IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/elt/journl/v84y2017i334p493-568.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

El impacto del sistema tributario y el gasto social en la distribución del ingreso y la pobreza en América Latina. Una aplicación del marco metodológico del proyecto Compromiso con la Equidad (CEQ)

Author

Listed:
  • Lustig, Nora

    (Tulane University)

Abstract

Using standard fiscal incidence analysis and the new methodological developments by the Commitment to Equity (CEQ) Institute, this paper estimates the impact of fiscal policy on inequality and poverty in sixteen countries in Latin America around 2010. Methods: With information on incomes, consumption, and other dimensions available in household surveys, and knowledge about the characteristics of the fiscal system, the CEQ method consists in allocating to each individual the burden of personal income and consumption taxes, and the benefits from cash transfers, consumption subsidies, and government spending on education and health. This process yields the pre-fiscal and post-fiscal income concepts of interest. These income concepts, in turn, are used to calculate the corresponding indicators of inequality and poverty. Thus, one can estimate, for each country, the impact of the fiscal system and each of its components on inequality and poverty. Since the methodology that was applied is the same, results are comparable across countries. The countries that redistribute the most are Argentina, Brazil, Costa Rica, and Uruguay. Guatemala, Honduras, and Peru are the countries that redistribute the least. Fiscal policy reduces extreme (income) poverty in twelve out of the sixteen countries. The incidence of poverty after taxes, subsidies, and cash transfers, however, is higher than market income poverty in Bolivia, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua, even though fiscal policy reduces inequality in these four countries. Contributory pensions have a heterogeneous effect on inequality and, contrary to some expectations, their impact is equalizing in nine of the countries. In the sixteen countries, spending on pre-school and primary education is equalizing and pro-poor (per capita benefits decline with income per capita). Spending on secondary education is always equalizing; it is also pro-poor in some of the countries. Spending on tertiary education is never pro-poor but it is equalizing in all the countries except for Guatemala. Spending on health is always equalizing but pro-poor only in some countries. Conclusions: Latin America presents a great deal of heterogeneity in the size of the state and the countries’ capacity to use their fiscal power to reduce inequality and poverty. A higher share of social spending (to GDP) is associated with a larger redistributive effect but countries with similar, or even lower, shares of social spending show heterogeneous redistributive effects implying that other factors beyond size such as the composition and targeting of social spending (and taxes) are at play. It is important to emphasize that a higher redistributive effect is not necessarily a desirable outcome since in this article there is no estimation of the impact of redistributive policy on fiscal sustainability and efficiency. In some countries, the burden of consumption taxes is such that a portion of the poor are net payers into the fiscal system (before receiving “in kind” transfers in education and health). Governments should examine whether this undesirable effect could be avoided, or at least reduced, through an expansion of targeted cash transfers and/or reduction in the consumption taxes that are particularly burdensome for the poor.// Este artículo aplica el método de incidencia fiscal tradicional y los nuevos desarrollos del Instituto Compromiso con la Equidad (CEQ) para estimar el impacto de la política fiscal en la desigualdad y la pobreza en 16 países de América Latina alrededor del año 2010. A partir de la información disponible sobre ingresos y gastos y otras dimensiones en las encuestas de hogares y del conocimiento de las características del sistema fiscal, el método del CEQ consiste en asignar a cada individuo según corresponda la carga de los impuestos a la renta y al consumo, y los beneficios de las transferencias monetarias, los subsidios al consumo y el gasto en educación y salud. De esta manera, se construyen los diferentes conceptos de ingreso prefiscal y posfiscal, mismos que se utilizan para generar los correspondientes indicadores de desigualdad y pobreza. Esto permite estimar, para cada país, el impacto sobre la distribución del ingreso y la pobreza de cada componente del sistema fiscal, así como el del sistema en su conjunto. Como la metodología es común, los resultados se pueden comparar entre países. Los países que más redistribuyen son Argentina, Brasil, Costa Rica y Uruguay, y los que menos, Guatemala, Honduras y Perú. La política fiscal reduce la pobreza extrema (monetaria) en 12 de los 16 países. Sin embargo, la incidencia de la pobreza después de impuestos, subsidios y transferencias monetarias es mayor que la incidencia para el ingreso de mercado en Bolivia, Guatemala, Honduras y Nicaragua, aun cuando en estos cuatro países la política fiscal sí reduce la desigualdad. El efecto de las pensiones contributivas sobre la desigualdad es heterogéneo y, contrariamente a lo que a veces se arguye, igualador en nueve países de la región. El gasto en educación preescolar y primaria es igualador y propobre (el beneficio por persona baja con el ingreso por persona) en todos los países. El gasto en educación secundaria es igualador en todos los países y también propobre en algunos. El gasto en educación terciaria nunca es propobre, pero es igualador en todos los países a excepción de Guatemala. El gasto en salud siempre es igualador pero es propobre solamente en algunos países. La región latinoamericana presenta una gran heterogeneidad en el tamaño del estado y en la capacidad de utilizar al fisco para reducir la desigualdad y la pobreza. A mayor gasto social (como proporción del PIB), mayor redistribución; pero países con un nivel de gasto social similar, o incluso menor, muestran diferentes niveles de redistribución lo cual sugiere que otros factores tales como la composición y focalización del gasto intervienen en determinar el efecto redistributivo más allá del tamaño del gasto. Es importante recalcar que mayor redistribución no necesariamente es siempre un resultado deseable, ya que en este trabajo no se estiman los efectos sobre la sostenibilidad fiscal y la eficiencia. En algunos países, el peso de los impuestos al consumo es tal que una proporción de la población pobre es pagadora neta al sistema fiscal (antes de recibir las transferencias ‘en especie’ en educación y salud). Los gobiernos deberían examinar si este efecto no deseable podría ser evitado, o por lo menos disminuido, mediante incrementos en las transferencias monetarias focalizadas o reducción de los impuestos al consumo que son particularmente onerosos para la población pobre.

