990)
2
0.3
Línea de pobreza
0.2
1
0.1
0.0
0
I
II
III
IV
V
Deciles de ingreso
VI
VII
VIII
Variación del ingreso per cápita por cambios en el ingreso laboral por ocupado (1990-2003/05)
Variación del ingreso per cápita por cambios en la tasa global de ocupación (1990-2003/05)
Variación del ingreso per cápita por cambios en el ingreso no laboral per cápita (1990-2003/05)
Ingreso per cápita 1990
Ingreso per cápita 2003/05
IX
Ingreso per cápita
(en múltiplos de la línea de pobreza)
Variación ingreso per cápita
(en múltiplos de la línea de pobreza)
0.8
ALL THREE SHOULD BE OPERATIVE
0.5
3
0.4
Distribución del ingreso per cápita por deciles 1989/90
Distribución del ingreso per cápita por deciles 2004/05
0.2
2
0.1
0.0
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
-0.1
1
Línea de pobreza
Deciles de ingreso
-0.2
-0.3
IX
Población
pobre (1989/90)
Población pobre
(2004/05)
Variación del ingreso per cápita por cambios en el ingreso laboral por ocupado (1989/90-2004/05)
Variación del ingreso per cápita por cambios en la tasa global de ocupación (1989/90-2004/05)
Variación del ingreso per cápita por cambios en el ingreso no laboral per cápita (1989/90-2004/05)
Ingreso per cápita 1989/90
Ingreso per cápita 2004/05
Ingreso per cápita
(en múltiplos de la línea de pobreza)
Variación ingreso per cápita
(en múltiplos de la línea de pobreza)
0.3
THE FISCAL SPACE FOR SOCIAL
PROTECTION AND BASIC INCOME
FISCAL SPACE
EFICIENCY
MACRO
PORCENTAGE OF GDP
ALLOCATED TO
SOCIAL PROTECTION
SOCIAL JUSTICE
MICRO
EFFICIENT
ALLOCATION
LIVING STANDARDS
FAMILY
MARKET
STATE
DISTRIBUTION
THE FISCAL SPACE FOR SOCIAL
PROTECTION AND BASIC INCOME
FISCAL SPACE
EFICIENCY
MACRO
PORCENTAGE OF GDP
ALLOCATED TO
SOCIAL PROTECTION
SOCIAL JUSTICE
MICRO
EFFICIENT
ALLOCATION
LIVING STANDARDS
FAMILY
MARKET
STATE
DISTRIBUTION
LARGE BENEFITS
DEFINED BENEFITS
PROGRESSIVE
FINANCING
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS FOR SOCIAL
PROTECTION AND BASIC INCOME
• FINANCING
• CONTRIBUTIVE OR NOT
• BENEFITS
• DEFINED CONTRIBUTIONS OR BENEFITS
• FINANCING MANAGEMENT
• PAYG OR FUNDED
• ADMINISTRATION
• PUBLIC OR PRIVATE
• PARTICIPATION
• MANDATORY OR VOLUNTARY
MULTIPLE COMBINATIONS TO IMPLEMENT SCHEMES BASED ON
ACQUIRED RIGHTS OR CITIZENS RIGHTS
CONTRIBUTIVE ACQUIRED RIGHTS
TEND TO REPRODUCE INEQUALITY
AMÉRICA LATINA (18 PAÍSES): ESTRUCTURA DE LOS GASTOS, SEGÚN QUINTILES DE LA DISTRIBUCIÓN DEL INGRESO
PRIMARIO, 1997-2004a
(En porcentajes)
(Gasto social total = 100)
30%
1.1
0.9
25%
20%
15%
10%
3.3
0.8
2.0
2.1
0.9
2.8
1.3
1.4
1.6
1.1
16.5
4.3
6.3
4.7
4.2
4.0
3.7
7.4
6.5
6.3
5.9
5.8
Quintil I
Quintil II
Quintil III
Quintil IV
Quintil V
5.1
5%
0%
Educación
Salud
Seguridad social
Vivienda
Fuente: CEPAL, sobre la base de estudios nacionales.
a
Promedio ponderado por la significación del gasto en el ingreso primario de cada país.
