constituencies such as the urban and rural poor and focus on:
programs aimed at simultaneously reducing poverty and e nsuring
that children remain in school, providing access to health services
and proper nutrition (such as Brazil’s celebrated Bolsa Familia);
temporary employment schemes for the construction of public
infrastructure (as in Argentina’s Programma Jefas y Jefes de Hogares and
Uruguay’s PANES); training of unemployed workers and youth
with the aim of facilitating their access to formal sector jobs;
subsidized formal sector employment for youth; and the
promotion of SME (Table 9).
Several studies document the favorable impact of such transfers,
even though, in many cases, comprehensive evaluations are not yet
available. However, the existing evidence suggest that these
programs had greater success in ensuring investments in human
capital (e.g. having children to attend schools and clinics) than in
lifting the poor out of poverty (Barrientos and Santibanez 2009).
Yet, an IPEA microeconometric study (cited in CEPAL 2006)
decomposed the inequality reduction observed in Brazil between
2000 and 2006, and found that government transfers (pensions and
Bolsa Família) explained one third of such decline.
Table 9. Summary of some main social programs introduced in recent times
in the region
Program (reference year)Cost
(GDP)N.
BeneficiariesMonthly
subsidy ($)
Plan Jefas y Jefes
(Argentina, 2002)0.80%1.85 million
workersUS$45 (2002)
US$ 150 (2007)
Plan Nacional Emergencia
(Bolivia, 2002)0.86%1.6% of Active
pop.63 $ Wage
manual workersPANES (Uruguay, 2005) 0.50%7.2% of active
pop.55 $Bolsa Familia (Brazil, 2005) 0.36%11.1 million
families62 R$ for poor
families
15 R$ for
children
30 R$ for youth