How Pro-poor and Progressive is Social Spending in Zambia?

This paper analyzes the distributional effect of public spending in Zambia using the most recent data from the 2010 Living Conditions Monitoring Survey. The analysis focuses on both the "traditional" social sectors, such as education and public healthcare, as well as other spending areas less thoroughly studied, such as agricultural support programs. Ultimately, this benefit incidence analysis addresses the extent to which spending is pro-poor and progressive; that is, it primarily benefits the poor and does so at an increasing rate as welfare levels decrease. The results indicate that overall public education spending in Zambia is neither pro-poor nor progressive, but while this is true for the system as a whole it is not true for all of its parts. The net unitary benefits of primary and secondary education are clearly both pro-poor and progressive. However, their progressivity is ultimately outweighed by the extreme concentration of tertiary education benefits among the wealthiest members of Zambian society. Health spending is also regressive and not pro-poor. Although unitary net benefits are slightly progressive, unequal access remains the key constraint. In contrast, the benefits of agricultural-input subsidy programs follow a somewhat progressive pattern (for each beneficiary in the top quintile there are almost two beneficiaries in the poorest quintile) but clearly suffer from targeting problems. Consequently, without better-designed and more conscientiously implemented targeting mechanisms, public spending on health, education, and fertilizers will not be able to further the government's larger objectives for pro-poor and progressive development policy.

Bibliographic Details

Main Authors:	Cuesta, Jose, Kabaso, Pamela, Suarez-Becerra, Pablo
Language:	English
Published:	World Bank, Washington, DC 2012-04
Subjects:	ACCESS TO EDUCATION, ACCESSIBILITY, AGED, AGGREGATE EXPENDITURE, AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVES, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION, ALLOCATION, ANALYSIS OF EFFECTIVENESS, ANNUAL BUDGET, BASIC EDUCATION, BENEFICIARIES, BENEFIT -INCIDENCE ANALYSIS, BENEFIT INCIDENCE ANALYSIS, BENEFIT-INCIDENCE ANALYSIS, BENEFITS OF PUBLIC SPENDING, BUDGET ALLOCATIONS, BULLETIN, CASH TRANSFERS, CHILD HEALTH, CLINICS, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, COOP, COOPERATIVES, COOPS, CREDIT PROGRAM, DATA REQUIREMENTS, DEMAND FOR SERVICES, DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS, DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, DEVELOPMENT POLICY, DISABILITY, DISABLED, DISASTERS, DIVERSIFICATION, DRUGS, EARLY CHILDHOOD, EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION, ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES, ECONOMIC GROWTH, EDUCATION ACCESS, EDUCATION BUDGET, EDUCATION LEVEL, EDUCATION SERVICES, EDUCATION SPENDING, EDUCATION SYSTEM, EDUCATIONAL LEVEL, ELDERLY, ENROLLMENT, EQUITABLE ACCESS, EXPENDITURE, EXPENDITURE DATA, FARMER, FARMERS, FINANCIAL CRISIS, FINANCIAL REPORTS, FISCAL CAPACITY, FISCAL COST, FISCAL DISCIPLINE, FISCAL POLICIES, FISCAL POLICY, GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE, GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES, GOVERNMENT SPENDING, HEALTH CARE, HEALTH CARE SPENDING, HEALTH CENTERS, HEALTH EXPENDITURES, HEALTH FACILITIES, HEALTH INFORMATION, HEALTH OUTCOMES, HEALTH POLICY, HEALTH SECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, HEALTH SPENDING, HEALTH-SECTOR, HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS, HIV, HOSPITAL, HOSPITAL SERVICES, HOSPITALS, HOUSEHOLD FOOD SECURITY, HOUSEHOLD LEVEL, HOUSEHOLDS, HUMAN CAPACITY, HUMAN DEVELOPMENT, IMMUNIZATION, INCOME CATEGORY, INCOME GROUPS, INCOME INEQUALITY, INEQUALITY, INFLATION, INTENSIVE INDUSTRIES, INTERNATIONAL BANK, LEVELS OF PUBLIC SPENDING, LIFE EXPECTANCY, LIMITED ACCESS, LIVE BIRTHS, LIVING CONDITIONS, LIVING STANDARDS, LOCAL AUTHORITIES, MACROECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT, MACROECONOMIC POLICIES, MARKETING, MATERNAL MORTALITY, MATERNAL MORTALITY RATE, MATERNAL MORTALITY RATES, MEDICAL SUPPLIES, MEDICINES, MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, MINISTRY OF HEALTH, MORTALITY, MORTALITY RATE, MOTHER, NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, NATIONAL PLANNING, NATURAL DISASTERS, NEWBORN, NURSING, ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE, ORPHANS, OUTREACH, PATIENT, PATIENTS, PENSIONS, PERFORMANCE REVIEW, POLICY ANALYSIS, POLICY DISCUSSIONS, POLICY FRAMEWORK, POLICY IMPLICATIONS, POLICY RESEARCH, POLICY RESEARCH WORKING PAPER, POVERTY REDUCTION, PREGNANCY, PREGNANT WOMEN, PRIMARY EDUCATION, PRIMARY EDUCATION EXPENDITURES, PRIMARY HEALTH CARE, PRIMARY HEALTH SERVICES, PRIMARY SCHOOL, PRIVATE PROVIDERS, PRIVATE SECTOR, PRIVATIZATION, PROGRAMS, PROGRESS, PROVINCIAL HOSPITALS, PROVINCIAL LEVEL, PUBLIC EDUCATION, PUBLIC EXPENDITURE, PUBLIC EXPENDITURES, PUBLIC FACILITIES, PUBLIC FACILITY, PUBLIC HEALTH, PUBLIC HEALTH CARE, PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES, PUBLIC HEALTHCARE, PUBLIC HOSPITALS, PUBLIC INSTITUTION, PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS, PUBLIC POLICY, PUBLIC PROVISION, PUBLIC PROVISION OF EDUCATION, PUBLIC SCHOOL, PUBLIC SCHOOLS, PUBLIC SERVICE, PUBLIC SERVICES, PUBLIC SPENDING, PUBLIC SPENDING PATTERNS, PUBLIC SUBSIDIES, PUBLIC WELFARE, QUALITY EDUCATION, REPAYMENT, REVENUE SOURCES, RURAL AREAS, RURAL COMMUNITIES, SAFETY NET, SAFETY NETS, SCHOOL ATTENDANCE, SCHOOL FEES, SECONDARY EDUCATION, SECONDARY SCHOOL, SECTOR EXPENDITURE, SERVICE DELIVERY, SERVICE DELIVERY SYSTEM, SERVICE PROVIDERS, SERVICE PROVISION, SMALL FARMERS, SOCIAL ASSISTANCE, SOCIAL INDICATORS, SOCIAL PROTECTION, SOCIAL SECTORS, SOCIAL SERVICES, SOCIAL WELFARE, SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS, SUSTAINABLE NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, TAX COLLECTION, TAX REVENUES, TERTIARY EDUCATION, TERTIARY LEVEL, TOTAL EXPENDITURE, TOTAL EXPENDITURES, TOTAL SPENDING, TUITION, UNEQUAL ACCESS, UNION, UNIVERSITY EDUCATION, URBAN AREAS, USER FEES, VICTIMS, VOUCHERS, VULNERABLE CHILDREN, VULNERABLE GROUPS, WELFARE BENEFITS, WELFARE LEVEL,
Online Access:	http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2012/04/16239557/pro-poor-progressive-social-spending-zambia https://hdl.handle.net/10986/6054
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!