Asistencia social
… AND INEQUALITY IS HARDLY
CHANGED
AMÉRICA LATINA (18 PAÍSES): EFECTO REDISTRIBUTIVO DEL GASTO PÚBLICO SOCIAL EN EL INGRESO, SEGÚN
QUINTILES DE INGRESO PRIMARIO, 1997-2004a
(En porcentajes)
(Ingreso total del Quintil V = 100)
100
9%
90
80
Porcentajes
70
Gasto social
Ingreso primario
60
91%
50
40
16%
30
22%
20
30%
10
0
51%
49%
70%
Quintil I
Quintil II
84%
78%
Quintil III
Quintil IV
Fuente: CEPAL, sobre la base de estudios nacionales.
a/ Promedio ponderado por la significación del gasto en el ingreso primario de cada país.
Quintil V
BOTH FINANCING SCHEMES SHOULD
ALLIGN THEIR INCENTIVES
PILAR
VOLUNTARIO
APV
PMG
PILAR
SOLIDARIO
PASIS
PILAR
PILAR
CONTRIBUTIVO
CONTRIBUTIVO
SOCIAL DIALOGUE, GRADUALISM AND
SOLIDARITY
Technical componentes and
Macro stability
Minimun guarantees
Tax burden and structure
Governability an
productivity of public
manages programs
Stabilization Funds and
Contingent Liabilities
Counter cyclical policies
Role of
education
Employment
What level should
be niversal
Closing gaps
rural-urban
socioeconomic
Elite públic
Pre-schooling for
the poor
Learnin to learn
School insurance.
Address structural
heterogeneity
Pro-employment
investment
Human resources policies
Reduce discrimination
Labor relation adapted
to innvoation and
economic cycle
requirements
Re-training
Unemployment
insurance
Political
Efficient,
universal
Social Security
Social dialogue
Publico-private
mixes
Integrate financing
sources to
incorporate
solidaridaty without
affecting insurance
and savings
Riska rating
mechanisms
Housing for the
poor
•Institutions
Upper and middle
classes
Rights and crtizenship
Promote citizens
participation on issues
of collective interest
Improve transparency
and regulations and
surveillance
Solidarity
Ownership
Fiscal
Responsibility
Capacities
Opportunities
SOCIAL DIALOGUE, GRADUALISM AND
SOLIDARITY
Technical componentes and
Macro stability
Minimun guarantees
Tax burden and structure
Governability an
productivity of public
manages programs
Stabilization Funds and
Contingent Liabilities
Counter cyclical policies
Fiscal
Responsability
Role of
education
Employment
What level should
be niversal
Closing gaps
rural-urban
socioeconomic
Elite públic
Pre-schooling for
the poor
Learnin to learn
School insurance.
Address structural
heterogeneity
Pro-employment
investment
Human resources policies
Reduce discrimination
Labor relation adapted
to innvoation and
economic cycle
requirements
Re-training
Unemployment
insurance
Political
Efficient,
universal
Social Security
Social dialogue
Publico-private
mixes
Integrate financing
sources to
incorporate
solidaridaty without
affecting insurance
and savings
Riska rating
mechanisms
Housing for the
poor
•Institutions
Upper and middle
classes
Rights and crtizenship
Promote citizens
participation on issues
of collective interest
Improve transparency
and regulations and
surveillance
Solidarity
RESCUING SOLIDARITY FROM THE
1980 – 1990 WAVE OF REFORMS
1980 – 1990
CONTRIBUTIVE PENSIONS
1. DEFINED BENEFITS
1. PARAMETRIC
2. DEFINED CONTRIBUTION
1. NOTIONAL
2. FULLY FUNDED
1. SUBSTITUTIVE
2. MIXED
3. PARALLEL
MAIN PROBLEMS
1990.2010
TRANSITION COSTS MATTER
Historical deficits
Operative deficits
Recognition bonds
Explicit Rates
REPLACEMENT RATES
Political costs of param. reforms
