REFORMING SOCIALPROTECTION SYSTEM AND
BASIC INCOME
ANDRAS UTHOFF13th International Conference of the Basic Income
Earth NetworkBasic 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
43.9
23.9
68.4
19.6
51.3
16.3 15.4
25.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Cobertura promedio: 37,3%
Urbano Rural Urbano formal Urbano informal Quintil 5 Quintil 1 Hombres Mujeres
Afiliados a la seguridad social como porcentaje de la población en edad
de trabajar:
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 SOCIAL JUSTICE
MACRO MICRO LIVING STANDARDS DISTRIBUTION
PORCENTAGE OF GDP ALLOCATED TO SOCIAL PROTECTION
AMÉRICA LATINA (21 PAÍSES): GASTO PÚBLICO SOCIAL, COMO PORCENTAJE DEL PIB, 1990-1991 A 2004-2005
Fuente: CEPAL, sobre la base información proveniente de la base de datos sobre gasto social de la Comisión.
….. SHARE OF GDP ON SOCIAL SPENDING IS STILL VERY LOW
Promedio regional 1990-1991: 12,8%
Promedio regional2004-2005: 15,9%2002-2003: 15,8%2000-2001: 15,7%
Bra
sil
Arg
ent
ina
Bo
livia
Co
sta
Ric
a
El S
alv
ad
or
Pe
rú
Ve
ne
zu
ela
Nic
ara
gu
a
Pa
ragu
ay
Mé
xic
o
Cu
ba
Uru
gu
ay
Co
lom
bia
Ch
ile
Ho
nd
ura
s
Pa
na
má
T.y
Ta
ba
go
Ja
mai
ca
R.D
om
inic
an
a
Gu
ate
ma
la
Ec
ua
do
r
SPNF SP GG GCP GC
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1990-1991 2000-2001 2006-2007 2008
Promedio simple (21 países)1990-1991 : 9.6%
Promedio simple regional2008 (12 países) : 16.2%2006-2007 (21 países) : 13.7 %2000-2001 (21 países) : 12.5%
… 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)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Arg
en
tin
a
Bo
livia
Bra
sil
Ch
ile
Co
lom
bia
Co
sta
Ric
a
Ec
ua
do
r
El S
alv
ad
or
Gu
ate
ma
la
Ha
ití
Ho
nd
ura
s
Mé
xic
o
Nic
ara
gu
a
Pa
na
má
Pa
rag
ua
y
Pe
rú
Re
p.
Do
min
ica
na
Uru
gu
ay
Ve
ne
zue
la(R
B)
Ingresos tributarios Contribuciones seguridad social
Otros ingresos Ingresos de capital
Ing. Trib.+SS: 17.5%Total: 20.8%
AMÉRICA LATINA Y EL CARIBE (21 PAÍSES): VARIACIÓN ANUAL DEL GASTO SOCIAL TOTAL Y EL PRODUCTO INTERNO BRUTOa
(En porcentajes)
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.
