Targeting Methods for Transfers
Of the commonly used methods for directing transfers to the poor, there is little consensus about which is best. Policymakers need to know how effective different targeting mechanisms are, how the effectiveness differs by method and type of program, and the implications. Targeting success can be partially captured by one outcome indicator, the share of benefits going to the bottom 40 per cent of the population. For example, if a program delivers 60 per cent of its benefits to this group, the outcome indicator is (60 divided by 40 =) 1.5. The higher the indicator - i.e., the greater the percentage of benefits going to the poor relative to their population share - the more progressive is the targeting. The authors calculate their indicator for 85 of the programs in the database. The full study provides information on the use of targeting techniques, summary statistics on comparative program performance, and regression analysis to examine the correlations between methods and outcomes. The study drew broad conclusions, subject to the limitations described beforehand, suggesting that "Targeting can work, but it doesn't always. There is no clearly preferred method for all types of programs, or all country contexts. A weak ranking of outcomes achieved by different mechanisms was possible. And, implementation matters tremendously to outcomes". Targeting performance improved with country income levels, the extent to which governments are held accountable for their actions, and the degree of inequality.
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Brief biblioteca |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
World Bank, Washington, DC
2003-01
|
| Subjects: | ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING, INCOME, INEQUALITY, INTERVENTIONS, MEANS TESTING, METHODS OF ANALYSIS, POOR, PRICE SUBSIDIES, REGRESSION ANALYSIS, SAFETY NET PROGRAMS, SOCIAL FUNDS, SOCIAL SAFETY NETS, TARGETING, TARGETING MECHANISMS, |
| Online Access: | http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2003/01/6240272/targeting-methods-transfers http://hdl.handle.net/10986/11817 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Of the commonly used methods for
directing transfers to the poor, there is little consensus
about which is best. Policymakers need to know how effective
different targeting mechanisms are, how the effectiveness
differs by method and type of program, and the implications.
Targeting success can be partially captured by one outcome
indicator, the share of benefits going to the bottom 40 per
cent of the population. For example, if a program delivers
60 per cent of its benefits to this group, the outcome
indicator is (60 divided by 40 =) 1.5. The higher the
indicator - i.e., the greater the percentage of benefits
going to the poor relative to their population share - the
more progressive is the targeting. The authors calculate
their indicator for 85 of the programs in the database. The
full study provides information on the use of targeting
techniques, summary statistics on comparative program
performance, and regression analysis to examine the
correlations between methods and outcomes. The study drew
broad conclusions, subject to the limitations described
beforehand, suggesting that "Targeting can work, but it
doesn't always. There is no clearly preferred method
for all types of programs, or all country contexts. A weak
ranking of outcomes achieved by different mechanisms was
possible. And, implementation matters tremendously to
outcomes". Targeting performance improved with country
income levels, the extent to which governments are held
accountable for their actions, and the degree of inequality. |
|---|