Suggested Citation

  • Lustig, Nora, 2017. "El impacto del sistema tributario y el gasto social en la distribución del ingreso y la pobreza en América Latina. Una aplicación del marco metodológico del proyecto Compromiso con la Equidad (CEQ)," El Trimestre Económico, Fondo de Cultura Económica, vol. 0(335), pages .493-568, julio-sep.
  • Handle: RePEc:elt:journl:v:84:y:2017:i:334:p:493-568
    DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.20430/ete.v84i335.277
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.eltrimestreeconomico.com.mx/index.php/te/article/view/277/548
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/http://dx.doi.org/10.20430/ete.v84i335.277?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marisa Bucheli & Nora Lustig & Máximo Rossi & Florencia Amábile, 2014. "Social Spending, Taxes, and Income Redistribution in Uruguay," Public Finance Review, , vol. 42(3), pages 413-433, May.
    2. Ali Enami , Nora Lustig and Rodrigo Aranda, 2017. "Analytic Foundations: Measuring the Redistributive Impact of Taxes and Transfers - Working Paper 446," Working Papers 446, Center for Global Development.
    3. Miguel Jaramillo, 2014. "The Incidence of Social Spending and Taxes in Peru," Public Finance Review, , vol. 42(3), pages 391-412, May.
    4. Jaime Aristy-Escuder & Maynor Cabrera & Blanca Moreno-Dodson & Miguel Sánchez-Martín, 2016. "Fiscal Policy and Redistribution in the Dominican Republic," Commitment to Equity (CEQ) Working Paper Series 47, Tulane University, Department of Economics.
    5. Branko Milanovic & Sean Higgins & Nora Lustig & Whitney Ruble & Timothy M. Smeeding, 2016. "Comparing the Incidence of Taxes and Social Spending in Brazil and the United States," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 62, pages 22-46, August.
    6. Kakwani, Nanok C, 1977. "Measurement of Tax Progressivity: An International Comparison," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 87(345), pages 71-80, March.
    7. Freddy Paúl Llerena Pinto & M. Cristhina Llerena Pinto & M. Andrea Llerena Pinto, 2015. "Social Spending, Taxes and Income Redistribution in Ecuador," Commitment to Equity (CEQ) Working Paper Series 28, Tulane University, Department of Economics.
    8. Lindert,Peter H., 2009. "Growing Public," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521529174, September.
    9. Anthony Shorrocks, 2013. "Decomposition procedures for distributional analysis: a unified framework based on the Shapley value," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 11(1), pages 99-126, March.
    10. Cabrera, Maynor & Lustig, Nora & Morán, Hilcías E., 2015. "Fiscal Policy, Inequality, and the Ethnic Divide in Guatemala," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 263-279.
    11. Peter Lindert, 2004. "Social Spending and Economic Growth," Challenge, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(4), pages 6-16.
    12. Immervoll, Herwig & Richardson, Linda, 2011. "Redistribution Policy and Inequality Reduction in OECD Countries: What Has Changed in Two Decades?," IZA Discussion Papers 6030, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Editors The, 2008. "From the Editors," Basic Income Studies, De Gruyter, vol. 3(1), pages 1-1, July.
    14. Jaime Aristy-Escuder & Maynor Cabrera & Blanca Moreno-Dodson & Miguel Sánchez-Martín, 2016. "Fiscal Policy and Redistribution in the Dominican Republic," Commitment to Equity (CEQ) Working Paper Series 1347, Tulane University, Department of Economics.
    15. Freddy Paúl Llerena Pinto & M. Cristhina Llerena Pinto & M. Andrea Llerena Pinto, 2015. "Social Spending, Taxes and Income Redistribution in Ecuador," Commitment to Equity (CEQ) Working Paper Series 1328, Tulane University, Department of Economics.