… USED IN A PROCYCLICAL WAY
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
Variación PIB en millones US$2000 Variación GASTO PUBLICO SOCIAL en millones US$2000
… CONTINGENT LIABILITIES INCREASE AS DEMOGRAPHIC DIVIDEND ENDS
Cociente de sustentabilidad
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
110.0
Dependencia demográfica
Brasil Chile Costa Rica MéxicoUruguay
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
MEXICO BRASIL CHILECOSTA RICA URUGUAY
Regla de saldo
PaísFecha de
implementaciónCobertura Tipo Reglas Adicionales Estatuto
Argentina 2004 Federal y subnacional
Crecimiento nominal del gasto primario no podrá superar la tasa de aumento nominal del PIB
Legal
Brasil 2001 Federal y Subnacional
Equilibrio corriente (subnacional); superávit primario (federal)
ímites de gasto salarial (porcentaje del total )
Legal
Chile 2000 Central Superávit global estructural (1% del PIB)
Fondo de Compensación del Cobre (FCC); Fondo de Estabilización Económica y Social (FEES)
Política
Colombia 2001 Gobiernos Subnacionales
Equilibrio corriente Fondo Nacional del Café (FNC); Fondo de Ahorro y Estabilización Petrolera (FAEP)
Legal
Ecuador 2005 Central y subnacional
Crecimiento real del gastocorriente no podrá superarel 3,5%
Fondo de Estabilización Petrolera (FEP); Fondo de Ahorro y Contingencias (FAC)
Legal
México 1917 Gobiernos Subnacionales
Equilibrio corriente Fondo de Estabilización de los Ingresos Petroleros (FEIP)
Legal
Perú 2003 Nacional Déficit inferior a 1% del PIB; crecimiento real del gasto primario no superior a 3% por año
Fondo de Estabilización Fiscal Legal
Venezuela 2000 Nacional Equilibrio Corriente Fondo de Estabilización Macroeconómica (FEM)
Legal
Regla de deuda
Argentina 2004 Gobiernos Subnacionales
Límites anuales de endeuda-miento, de manera tal que los servicios no superen el 15% de los recursos corrientes
Legal
Brasil 2001 Gobiernos Subnacionales
Límites anuales de endeudamiento
Legal
Colombia 1997 Gobiernos Subnacionales
Límite al endeudamiento, de acuerdo con indicadores de solvencia y liquidez
Legal
Ecuador 2005 Central y subnacional
Cronograma de reducciónde deuda, hasta alcanzar40% del PIB
Límites al endeudamientode gobiernos subnacionales(acervo, flujo y garantías)
Legal
THE FISCAL SPACE FOR SOCIAL PROTECTION AND BASIC INCOME
FISCAL SPACE
EFICIENCY SOCIAL JUSTICE
MACRO MICRO LIVING STANDARDS DISTRIBUTION
PORCENTAGE OF GDP ALLOCATED TO SOCIAL PROTECTION
THE FISCAL SPACE FOR SOCIAL PROTECTION AND BASIC INCOME
FISCAL SPACE
EFICIENCY SOCIAL JUSTICE
MACRO MICRO LIVING STANDARDS DISTRIBUTION
PORCENTAGE OF GDP ALLOCATED TO SOCIAL PROTECTION
EFFICIENT ALLOCATION
SOCIAL SECURITY AND ASSISTANCE: INCREASING PRIORITIES
AMÉRICA LATINA Y EL CARIBE (21 PAÍSES): EVOLUCIÓN DEL GASTO PÚBLICO SOCIAL, COMO PORCENTAJE DEL PIB, SEGÚN SECTORES, 1990-1991 A 2004-2005a
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.
b
Gasto social total Gasto en educación Gasto en salud Gasto en seguridad y asistencia social
Gasto en vivienda y otros
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
12.2
3.2 2.9
4.8
1.2
17.3
4.63.6
7.4
1.7
5.1
1.4
0.64
2.6
0.5
BUT LARGE WELFARE STATE GAPS
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
arg 2006
Bol 2006
Bra 2006Chi 2006
Cri 2006
Ecu 2006Els 2006
Gtn2006Hnd 2006
Mex 2006
Nic 2006
Pan 2006
Pry 2006Per 2006
Rdo 2006
Ury 2006
Ven 2006arg 2002
Bol 2002
Bra 2002
Chi 2002
Cri 2002
Els 2002
Gtm 2002
Hnd 2002
Mex 2002
Nic 2002
Pan 2002
Pry 2002
Per 2002
Rdo 2002
Ury 2002
Ven 2002
NÚMERO DE DEPENDIENTES POR TRABAJADOR FORMAL
Pib p/cUS$2000
D/F
re
al
HIGH GAP
MEDIUM GAP
LOW GAP
WITH DIVERSE NEEDS AND LIMITED ACCESS DOORS
