Transcript Presentation by Shirin Motala.7 June 2016x

Assessing the Livelihood Impacts of
Public Employment Programmes:
Framing the Context
HSRC – EPD SEMINAR
SHIRIN MOTALA; SENIOR RESEARCH MANAGER,
ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE AND DEVELOPMENT
POLICY RESPONSES TO POVERTY AND
UNEMPLOYMENT
Traditional responses to poverty and unemployment are to
introduce social protection and active labour market policies.
 Active Labour Market Policies
• Employment Guarantee Schemes
• Training Lay off Schemes
• Skills Programmes (Learnerships etc.)
• SMME development
 Social Protection Policies
• Cash Transfers (grants)
• Social insurance (UIF etc.)
• Public Employment Programmes
• Nutrition and Feeding Schemes
Public Employment Programmes
(PEPs)
• Globally many governments have implemented
public employment programmes (PEPs) as an
important policy instrument for mitigating poverty
and unemployment – short term response;
• Historically since 1920’s in USA, Australia, SSA, Latin
America and Asia;
• PEPs provide work opportunities for those willing to
work but unable to secure work – government
becomes an employer of last resort (ELR);
• Prioritization of PEP’s based on assumption that it
has + effect on poverty and unemployment.
THEORY OF CHANGE:
• Public employment programmes transfer impacts in
three ways-:
o Serves a Social Protection Function: Transfer of
wages (income)– below market level – self
targeting;
o Address Service delivery and infrastructure
deficits: Assets and services delivered to
individual, households and communities; enhance
access to social infrastructure – Useful Work
o Enhance Labour Market Access: Skills
development, first work experience, employment
International Types of PEPs
Typology of Public Employment Programmes – based on study
of 167 projects globally
• Type A: Primary objective is the provision of safety nets or social
protection at a household level and are for a single or short-term
period. This was the predominant type. Response to emergency.
• Type B: Programmes which offer repeated or on-going employment
opportunities as a form of income insurance. The study found only 6
such programmes representing 4%. Examples MNREGA, CWP &
Zibambele.
• Type C: Programmes promoting aggregate employment by creating
infrastructure using labour intensive techniques. Only six programmes
(4%) were found. EPWP Phase 2; Gundu Lasho
• Type D: This related to programme that enhance employability by
improving the quality of labour. Based on assumption of “graduation”example EPWP
Different Purposes for PEP’s
Two distinct policy objectives alleviate unemployment and
poverty.
• In developed economies main purpose is to give people
unemployed for long period exposure to labour market –
substitute unemployment benefits with wages;
• In developing economies the purpose is to absorb labour
during temporary crises or to address structural mismatch:
• where jobs exist but people don’t have appropriate
skills;
• too many work seekers;
• Deficient demand – capital absorbing economy.
PEP Historical Experience in SA
1920’s
1990’s
• Poor white •CBPW
problem
2004
•EPWP
EPWP Origins
• The Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) has its origins
in Growth and Development Summit (GDS) of 2003. At the
Summit, four themes were adopted, one of which was ‘More
jobs, better jobs, decent work for all’. The GDS agreed that
public works programmes ‘can provide poverty and income
relief through temporary work for the unemployed to carry
out socially useful activities’.
• The Programme is a key government initiative, which
contributes to Governments Policy Priorities in terms of
decent work & sustainable livelihoods, education, health;
rural development; food security & land reform and the fight
against crime & corruption. EPWP subscribes to outcome 4
which states “Decent employment through inclusive economic
growth.”
HSRC Engagement with PEP’s
Employment Scenarios 2004
Scaling up ECD in EPWP 2008
Labour Market Programmes
EPWP Impact Assessment
Study, KZN (2013-2015)
HSRC Employment Scenarios:
implications for EPWP
• HSRC employment scenarios looked at
potential employment creation to 2014
• A critical question was how different industrial
trajectories might lead to different GDP
growth rates, namely 3%, 4.5% and 6%.
• Given the economic downturn, it is possible
that SA’s average GDP growth between 2004
and 2014 might be between 3% and 4%.
EPWP jobs needed in 3 scenarios
GDP growth rate pa
2014
Worst
Middle
Best
2004 scenario scenario scenario
3.0%
4.5%
6.0%
Market-based jobs
9,788,000 11,899,441 13,121,354 13,805,444
Public service
1,500,000
1,828,492
1,996,388
2,199,109
172,000
2,857,115
1,468,485
579,503
Infrastructure +
Environment
170,000
370,000
370,000
220,000
Social sector
2,000
2,487,115
1,098,485
359,503
EPWP-type (residual)
Total
11,628,000
16,588,152
Employment scenarios (2)
• The scenarios assumed government wanted to halve unemployment
and poverty between 2004 – 2014.
• Much easier to do if growing at 6%, but ANC has recommitted to this
target even in the context of a slowdown.
• What if EPWP is the only strategy to make up for the shortfall in
employment creation (after market based, informal sector and public
sector employment accounted for).
• Then will need to generate 1.5 m to 2.8 m work opportunities in any
one year
• Substantially larger than current programme, very costly in period of
declining govt revenue, and question about capacity will require
creative thinking about how to do this (not if?)
Cost of slow market reforms & EPWP as fall-back
– scale of programme vs other priorities
2006/7
GDP growth rate pa
2003/4 - 2013/4
3.0%
4.5%
6.0%
Non-interest spending (R bn)
R 473.8
R 613.1
R 695.0
R 786.1
Personnel expend (Rbn)
R 172.3
R 222.9
R 252.7
R 285.9
Non-personnel expenditure (R bn)
R 301.5
R 390.1
R 442.2
R 500.2
R 58.0
R 26.6
R 10.2
R 332.1
R 415.6
R 490.0
EPWP (Rbn) - est R 50 pp pd x
230 days
Remainder available for other new
priorities(Rbn)
R 301.5
Budget trade-offs:
• social grants
• social services – health, education, social insurance
• improved conditions of service for public servants
• economic infrastructure to support expansion of ‘decent work’
• investment in agriculture and food production
Focus of this Roundtable
• Understand the contribution of assets
and services delivered through PEP’s
from a global and local perspective;
• Explore the challenges of assessing the
contribution of assets and services to
livelihoods;
• Present evidence of the impact of food
as a wage transfer model in EPWP.
Focus on Assessment of Value of
Assets & Services
• Economic benefit of asset created or service delivered is
assumed rather then empirically assessed
• Not always readily apparent what the value is.
• Important to assess the impact of the assets and services
consumed by the poor, rather than non poor
• Cannot assume that all assets and services benefit the poor or
are of acceptable quality.
E.g. Road built may benefit farmers to get products to
market or help children access schools easily. However a dam
may not assist poor if piped water is not made available to
households.
THANK YOU!!!