Suchergebnisse

Introduction -- Experts and the laity -- Epistemic democracy -- Rumors and rumor-mongers -- Conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists -- The blogosphere and the conventional media -- Conclusion

"This paper reviews the literature on the performance of commonly found social safety net programs in developing countries. The evidence suggests that universal food subsidies have very limited potential for redistributing income. While targeted food subsidies have greater potential, this can only be realized when adequate attention is given to the design and implementation, as well as to the social and political factors influencing the adoption, of these programs. Although well-designed public works programs have impressive targeting performance, they have large non-wage costs; thus, to be cost-effective, they need to produce outputs that are especially beneficial to poor households. Social funds, which emphasize both community involvement and asset creation, have been cost-effective, but they are difficult to target to extremely poor households. Traditional public works programs are particularly attractive for addressing vulnerability, but they require flexibility regarding choice of output. Targeted human capital subsidies appear to have great potential for addressing extreme poverty; but again, their design needs to reflect the human capital profile of countries and the administrative capability of the government." -- Author's Abstract ; Non-PR ; IFPRI1; GRP28; Theme 8;Public Policy and Investment ; FCND

En agosto de 1997 el gobierno mexicano introdujo un componente clave como parte de su estrategia general de desarrollo y alivio a la pobreza, el Programa de Educación, Salud y Alimentación (Progresa) en las localidades rurales de alta marginación del país. Este Programa proporciona transferencias monetarias a las madres de los hogares clasificados como "pobres". Dichas transferencias están condicionadas a la asistencia de los niños a las escuelas y a las visitas regulares de los miembros de la familia a los centros de salud para controles preventivos. Los hogares con niños pequeños reciben también suplementos alimenticios para mejorar su estado nutricional. A pesar de que el Programa es esencialmente una intervención por el lado de la demanda, una importante dimensión del mismo involucra el reconocimiento explícito de que, para que tal intervención sea efectiva para lograr sus objetivos últimos, es esencial la coordinación con el lado de la oferta. Para este fin, se espera que las Secretarías de Educación y Salud planifiquen asignar recursos a las áreas donde se experimenten incrementos sustanciales en la demanda, con el propósito de evitar deteriorar la calidad por el lado de la oferta que pudiera frustrar el alcance y los objetivos del Programa. Este informe se refiere a la aplicación del análisis social de costo-beneficio (ASCB) a Progresa. La aplicación del ASCB a la evaluación del Programa requiere identificar los impactos, así como el costo de lograr los mismos, y luego comparar ambos para determinar el impacto general del Programa sobre el bienestar y cuan ventajosamente se alcanzan dichos impactos con relación a instrumentos de política alternativos. Cuando es posible asignar valores monetarios a estos impactos, éstos se definen como "beneficios del Programa" y por tanto la aplicación del análisis costo-beneficio (ACB) involucra determinar si los beneficios exceden los costos y en qué magnitud. En ausencia de una valoración monetaria de los impactos, el estudio se limita a utilizar el análisis de costo-efectividad (ACE), el mismo permite identificar el costo de generar un impacto determinado. ; Non-PR ; IFPRI1; PROGRESA ; FCND

In August 1997 the Mexican government introduced a key component of its overall development and poverty alleviation strategy, the PROGRESA program, in the most marginal rural areas of the country. The expansion of the program across localities took place in phases. By the final phase 11 of the program in early 2000, the program included nearly 2.6 million families in 72,345 localities in all 31 states. This constitutes around 40% of all rural families and one ninth of all families in Mexico. The total annual budget of the program in 1999 was around $777 million, equivalent to just under 20% of the Federal poverty alleviation budget or 0.2% of GDP. The program gives cash transfers to mothers in households classified as "poor", these transfers being conditional on child attendance at school and regular visits by family members to health clinics for preventative check-ups. Households with young children also receive food supplements to improve their nutritional status. Although the program is essentially a demand-side intervention, an important dimension of the program involves the explicit recognition that, for such an intervention to be effective at achieving its ultimate objectives, co-ordination with the supply side is essential. To this end, the education and health ministries are expected to plan to allocate resources to areas where substantial demand increases are experienced in order to avoid deteriorating quality on the supply-side that may frustrate the achievement of program objectives. In this report we are concerned with the application of a social cost-benefit analysis (SCBA) to PROGRESA. The application of SCBA to the evaluation of the program requires one to identify both the impacts and the costs of bringing about these impacts, and then to compare both of these to determine the overall welfare impact of the program and how effectively the program achieves these welfare impacts relative to alternative policy instruments. When monetary values can be attached to these impacts they are referred to as "program benefits" and the application of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) then involves determining whether benefits exceed costs and by how much. In the absence of a monetary valuation of impacts, one is restricted to the use of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), which identifies the cost of bringing about a given impact. ; Non-PR ; IFPRI1; PROGRESA ; FCND

Introduction -- Skepticism and climate change skepticism -- Experts in the climate change debate -- Climate science as a social institution -- Is climate science really science? -- Climate change and international justice -- Climate change and intergenerational justice -- Climate change and personal responsibility -- Conclusion.