GRUPO I GRUPO II GRUPO III
DEPENDIENTES/ POR TRABAJADOR FORMAL1. Menores2. Inactivos 3. Desempleados4. Informales5. Adultos mayores
PIB pcGS pcGS (%PIB)
INFORMALIDADASALARIADOS pobresDESEMPLEO
COBERTURA (cotizantes/ocupados)6. Total7. Formales8. Informales9. Asalariados
7.2940.619.8 3.027.1 9.5
1766 137 9,2
67.337.56.1
20.853.5 4.037.7
4.3937.723,43.8
23.811.3
5710 508 10.0
52.617.5 7.1
44.675.310.661.0
3.2837.821.8 5.020.217.6
6047 994 17.9
41.111.6 8.6
57.678.927.371.2
Grupo I. Bolivia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Paraguay Perú, República DominicanaGrupo II, México, Panamá, VenezuelaGrupo III. Argentina, Brasil. Chile, Costa Rica, Uruguay
Capacidad de entrada no contributiva
Capacidad de entrada contributiva
THE FISCAL SPACE FOR SOCIAL PROTECTION AND BASIC INCOME
FISCAL SPACE
EFICIENCY SOCIAL JUSTICE
MACRO MICRO LIVING STANDARDS DISTRIBUTION
PORCENTAGE OF GDP ALLOCATED TO SOCIAL PROTECTION
EFFICIENT ALLOCATION
THE FISCAL SPACE FOR SOCIAL PROTECTION AND BASIC INCOME
FISCAL SPACE
EFICIENCY SOCIAL JUSTICE
MACRO MICRO LIVING STANDARDS DISTRIBUTION
PORCENTAGE OF GDP ALLOCATED TO SOCIAL PROTECTION
EFFICIENT ALLOCATION
FAMILY MARKETSTATE
FINANCIAL CRISIS HAVE RETARDED POVERTY ALLEVIATION
Fuente: Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), estimaciones y proyecciones a partir de las encuestas de hogares y cifras oficiales de los países.a/ Proyecciones.
200119972002
20002004
2005
20062007 a/
1994
1990
1986
1980
34,0
35,0
36,0
37,0
38,0
39,0
40,0
41,0
42,0
43,0
44,0
45,0
46,0
47,0
48,0
49,0
50,0
3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400
PIB per cápita (en dólares de 2000)
Po
rce
nta
je d
e p
ob
laci
ón
po
bre
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
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX
Var
iaci
ón
in
gre
so p
er c
ápit
a (e
n m
últip
los
de la
líne
a de
pob
reza
)
0
1
2
3
4
5
Ing
reso
per
cáp
ita
(en
múl
tiplo
s de
la lí
nea
de p
obre
za)
Línea de pobreza
Deciles de ingreso
Población pobre (1990)
Distribución del ingreso per cápita por deciles 1990
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 1990Ingreso per cápita 2003/05
Población pobre (2003/05)
Distribución del ingreso per cápita por deciles 2003/05
ALL THREE SHOULD BE OPERATIVE
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
I II III IV V VI VII VIII
Var
iaci
ón
in
gre
so p
er c
ápit
a (e
n m
últip
los
de la
líne
a de
pob
reza
)
1
2
3
Ing
reso
per
cáp
ita
(en
múl
tiplo
s de
la lí
nea
de p
obre
za)
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
Línea de pobreza
Distribución del ingreso per cápita por deciles 1989/90
IX
Deciles de ingreso
Población pobre (2004/05)
Distribución del ingreso per cápita por deciles 2004/05
Población pobre (1989/90)
ALL THREE SHOULD BE OPERATIVE
THE FISCAL SPACE FOR SOCIAL PROTECTION AND BASIC INCOME
FISCAL SPACE
EFICIENCY SOCIAL JUSTICE
MACRO MICRO LIVING STANDARDS DISTRIBUTION
PORCENTAGE OF GDP ALLOCATED TO SOCIAL PROTECTION
EFFICIENT ALLOCATION
FAMILY MARKETSTATE
THE FISCAL SPACE FOR SOCIAL PROTECTION AND BASIC INCOME
FISCAL SPACE
EFICIENCY SOCIAL JUSTICE
MACRO MICRO LIVING STANDARDS DISTRIBUTION
PORCENTAGE OF GDP ALLOCATED TO SOCIAL PROTECTION
EFFICIENT ALLOCATION
FAMILY MARKETSTATE
LARGE BENEFITSDEFINED BENEFITSPROGRESSIVE FINANCING
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS FOR SOCIAL PROTECTION AND BASIC INCOME
• FINANCING
• BENEFITS
• FINANCING MANAGEMENT
• ADMINISTRATION
• PARTICIPATION
• CONTRIBUTIVE OR NOT
• DEFINED CONTRIBUTIONS OR BENEFITS
• PAYG OR FUNDED
• PUBLIC OR PRIVATE
• 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)
Fuente: CEPAL, sobre la base de estudios nacionales.
