Conditional Cash Transfers and Gender Vulnerabilities in Latin America – case studies for Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Pe

1. Conditional Cash Transfers and Gender Vulnerabilities in Latin America – case studies for Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Peru • Long-Term Social Protection for Inclusive Growth: A Policy Dialogue and Learning Event, Johannesburg, October 12, 2010 • Fabio Veras Soares – IPC-IG (UNDP/SAE/IPEA)

2. Outline of the Presentation • Context: Gender specific vulnerabilities in Latin America • CCT programmes: design and main features • CCTs and gender vulnerabilities: tackling or reinforcing • Description of case studies: Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Peru • Impacts on gender-related outcomes CCT and Gender Vulnerabilities

3. While significant progress has been made towards gender equality, including parity in education and increased levels of economic and political participation... ... more women than men live in poverty, gendered wage disparities persist, and women face higher burdens of domestic and caring responsibilities, high levels of teenage pregnancy and domestic violence. CONTEXT: Gender inequities in Latin America

4. Common Features: • Targeting mechanisms: geographical, categorical and means testing; • Co-responsibilities: education and health; • Cash: regular payment of cash to women/mother • Rationale: immediate poverty alleviation and stop the intergenerational cycle of poverty. Beyond commonalities: • Differ with regard to the emphasis in the two objectives and with regards to... … its place in the social protection system: permanent welfare policy or short-term safety net CCT and Gender vulnerabilities

5. Design options • Targeting tools and target population; • Incorporation of new beneficiary; • Coverage level; • Value of the benefit (fixed per family, varying per children, denting poverty, covering conditionality cots) • The way conditionality is implemented; • Degree of coordination with the line ministries (supply side); • Graduation rules, minimum and maximum permanence in the programme. • Nature of complementary programmes and activities CCTs in Latin America: an overview

6. CCT and Gender vulnerabilities

7. CCTs and Gender Vulnerability • Women as recipient of regular cash transfer: empowering cash? • Higher transfer for girls – transition between primary to secondary education. • Criticism: Child centered and mothers at the service of the state – reinforcing traditional roles – cash alone is not sufficient to empower women. • Complementary activities and links to service to reinforce rights – social and economic empowerment • Family support – potential for a transformative agenda? CCT and Gender vulnerabilities

8. Bolsa Família (Brazil) • It has an unconditional component for the extreme poor and a minimum permanence of two years, • It does not use proxy means test and has large coverage (25%) • It is implemented in places where there is no supply of health and education services (and conditonalities are not required in this case), • Several steps are taken before exclusion from the programme for non-compliance with conditionalities; • Line Ministries in charge of conditionality monitoring • Strong role at the local level – Use of New Public Management tools to involve municipalities. • Links with programmes from other ministry: “Proximo Passo” – Next step. CCT and Gender vulnerabilities

9. Chile Solidario (Chile) • It does not consider itself a CCT programme!; • It targets the extreme poor not reached by existing social protection policy/programmes; • Contract with families to work in seven dimensions (including employment, education, health, housing, identification, income and family dynamics): psychosocial support. • Despite the low value of the transfer, there is an array of subsidies that the extreme poor family should have access to: housing and water/electricity and family allowance. • Two years under Puente, plus three under Chile Solidario, but eligibility to other transfers is independent of the permanence in the programme. CCT and Gender vulnerabilities

10. Familias en Acción (Colombia) • Familias en Accion, created in 2001,is the entry door to the Juntos social protection network and in 2009 was transferring income to 2.9 million families (20% of the population). • Coverage expansion between 2007 and 2009 into larger urban areas and tried to cover all families classified as Sisbén 1 as a way to cushion the impacts of the economic crisis. • Also targeted: displaced population and indigenous population (other registries). • Co-responsibilities focus on education and health. • Mother leaders, care meetings and socialization. CCT and Gender vulnerabilities

11. Juntos (Peru) • Juntos was launched in April 2005. • Programme reached 431,974 households across 14 regions (geographical targeting – conflict areas) in 2009. • Juntos: cash subsidy of approximately USD33 to the poorest households to promote access to basic health, education and nutrition services. • Targeted to households with children under 14 or pregnant women. • Co-responsibilities: civic identification documents for women and children, attendance at primary school, and utilising various health related services. • Mother leaders CCT and Gender vulnerabilities

12. Potential impacts of the transfers on women’s labour supply and economic autonomy: 1) need to comply with co-responsibilities demands time from mothers and can reduce time available to work. 2) co-responsibility related to school attendance can also reduce child labour which can lead mothers to compensate for that loss splitting their time in both home and market work. 3) transfer can be used to boost investments at the household level, particularly, for CCT programmes that have complementary programmes and in the rural areas. Impact CCTs

13. Impact on labour force participation: Bolsa Familia: beneficiary women were more likely to participate in the labour market (MDS, 2007). However, others piece of evidence have shown that beneficiary women also tend to reduce worked hours and to increase time spent on domestic chores (Teixeira, 2010 and Tavares, 2008). Familias en Acción in Colombia had an effect of increasing occupation among women in urban areas without affecting worked hours (Econometría, 2006). Chile Solidario also seems to have a positive impact on adult labour supply, married women and rural areas (Galasso, 2006). Juntos had no impact on women’s employment rate or hours worked (Perova & Vakis, 2009) Impact CCTs

14. Some quantitative evaluations have also looked at women’s bargaining power through an index based on a combination of variables related to decision-making process within the household. Bolsa Familia: beneficiaries of the programme were more likely to have a higher female bargaining power index than non-beneficiary households (MDS, 2007). Familias en Acción: the impact evaluation did not find any impact on female bargaining power (Econometría, 2006). Impact CCTs

15. Qualitative research findings: • Brazil: They no longer depend on the husbands for some of the family’s expenditures and even feel stronger enough to negotiate with their husbands in the decision-making process within the household (Suarez and Libardoni, 2008). • Chile: Beneficiaries are confident to perceive themselves as an individual and not only as a wife and/or a mother. However, the fact that they feel more confident and empowered does not mean that their husbands are now sharing with her some of the domestic chores. (Larrañaga, 2009b). Impact CCTs

16. Concluding remarks: • Peru: There has been a greater involvement of men in domestic activities and changes in women’s perceptions of their bargaining power in the households. • Larrañaga (2009b) and Valente (2010) suggest that there is space to promote more sustainable changes in notions around gender relations as well as to design activities specifically targeted at men Impact CCTs

17. Qualitative research findings: • Revision of the language used in CCT initiatives could create an opportunity to trigger discussion within the household on the traditional roles of men and women with regard to their responsibility for children’s health and education. • Moreover, the social protection frameworks of which these programmes are (or should be) just a component should also provide economic opportunities and childcare facilities for beneficiary women/mothers. • Use of IT to lessen the burden on women on the compliance with co-responsibilities. Impact CCTs

18. REFERENCES: http://www.ipc-undp.org/pub/IPCWorkingPaper69.pdf http://www.ipc-undp.org/pub/IPCOnePager115.pdf THANK YOU