    16. Jean-Yves Duclos & Abdelkrim Araar, 2006. "Poverty and Equity," Economic Studies in Inequality, Social Exclusion, and Well-Being, Springer, number 978-0-387-33318-2, July.
    17. Lambert, Peter J, 1985. "On the Redistributive Effect of Taxes and Benefits," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 32(1), pages 39-54, February.
    18. Karla Breceda & Jamele Rigolini & Jaime Saavedra, 2009. "Latin America and the Social Contract: Patterns of Social Spending and Taxation," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 35(4), pages 721-748, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Cristina Arancibia & Mariana Dondo & Xavier Jara & David Macas & Nicolás Oliva & Rebeca Riella & David Rodríguez & Joana Urraburu, 2019. "Income redistribution in Latin America: A microsimulation approach," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2019-1, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    2. Caamal-Olvera, Cinthya G. & Huesca, Luis & Llamas, Linda, 2022. "Universal basic income: A feasible alternative to move people out of poverty in Mexico?," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 1077-1093.
    3. Pessino, Carola & Izquierdo, Alejandro & Vuletin, Guillermo, 2018. "Better Spending for Better Lives: How Latin America and the Caribbean Can Do More with Less," IDB Publications (Books), Inter-American Development Bank, number 9152, November.
    4. Quinonez, Pablo, 2022. "Social spending and income inequality in Latin America. A panel data approach," MPRA Paper 113538, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Xavier Jara & David Rodríguez, 2019. "Financial disincentives to formal work: Evidence from Ecuador and Colombia," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2019-14, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nora Lustig, 2016. "Fiscal policy, inequality and the poor in the developing world," Working Papers 418, ECINEQ, Society for the Study of Economic Inequality.
    2. Nora Lustig, 2016. "El Impacto del Sistema Tributario y el Gasto Social en la Distribucion del Ingreso y la Pobreza en America Latina: Argentina, Bolivia, Brasil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatema," Commitment to Equity (CEQ) Working Paper Series 37, Tulane University, Department of Economics.
    3. Nora Lustig, 2016. "Fiscal Policy, Inequality and the Poor in the Developing World," Working Papers 1612, Tulane University, Department of Economics, revised Aug 2017.
    4. Nora Lustig, 2016. "El Impacto del Sistema Tributario y el Gasto Social en la Distribución del Ingreso y la Pobreza en América Latina: Argentina, Bolivia, Brasil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatema," Commitment to Equity (CEQ) Working Paper Series 1337, Tulane University, Department of Economics.
    5. Nora Lustig, 2016. "Fiscal policy, inequality, and the poor in the developing world," WIDER Working Paper Series 164a, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    6. Higgins, Sean & Lustig, Nora, 2016. "Can a poverty-reducing and progressive tax and transfer system hurt the poor?," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 63-75.
    7. Nora Lustig, 2017. "Fiscal Policy, Income Redistribution and Poverty Reduction in Low and Middle Income Countries," Commitment to Equity (CEQ) Working Paper Series 54, Tulane University, Department of Economics.
    8. Nora Lustig, 2020. "Inequality and Social Policy in Latin America," Commitment to Equity (CEQ) Working Paper Series 94, Tulane University, Department of Economics.
