Evaluating social protection programs in Tajikistan
At independence, Tajikistan inherited an extensive social protection system that included a range of cash and non-cash benefits. While the economy is well into its transition from a centrally planned to a market-oriented economy, its social welfare policies still adhere to the methods and approaches of the Soviet period. This is true for social protection, which has both social insurance and social assistance components, and for which benefits are effectively non-contributory in nature in that no contributions are collected from employees. In this paper, we examine the performance of the country's social protection system—essentially public transfers for the elderly and disabled—in terms of reducing poverty, with the aim of identifying its key problems. Since the government provides such public transfers mainly as pensions (i.e., old-age pension, disabled pension, and survivors pension), it merits an in-depth analysis of whether or not these transfer programs reach the intended beneficiaries; that is, how well do they target the intended beneficiaries? Using data from the Living Standards Measurement Survey conducted in 2007, we find that only 43% of poor households are receiving transfers from the government, while 33% of non-poor households receive transfers. This study argues for applying a targeted approach to public transfer programs, including non-contributory pension schemes aimed at the most vulnerable populations.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Angus Deaton & Christina Paxson, 1998.
"Economies of Scale, Household Size, and the Demand for Food,"
Journal of Political Economy,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 106(5), pages 897-930, October.
- Deaton, A. & Paxson, C., 1997. "Economies of Scale, Household Size, and the Demand for Food," Papers 178, Princeton, Woodrow Wilson School - Development Studies.
- Kakwani, Nanak & Lambert, Peter J., 1998. "On measuring inequity in taxation: a new approach," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 369-380, May.
- Nanak Kakwani & Hyun H. Son, 2005. "Economies Of Scale In Household Consumption: With Application To Australia ," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(2), pages 134-148, 06.
- David Coady & Margaret Grosh & John Hoddinott, 2004. "Targeting of Transfers in Developing Countries : Review of Lessons and Experience," World Bank Publications, The World Bank, number 14902, August.
- Foster, James & Greer, Joel & Thorbecke, Erik, 1984. "A Class of Decomposable Poverty Measures," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(3), pages 761-66, May.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:asieco:v:23:y:2012:i:2:p:179-188. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.