a Promedio ponderado por la significación del gasto en el ingreso primario de cada país.
(Gasto social total = 100)
7.4 6.5 6.3 5.9 5.8
5.14.7 4.2 4.0 3.7
2.02.8 4.3 6.3
16.5
0.8 0.91.1
1.4
0.9
3.32.1 1.6
1.3
1.1
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Quintil I Quintil II Quintil III Quintil IV Quintil V
Educación Salud Seguridad social Vivienda 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)
Fuente: CEPAL, sobre la base de estudios nacionales.
a/ Promedio ponderado por la significación del gasto en el ingreso primario de cada país.
(Ingreso total del Quintil V = 100)
49%70%
78%84%
91%
51%
30%
22%
16%
9%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Quintil I Quintil II Quintil III Quintil IV Quintil V
Po
rce
nta
jes Gasto social
Ingreso primario
BOTH FINANCING SCHEMES SHOULD ALLIGN THEIR INCENTIVES
APV
PMG
PASIS
PILARCONTRIBUTIVO
PILARVO LU N TAR IO
PILARC O N TR IBU TIVO
PILARSO LID AR IO
SOCIAL DIALOGUE, GRADUALISM AND SOLIDARITY
Technical componentes and Political
Macro stability
Minimun guaranteesTax burden and structureGovernability an productivity of public manages programsStabilization Funds and Contingent LiabilitiesCounter cyclical policies
Role of education
What level should be niversalClosing gaps
rural-urban socio-economicElite - públic
Pre-schooling for the poorLearnin to learnSchool insurance.
Employment
Address structural heterogeneityPro-employment investmentHuman resources policiesReduce discriminationLabor relation adapted to innvoation and economic cycle requirementsRe-trainingUnemployment insurance
Efficient, universal Social Security
Publico-private mixesIntegrate financing sources to incorporate solidaridaty without affecting insurance and savingsRiska rating mechanisms Housing for the poor
Social dialogue
•InstitutionsUpper and middle classesRights and crtizenshipPromote citizens participation on issues of collective interestImprove transparency and regulations and surveillance
Fiscal Responsibility
OpportunitiesCapacities
Solidarity Ownership
SOCIAL DIALOGUE, GRADUALISM AND SOLIDARITY
Technical componentes and Political
Macro stability
Minimun guaranteesTax burden and structureGovernability an productivity of public manages programsStabilization Funds and Contingent LiabilitiesCounter cyclical policies
Role of education
What level should be niversalClosing gaps
rural-urban socio-economicElite - públic
Pre-schooling for the poorLearnin to learnSchool insurance.
