Safety Nets and Food Programs in Asia: A Comparative Perspective
Jha, Shikha; Kotwal, Ashok; Ramaswami, Bharat | September 2013
Abstract
Many countries adopted safety net programs to deal with the food crisis of 2008.
However, such programs are often beset with targeting errors, inefficiencies, and
fraud. Despite this, there is no systematic comparative analysis of safety nets.
The objective of this paper is to identify generic issues germane to safety net
design and their role in determining success. We examine the performance of
safety net programs in Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, and the Philippines in terms
of people covered, food distributed, and income support provided. These
countries spend 1%–3% of their gross domestic product on safety nets—small in
relation to developing and industrial economies. We find an across-the-board
failure of targeting in the four countries. The reasons range from elite capture,
incorrect identification of the poor, their lack of access, barriers to participation,
and regional allocation biases. Even if perfect targeting could cover the entire
target group and eliminate leakage to nontarget groups, the target groups may
not receive the full subsidy due to illegal diversions, operational inefficiencies,
and excess costs of public agencies. The success of the safety nets will depend
on increasing the participation of the poor and minimizing program waste.
Computerization of supply chains to track grain supplies can reduce diversion,
and switching from in-kind to cash transfers can cut administrative and other
costs of physical handling. The mix of tools would depend upon the economic,
political, cultural, and social backgrounds of the country, and its administrative
and fiscal capabilities to provide safety net programs.
Citation
Jha, Shikha; Kotwal, Ashok; Ramaswami, Bharat. 2013. Safety Nets and Food Programs in Asia: A Comparative Perspective. © Asian Development Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/11540/2298. License: CC BY 3.0 IGO.ISSN
1655-5252
Keywords
Economic Welfare
Economic Incentives
Social condition
Economic dependence
Economic assistance
Welfare economics
Welfare state
Poor
Food relief
Poverty
Domestic economic assistance
Show allCollapse
Citable URI
http://hdl.handle.net/11540/2298Metadata
Show full item recordUsers also downloaded
-
Annual Report 2014: Organizational Information
Asian Development Bank (Asian Development Bank, 2015-01-01)The page has additional information for the ADB Annual Report 2014. In 2014, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) approved $22.93 billion in development assistance, including $13.69 billion financed by ADB’s ordinary capital resources and special funds, and a record $9.24 billion by cofinancing partners. Disbursements totaled $10.01 billion, an increase of $1.47 billion (17%) from 2013, and the ...The page has additional information for the ADB Annual Report 2014. In 2014, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) approved $22.93 billion in development assistance, including $13.69 billion financed by ADB’s ordinary capital resources and special ... -
Annual Report 2014: Operational Data
Asian Development Bank (Asian Development Bank, 2015-01-01)The page has additional information for the ADB Annual Report 2014. In 2014, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) approved $22.93 billion in development assistance, including $13.69 billion financed by ADB’s ordinary capital resources and special funds, and a record $9.24 billion by cofinancing partners. Disbursements totaled $10.01 billion, an increase of $1.47 billion (17%) from 2013, and the first ...The page has additional information for the ADB Annual Report 2014. In 2014, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) approved $22.93 billion in development assistance, including $13.69 billion financed by ADB’s ordinary capital resources and special funds, ... -
Yerevan Water Supply Going Private Gradually Armenia makes gains taking transitional route through private water
Alipalo, Melissa; Chiplunkar, Anand; Flor, Mai (Asian Development Bank, 2008-08-15)In 1998, the Government of Armenia began to seriously weigh a private sector solution to the worsening situation with the water supply system in the country’s capital, Yerevan. The Government’s eventual decision to engage the private sector through a 4-year management contract— backed up by donor-funded projects—helped address some of the system’s biggest issues, such as high nonrevenue water and ...In 1998, the Government of Armenia began to seriously weigh a private sector solution to the worsening situation with the water supply system in the country’s capital, Yerevan. The Government’s eventual decision to engage the private sector through a ...