Suchergebnisse

This unique manual provides policymakers, social planners, and economists with salient aspects of fiscal redistribution theory, a step-by-step guide to applying fiscal incidence analysis including the required software, a variety of country studies to illustrate, and data on fiscal redistribution for a large number of countries around the world.

"The poor are most vulnerable to economic crises, natural disasters, or health shocks and are least able to cope with their economic consequences. Yet, for the most part, the poor have no access to social protection and insurance mechanisms. The lack of insurance and coping mechanisms may force the poor to reduce food consumption and investment in their children as well as deplete their scarce assets. These responses irreversibly and negatively affect the productive asset base of the poor and their earning capacity, possibly driving them into a vicious cycle of greater vulnerability and deeper poverty." "Shielding the Poor presents a group of studies on social protection in the developing world from leading researchers. These studies address the issue of vulnerability of the poor to adverse shocks and propose policies to increase their protection and coping capacity. The studies emphasize the need for building permanent institutional structures that help reduce and manage to risks that households face as part of a coherent long-term strategy to reduce poverty and promote social equity." "Policy interventions that improve social protection not only help shield the poor from the adverse consequences of shocks but also boost economic growth and reduce chronic poverty over the longer term by reducing the perverse effects of these shocks on the human and physical capital of the poor and on the economic activities that they undertake."--Jacket

Afro-descendants and indigenous peoples in Latin America face higher poverty rates and are disproportionately represented among the poor. The probability of being poor is between two and three times higher for indigenous and Afro-descendants than whites. Using comparable fiscal incidence analyses for Bolivia, Brazil, and Guatemala, I analyze how much poverty and inequality change in the ethnoracial space after fiscal interventions. Although taxes and transfers tend to reduce the ethnoracial gaps, the change is very small. While per capita cash transfers tend to be higher for the nonwhite population, spending on these programs is too low, especially when compared with the disproportionate number of poor people among nonwhites.

Este artículo presenta resultados sobre el impacto de la política fiscal en la desigualdad y la pobreza en dieciséis países de América Latina para alrededor del año 2010. Los países que más redistribuyen son Argentina, Brasil, Costa Rica y Uruguay, y los que menos, Guatemala, Honduras y Perú. A mayor gasto social, mayor redistribución pero países con un nivel de gasto social similar muestran diferentes niveles de redistribución lo cual sugiere que otros factores tales como la composición y focalización del gasto intervienen en determinar el efecto redistributivo más allá del tamaño. La política fiscal reduce la pobreza extrema en doce países.. Sin embargo, la incidencia de la pobreza después de impuestos, subsidios y transferencias monetarias es mayor que la incidencia para el ingreso de mercado en Bolivia, Guatemala, Honduras y Nicaragua, aun cuando la política fiscal reduce la desigualdad. Además, aun cuando la incidencia de la pobreza y la desigualdad se reducen, con la nueva medida de Empobrecimiento Fiscal se puede observar que en Brasil y México un tercio de la población pobre medida con el ingreso consumible fue empobrecida: es decir, pasó de pobre a ser más pobre o de no pobre a ser pobre. El gasto en educación pre-escolar y primaria es igualador y pro-pobre en todos los países. El gasto en educación secundaria es igualador en todos los países y también pro-pobre en algunos pero no en todos. El gasto en educación terciaria nunca es pro-pobre pero es igualador a excepción de Guatemala, donde es regresivo y desigualador y en Venezuela, donde su efecto redistributivo es cero. El gasto en salud siempre es igualador pero es pro-pobre solamente en Argentina, Brasil, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, República Dominicana, Uruguay y Venezuela.

En este artículo se analizan la relación entre salud, crecimiento económico y pobreza, los niveles, desigualdad y evolución de los indicadores de salud así como la equidad y eficiencia de la acción pública en materia de salud en México. Este país tiene niveles promedio de salud inferiores a los esperados para su desarrollo y, aunque en general han mejorado en el tiempo, lo han hecho a un ritmo menor al adecuado. Existen también grandes contrastes entre zonas geográficas, grupos étnicos y niveles socioeconómicos. La desigualdad en los indicadores es reflejo de la desigualdad en la acción pública, ya que el gasto público en salud no es progresivo y ha mantenido a cerca del 50% de la población fuera de los sistemas de seguridad pública. Asimismo, se concluye que para alcanzar la eficiencia adecuada, el sistema de seguridad social debería establecer un fondo único nacional para financiar intervenciones médicas específicas y esquemas complementarios para servicios médicos adicionales; permitir a múltiples instituciones, tanto públicas como privadas, proporcionar los servicios de salud cubiertos por dicho fondo único para incrementar el acceso y competencia; así como garantizar la portabilidad de derechos, para el caso, por ejemplo, en que el asegurado se traslade a otra zona geográfica o cambie de situación laboral.

At the UN General Assembly of September 2015, countries around the world committed to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). By 2030, counties committed to attain poverty and hunger eradication, healthy lives, quality education, gender equality and sustainable development. Countries also committed to promoting full-employment growth, decent work, peaceful societies and accountable institutions as well as to reducing inequality and strengthening global partnerships for sustainable development. One key factor to achieving the SDGs will be the availability of fiscal resources to deliver the floors in social protection, social services and infrastructure embedded in the SDGs. A significant portion of these resources is expected to come from domestic sources in developing countries themselves, complemented by transfers from the countries that are better off. The report states that for all countries, the mobilization and effective use of domestic resources is at the crux of our common pursuit of sustainable development and achieving the SDGs Moreover, countries will be expected to set spending targets to deliver social protection and essential public services for all and set nationally defined domestic revenue targets.In particular, that raising additional revenues domestically for infrastructure, protecting the environment or social services may leave a significant portion of the poor with less cash to buy food and other essential goods. It is not uncommon that the net effect of all governments taxing and spending is to leave the poor worse off in terms of actual consumption of private goods and services. Achieving the new Sustainable Development Goals will depend in part on the ability of governments to improve their tax collection and enforcement systems. However, demand for investments into infrastructure and public services must be balanced against the competing need to protect low-income households that may otherwise be made worse off from misaligned tax and transfer policies.

AbstractThis paper examines the redistributive impact of fiscal policy for Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Indonesia, Mexico, Peru and South Africa using comparable fiscal incidence analysis with data from around 2010. The largest redistributive effect is in South Africa and the smallest in Indonesia. Success in fiscal redistribution is driven primarily by redistributive effort (share of social spending to GDP in each country) and the extent to which transfers/subsidies are targeted to the poor and direct taxes targeted to the rich. While fiscal policy always reduces inequality, this is not the case with poverty. When pensions are not considered a transfer, fiscal policy increases poverty in Brazil (over and above market income poverty) due to high consumption taxes on basic goods. Total spending on education is pro-poor except for Indonesia, where it is neutral in absolute terms. Health spending is pro-poor in Brazil, Chile and South Africa, roughly neutral in absolute terms in Mexico, and not pro-poor in Indonesia and Peru.