Employment
Address structural heterogeneityPro-employment investmentHuman resources policiesReduce discriminationLabor relation adapted to innvoation and economic cycle requirementsRe-trainingUnemployment insurance
Efficient, universal Social Security
Publico-private mixesIntegrate financing sources to incorporate solidaridaty without affecting insurance and savingsRiska rating mechanisms Housing for the poor
Social dialogue
•InstitutionsUpper and middle classesRights and crtizenshipPromote citizens participation on issues of collective interestImprove transparency and regulations and surveillance
FiscalResponsability
Solidarity
RESCUING SOLIDARITY FROM THE 1980 – 1990 WAVE OF REFORMS
1980 – 1990 MAIN PROBLEMS 1990.2010
CONTRIBUTIVE PENSIONS1. DEFINED BENEFITS
1. PARAMETRIC2. DEFINED CONTRIBUTION
1. NOTIONAL2. FULLY FUNDED
1. SUBSTITUTIVE 2. MIXED3. PARALLEL
NON CONTRIBUTIVE PENSIONS Guarantees limited by public finance constraints
TRANSITION COSTS MATTERHistorical deficitsOperative deficitsRecognition bondsExplicit Rates
REPLACEMENT RATESPolitical costs of param. reforms Density of contributionsPension Fund rates of return
Administrative costsEconomies of scaleInsurance costs
Weak institutional developmentsMacroeconomicsFinancial
INTEGRATING NON CONTRIBUTIVE AND CONTRIBUTIVE FINANCING1. BASIC SOLIDARITY BENEFITS
1. COMPLEMENTARY2. ABSOLUT
2. CONTRIBUTORY SUBSIDIES1. BY GENDER ROLES SUBSIDIES2. BY AGE3. BY LABOR CONTRACTS
NON CONTRIBUTIVE3. UNIVERSAL BENEFITS TO SPECIFIC
GROUPS
REGULATION AND SUPERVISION
CONTRIBUTIVE HEALTH1. SOCIAL INSURANCE
1. Private plans2. Social Security
2. PUBLIC HEALTH
1. ADVERSE SELECTION2. RISK SELECTION3. MORAL HAZARD4. CONSUMERS SOVEREIGNITY5. PUBLIC GOODS
1. POOLING FINANCING SOURCES2. RISK RATING3. REGULATION AND SUPERVISION4. EXPLICIT GURANTEED PACKAGES
BASIC INCOME1. EMERGENCY PROGRAMS 2. SOCIAL INVESTMENT FUNDS
DEALING WITH CONSEQUENCES NOT CAUSES
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 Political
Macro stability
Minimun guaranteesTax burden and structureGovernability an productivity of public manages programsStabilization Funds and Contingent LiabilitiesCounter cyclical policies
Role of education
What level should be niversalClosing gaps
rural-urban socio-economicElite - públic
Pre-schooling for the poorLearnin to learnSchool insurance.
Employment
Address structural heterogeneityPro-employment investmentHuman resources policiesReduce discriminationLabor relation adapted to innvoation and economic cycle requirementsRe-trainingUnemployment insurance
Efficient, universal Social Security
Publico-private mixesIntegrate financing sources to incorporate solidaridaty without affecting insurance and savingsRiska rating mechanisms Housing for the poor
Social dialogue
•InstitutionsUpper and middle classesRights and crtizenshipPromote citizens participation on issues of collective interestImprove transparency and regulations and surveillance
Fiscal
OportunitiesCapacities
CCP
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 achievementsShort 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 Political
Macro stability
Minimun guaranteesTax burden and structureGovernability an productivity of public manages programsStabilization Funds and Contingent LiabilitiesCounter cyclical policies
Role of education
What level should be niversalClosing gaps
rural-urban socio-economicElite - públic
Pre-schooling for the poorLearnin to learnSchool insurance.
Employment
Address structural heterogeneityPro-employment investmentHuman resources policiesReduce discriminationLabor relation adapted to innvoation and economic cycle requirementsRe-trainingUnemployment insurance
Efficient, universal Social Security
Publico-private mixesIntegrate financing sources to incorporate solidaridaty without affecting insurance and savingsRiska rating mechanisms Housing for the poor
Social dialogue
•InstitutionsUpper and middle classesRights and crtizenshipPromote citizens participation on issues of collective interestImprove transparency and regulations and surveillance
FiscalResponsability
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
• Departamento de Economía • Universidad de Chile