The Impact and Targeting of Social Infrastructure Investments : Lessons from the Nicaraguan Social

The benefit incidence and impact of projects financed by the Nicaraguan Emergency Social Investment Fund are investigated using a sample of beneficiaries, a national household survey, and two distinct comparison groups. The first group is constructed on the basis of geographic proximity between similar facilities and their corresponding communities; the second is drawn from the national living standards measurement study survey sample using propensity score matching techniques. The analysis finds that the social fund investments in latrines, schools, and health posts are targeted to poor communities and households, whereas those in sewerage are targeted to the better-off. Investments in water systems are poverty-neutral. Education investments have a positive, significant impact on school outcomes regardless of the comparison group used. The results of health investments are less clear. Using one comparison group, the analysis finds that use of health clinics increased as a result of the investments; using both, it finds higher use of clinics for children under age six with diarrhea. With neither comparison group does it find improvements in health outcomes. Social fund investments in water and sanitation improve access to services but have no effect on health outcomes.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Pradhan, Menno, Rawlings, Laura B.
Format: Journal Article biblioteca
Language:English
en_US
Published: Washington, DC: World Bank 2002-05
Subjects:ACCESS TO SERVICES, BASIC NEEDS, CLINICS, COMMUNITIES, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS, COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION, COST-EFFECTIVENESS, COUNTERFACTUAL, DEVELOPMENT BANK, DIPHTHERIA, DRINKING WATER, ECONOMETRICS, ECONOMICS, ECONOMIES OF SCALE, EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT, ENROLLMENT, EXPENDITURE, EXTREME POVERTY, EXTREME POVERTY LINE, FOOD EXPENDITURE, FOOD POVERTY, FOOD POVERTY LINE, GENDER, HEALTH CARE, HEALTH INDICATORS, HEALTH INTERVENTIONS, HEALTH OUTCOMES, HEALTH SERVICES, HOUSEHOLD CONSUMPTION, HOUSEHOLD SIZE, HOUSEHOLD SURVEY, HOUSEHOLDS, HUMAN CAPITAL, HUMAN DEVELOPMENT, IMPROVEMENTS IN HEALTH, INCIDENCE ANALYSIS, INCOME, INCOME INEQUALITY, INDICATORS OF POVERTY, INEQUALITY, INTERNATIONAL BANK, INTERVENTION, LABOR MARKET, LATRINE, LATRINES, MALNUTRITION, MORTALITY, NUTRITION, PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION, POLIO, POOR, POOR AREAS, POOR CHILDREN, POOR COMMUNITIES, POOR HOUSEHOLDS, POVERTY HEAD, POVERTY LEVELS, POVERTY LINE, POVERTY MAP, POVERTY RANKINGS, POVERTY RATES, POVERTY REDUCTION, POVERTY REDUCTION STRATEGY, PRIMARY SCHOOLS, PUBLIC HEALTH, PUBLIC INVESTMENTS, PUBLIC WORKS, RURAL, RURAL AREAS, RURAL HEALTH, SANITATION, SECONDARY SCHOOLS, SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT, SOCIAL FUND, SOCIAL FUNDS, SOCIAL POLICIES, SOCIAL PROGRAMS, SOCIAL SCIENCE, SOCIAL SERVICES, TARGETING, TOWNS, URBAN AREAS, VACCINATION, VILLAGES, WHOOPING COUGH,
Online Access:http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2002/05/17741850/impact-targeting-social-infrastructure-investments-lessons-nicaraguan-social-fund-impact-evaluation-social-funds
https://hdl.handle.net/10986/17203
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The benefit incidence and impact of projects financed by the Nicaraguan Emergency Social Investment Fund are investigated using a sample of beneficiaries, a national household survey, and two distinct comparison groups. The first group is constructed on the basis of geographic proximity between similar facilities and their corresponding communities; the second is drawn from the national living standards measurement study survey sample using propensity score matching techniques. The analysis finds that the social fund investments in latrines, schools, and health posts are targeted to poor communities and households, whereas those in sewerage are targeted to the better-off. Investments in water systems are poverty-neutral. Education investments have a positive, significant impact on school outcomes regardless of the comparison group used. The results of health investments are less clear. Using one comparison group, the analysis finds that use of health clinics increased as a result of the investments; using both, it finds higher use of clinics for children under age six with diarrhea. With neither comparison group does it find improvements in health outcomes. Social fund investments in water and sanitation improve access to services but have no effect on health outcomes.