Density of contributions
Pension Fund rates of return
Administrative costs
Economies of scale
Insurance costs
Weak institutional developments
Macroeconomics
Financial
INTEGRATING NON CONTRIBUTIVE AND
CONTRIBUTIVE FINANCING
1. BASIC SOLIDARITY BENEFITS
1. COMPLEMENTARY
2. ABSOLUT
2. CONTRIBUTORY SUBSIDIES
1. BY GENDER ROLES SUBSIDIES
2. BY AGE
3. BY LABOR CONTRACTS
CONTRIBUTIVE HEALTH
1. SOCIAL INSURANCE
1. Private plans
2. Social Security
2. PUBLIC HEALTH
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
BASIC INCOME
1. EMERGENCY PROGRAMS
2. SOCIAL INVESTMENT FUNDS
DEALING WITH CONSEQUENCES NOT
CAUSES
NON CONTRIBUTIVE PENSIONS
Guarantees limited by public
finance constraints
ADVERSE SELECTION
RISK SELECTION
MORAL HAZARD
CONSUMERS SOVEREIGNITY
PUBLIC GOODS
NON CONTRIBUTIVE
1. UNIVERSAL BENEFITS TO SPECIFIC
GROUPS
REGULATION AND SUPERVISION
POOLING FINANCING SOURCES
RISK RATING
REGULATION AND SUPERVISION
EXPLICIT GURANTEED PACKAGES
CONDITIONING CASH AND IN KIND
TRANFERS
THE DESIGN OF FINANCING
• Social protection and basic income
policies demand:
– Increases in non contributive financing:
• tax reforms and
• reallocation policies
– Integrate contributive and non
contributive financing with
• a solidarity logic and
• aligned incentives.
SOCIAL DIALOGUE, GRADUALISM AND
SOLIDARITY
Technical componentes and
Macro stability
Minimun guarantees
Tax burden and structure
Governability an
productivity of public
manages programs
Stabilization Funds and
Contingent Liabilities
Counter cyclical policies
Political
Role of
education
Employment
What level should
be niversal
Closing gaps
rural-urban
socioeconomic
Elite públic
Pre-schooling for
the poor
Learnin to learn
School insurance.
Address structural
heterogeneity
Pro-employment
investment
Human resources policies
Reduce discrimination
Labor relation adapted
to innvoation and
economic cycle
requirements
Re-training
Unemployment
insurance
Fiscal
CCP
Capacities
Oportunities
Efficient,
universal
Social Security
Social dialogue
Publico-private
mixes
Integrate financing
sources to
incorporate
solidaridaty without
affecting insurance
and savings
Riska rating
mechanisms
Housing for the
poor
•Institutions
Upper and middle
classes
Rights and crtizenship
Promote citizens
participation on issues
of collective interest
Improve transparency
and regulations and
surveillance
LAC CCPs PROGRAMMES
País
Programa
Inicio
% Población total país
Gasto/ Pib
Argentina
Familias Por la Inclusión Social
2004
2.6% (2006)
0.12% (2006)
Brasil
Bolsa Familia
2003
22.2% (2006)
0.43% (2006)
Chile
Chile Solidario
2002
6.45% (2005)
0.10% (2005)
Colombia
Familias en Acción
2001
4.2% (2006)
0.3% (2006)
Costa Rica
Superémonos
2000
1.12% (2002)
0.02% (2005)
Ecuador
Bono de Desarrollo Humano
2001
8.88% (2007)
0.49% (2006)
El Salvador
Red Solidaria
2005
24106 fam. (2006)
0.023% (2006)
Honduras
Programa de asignación Familiar (PRAF)
1990
8.55% (2005)
0.022% (2006)
Jamaica
PATH
2002
8.86% (2006)
0.267% (2005)
México
Oportunidades
1997
25% (2005)
0.435% (2006)
Nicaragua
Red de Protección Social
2000
2.7% (2005)
0.237% (2005)
Panamá
Red Oportunidades
2006
12 mil fam. (2006)
US mill. $ 46.9 (total proyecto)
Paraguay
Tekoporâ
2005
0.65% (2006)
0.0026% (2006)
Perú
Juntos
2005
3.6% (2006)
0.114% (2006)
Rep. Dom.