    9. Nora Lustig, 2015. "Fiscal Policy and Ethno-Racial Inequality in Bolivia, Brazil, Guatemala and Uruguay," Commitment to Equity (CEQ) Working Paper Series 22, Tulane University, Department of Economics.
    10. Nora Lustig, 2016. "Fiscal Policy, Inequality and the Poor in the Developing World," Commitment to Equity (CEQ) Working Paper Series 1323, Tulane University, Department of Economics.
    11. Margarita Beneke & Nora Lustig, 2015. "El Impacto de los Impuestos y el Gasto Social en la Desigualdad y la Pobreza en El Salvador," Commitment to Equity (CEQ) Working Paper Series 1326, Tulane University, Department of Economics.
    12. Nora Lustig, 2016. "Fiscal policy, inequality, and the poor in the developing world," WIDER Working Paper Series 164b (Revised version May, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    13. Margarita Beneke & Nora Lustig, 2015. "El Impacto de los Impuestos y el Gasto Social en la Desigualdad y la Pobreza en El Salvador," Commitment to Equity (CEQ) Working Paper Series 26, Tulane University, Department of Economics.
    14. Jon Jellema & Nora Lustig & Astrid Haas & Sebastian Wolf, 2016. "The Impact of Taxes, Transfers, and Subsidies on Inequality and Poverty in Uganda," Commitment to Equity (CEQ) Working Paper Series 53, Tulane University, Department of Economics.
    15. Nora Lustig, 2016. "Commitment to Equity Handbook. A Guide to Estimating the Impact of Fiscal Policy on Inequality and Poverty," Commitment to Equity (CEQ) Working Paper Series 1301, Tulane University, Department of Economics.
    16. Lustig Nora, 2016. "Inequality and Fiscal Redistribution in Middle Income Countries: Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Indonesia, Mexico, Peru and South Africa," Journal of Globalization and Development, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 17-60, June.
    17. Pessino, Carola & Izquierdo, Alejandro & Vuletin, Guillermo, 2018. "Better Spending for Better Lives: How Latin America and the Caribbean Can Do More with Less," IDB Publications (Books), Inter-American Development Bank, number 9152, November.
    18. Nora Lustig & Florencia Amábile & Marisa Bucheli & George Gray Molina & Sean Higgins & Miguel Jaramillo & Wilson Jiménez Pozo & Veronica Paz Arauco & Claudiney Pereira & Carola Pessino & Máximo Rossi , 2013. "The impact of taxes and social spending on inequality and poverty in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Mexico, Peru and Uruguay: An overview," Working Papers 315, ECINEQ, Society for the Study of Economic Inequality.
    19. Cabrera, Maynor & Lustig, Nora & Morán, Hilcías E., 2015. "Fiscal Policy, Inequality, and the Ethnic Divide in Guatemala," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 263-279.
    20. Nora Lustig, 2015. "The Redistributive Impactive of Government Spending on Education and Health Evidence from Thirteen Developing Countries in the Commitment to Equity Project," Commitment to Equity (CEQ) Working Paper Series 30, Tulane University, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    incidencia fiscal; desigualdad; pobreza; impuestos; transferencias; América Latina.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D31 - Microeconomics - - Distribution - - - Personal Income and Wealth Distribution
    • H22 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Incidence
    • I38 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - Government Programs; Provision and Effects of Welfare Programs

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:elt:journl:v:84:y:2017:i:334:p:493-568. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Nuria Pliego Vinageras (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.fondodeculturaeconomica.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.