Tarjeta de Solidaridad
2005
8% (2005)
0.043% (2004)
Uruguay
Ingreso Ciudadano (PANES)
2005
9.46% (2006)
0.394 (2006)
BACKGROUND
• Poverty limits the exercise of citizenships and
legal rights.
• There are important intergenerational
poverty transfer factors.
• Poverty is multidimensional and demands a
wide range of interventions.
Main achievements
Short term benefits
 Reduction of poverty gaps and alleviation of crisis social costs
Long tern benefits
 Human capital:
 Better registration and attendance; promotion by grades and schooling.
 To a minor extend they reduce child work.
 Better access to primary and preventive health care.
 Better nutrition.
Management
 Multidimensional: education, health nutrition, housing, income, employment y family
structures.
 Inter-institutional coordination and implementation
 Use of diverse transfers (cash, in kind, tickets, etc.)
 Female roles are enhanced
 Evaluation and monitoring
Main challenges ahead
Impact
 Not clear that benefficiaries will stay above the poverty line for ever.
 May induce large work burden on women.
Management
 Defining minimum benefits to be transferred (cash.
 Low and hard to implement control of conditionality‘s
 There is no clear theoretical and empirical grounds on graduation criteria.
 Lack of complementary psychosocial interventions to change attitudes on
education and child labor.
Targeting
 Largely centered on children and pregnant women without consideration of
other vulnerable groups (disabled, old aged).
SOCIAL DIALOGUE, GRADUALISM AND
SOLIDARITY
Technical componentes and
Macro stability
Minimun guarantees
Tax burden and structure
Governability an
productivity of public
manages programs
Stabilization Funds and
Contingent Liabilities
Counter cyclical policies
Fiscal
Responsability
Role of
education
Employment
What level should
be niversal
Closing gaps
rural-urban
socioeconomic
Elite públic
Pre-schooling for
the poor
Learnin to learn
School insurance.
Address structural
heterogeneity
Pro-employment
investment
Human resources policies
Reduce discrimination
Labor relation adapted
to innvoation and
economic cycle
requirements
Re-training
Unemployment
insurance
Political
Efficient,
universal
Social Security
Social dialogue
Publico-private
mixes
Integrate financing
sources to
incorporate
solidaridaty without
affecting insurance
and savings
Riska rating
mechanisms
Housing for the
poor
•Institutions
Upper and middle
classes
Rights and crtizenship
Promote citizens
participation on issues
of collective interest
Improve transparency
and regulations and
surveillance
Ownership
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RIGHTS, SOCIAL
PROTECTION AND BASIC INCOME
• Three dimensions:
–ethics
–procedural
–content
CONCLUSIONS
• NEW PARADIGM
–
ACHIEVING THE NORMATIVE HORIZON OF SOCIAL PROTECTION AND BASIC INCOME POLICES IN
UNEQUAL AND FINANCIALLY CONSTRAINT SOCIETIES DEMANDS INTEGRATION OF ALL SOURCES OF
FUNDING. THE DEGREE OF INTEGRATION WILL DEPEND ON THE POLICY AIM.
• THE FISCAL SPACE
–
NON CONTRIBUTIVE FINANCING DEMANDS A PROGRESSIVE TAX REFORM, AND ACKNOWLEDGING
THREEPUBLIC FINANCE GOALS:
•
•
•
CONTRIBUTE TO MACROECONOMIC STABILITY
CONTRIBUTE TO THE STABLE FINANCING OF SOCIAL PROTECTION AND BASIC INCOME POLICES
PROMOTE INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENTS ON SOCIAL POLICIES
• SOCIAL DIALOGUE
–
INCREASING NEED FOR CITIZENS PARTICIPATION TO AGREE ON FIVE COMPLEMENTARY POLICY AIMS
•
•
•
•
•
FISCAL RESPONSABILITY
CONTINUOUS CREATION OF CAPABILITES
CONTINUOUS CREATON OF OPPORTUNITIES
IMPLEMENT SOLIDARITY IFINANCING FOR SOCIAL POLICIES
INCREASE OWNERSHIP AMONG CITIZENS
THANK YOU
• [email protected]
• Departamento de Economía
• Universidad de Chile