IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/yaleeg/160253.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Targeting Ultra-poor Households in Honduras and Peru

Author

Listed:
  • Karlan, Dean S.
  • Thuysbaert, Bram

Abstract

For policy purposes, it is important to understand the relative efficacy of various methods to target the poor. Recently, participatory methods have received particular attention. We examine the effectiveness of a hybrid two-step process that combines a participatory wealth ranking and a verification household survey, relative to two proxy means tests (the Progress out of Poverty Index and a housing index), in Honduras and Peru. The methods we examine perform similarly to one another by various metrics. They all target most accurately in the cases of the poorest and the wealthiest households but perform with mixed results among households in the middle of the distribution. Ultimately, given similar performance, the analysis suggests that costs should be the driving consideration in choosing across methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Karlan, Dean S. & Thuysbaert, Bram, 2013. "Targeting Ultra-poor Households in Honduras and Peru," Center Discussion Papers 160253, Yale University, Economic Growth Center.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:yaleeg:160253
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.160253
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/160253/files/cdp1033.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.160253?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. Ravallion, M., 1998. "Poverty Lines in Theory and Practice," Papers 133, World Bank - Living Standards Measurement.
    2. Chambers, Robert, 1994. "Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): Analysis of experience," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 22(9), pages 1253-1268, September.
    3. Vivi Alatas & Abhijit Banerjee & Rema Hanna & Benjamin A. Olken & Julia Tobias, 2012. "Targeting the Poor: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Indonesia," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(4), pages 1206-1240, June.
    4. Chambers, Robert, 1994. "Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): Challenges, potentials and paradigm," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 22(10), pages 1437-1454, October.
    5. Skoufias, Emmanuel & Davis, Benjamin & de la Vega, Sergio, 2001. "Targeting the Poor in Mexico: An Evaluation of the Selection of Households into PROGRESA," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(10), pages 1769-1784, October.
    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. Brown, Caitlin & Ravallion, Martin & van de Walle, Dominique, 2018. "A poor means test? Econometric targeting in Africa," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 109-124.
    2. Fanny Salignac & Julien Hanoteau & Ioana Ramia, 2022. "Financial Resilience: A Way Forward Towards Economic Development in Developing Countries," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 160(1), pages 1-33, February.
    3. Aiken, Emily L. & Bedoya, Guadalupe & Blumenstock, Joshua E. & Coville, Aidan, 2023. "Program targeting with machine learning and mobile phone data: Evidence from an anti-poverty intervention in Afghanistan," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    4. Schleicher, Michael & Souares, Aurélia & Pacere, Athanase Narangoro & Sauerborn, Rainer & Klonner, Stefan, 2016. "Decentralized versus Statistical Targeting of Anti-Poverty Programs: Evidence from Burkina Faso," Working Papers 0623, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    5. Mark Schreiner, 2015. "A Comparison of Two Simple, Low-Cost Ways for Local, Pro-Poor Organizations to Measure the Poverty of Their Participants," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 124(2), pages 537-569, November.
    6. Hannes Öhler & Mario Negre & Lodewijk Smets & Renzo Massari & Željko Bogetić, 2019. "Putting your money where your mouth is: Geographic targeting of World Bank projects to the bottom 40 percent," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-19, June.
    7. Stoeffler, Quentin & Mills, Bradford & del Ninno, Carlo, 2016. "Reaching the Poor: Cash Transfer Program Targeting in Cameroon," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 244-263.
    8. Emily Aiken & Guadalupe Bedoya & Joshua Blumenstock & Aidan Coville, 2022. "Program Targeting with Machine Learning and Mobile Phone Data: Evidence from an Anti-Poverty Intervention in Afghanistan," Papers 2206.11400, arXiv.org.
    9. Henderson, Heath & Follett, Lendie, 2022. "Targeting social safety net programs on human capabilities," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    10. Ligon, Ethan & Trachtman, Carly, 2024. "Assessing Targeting Peformance: The Case of Ghana’s LEAP Program," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt2zk0m608, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.

    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. Schleicher, Michael & Souares, Aurélia & Pacere, Athanase Narangoro & Sauerborn, Rainer & Klonner, Stefan, 2016. "Decentralized versus Statistical Targeting of Anti-Poverty Programs: Evidence from Burkina Faso," Working Papers 0623, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    2. Alix-Garcia, Jennifer M. & Sims, Katharine R.E. & Costica, Laura, 2021. "Better to be indirect? Testing the accuracy and cost-savings of indirect surveys," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    3. Brown, Caitlin & Ravallion, Martin & van de Walle, Dominique, 2018. "A poor means test? Econometric targeting in Africa," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 109-124.
    4. Adama Bah & Samuel Bazzi & Sudarno Sumarto & Julia Tobias, 2019. "Finding the Poor vs. Measuring Their Poverty: Exploring the Drivers of Targeting Effectiveness in Indonesia," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 33(3), pages 573-597.
    5. Ross, Heather M. & Pine, Kathleen H. & Curran, Sarah & Augusta, Dawn, 2022. "Pathway mapping as a tool to address police use of force in behavioral health crisis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 306(C).
    6. Chatterjee, Ira & Cornelissen, Joep & Wincent, Joakim, 2021. "Social entrepreneurship and values work: The role of practices in shaping values and negotiating change," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 36(1).
    7. Chilombo, Andrew & Van Der Horst, Dan, 2021. "Livelihoods and coping strategies of local communities on previous customary land in limbo of commercial agricultural development: Lessons from the farm block program in Zambia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    8. Zulu, Leo Charles & Adams, Ellis Adjei & Chikowo, Regis & Snapp, Sieglinde, 2018. "The role of community-based livestock management institutions in the adoption and scaling up of pigeon peas in Malawi," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 141-155.
    9. Kwayu, Emmanuel J. & Sallu, Susannah M. & Paavola, Jouni, 2014. "Farmer participation in the equitable payments for watershed services in Morogoro, Tanzania," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 1-9.
    10. Thompson, John, 1995. "Participatory approaches in government bureaucracies: Facilitating the process of institutional change," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 23(9), pages 1521-1554, September.
    11. Gerard Olivar-Tost & Johnny Valencia-Calvo & Julián Andrés Castrillón-Gómez, 2020. "Towards Decision-Making for the Assessment and Prioritization of Green Projects: An Integration between System Dynamics and Participatory Modeling," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-23, December.
    12. Shane Cronin & Mike Petterson & Paul Taylor & Randall Biliki, 2004. "Maximising Multi-Stakeholder Participation in Government and Community Volcanic Hazard Management Programs; A Case Study from Savo, Solomon Islands," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 33(1), pages 105-136, September.
    13. Glyn Williams & Manoj Srivastava & Stuart Corbridge & René Véron, 2003. "Enhancing pro-poor governance in Eastern India: participation, politics and action research," Progress in Development Studies, , vol. 3(2), pages 159-178, April.
    14. Stephan Klasen & Simon Lange, 2015. "Targeting Performance and Poverty Effects of Proxy Means-Tested Transfers: Trade-offs and Challenges," Ibero America Institute for Econ. Research (IAI) Discussion Papers 231, Ibero-America Institute for Economic Research.
    15. Karmali,Nadeem M. & Aline Weng, 2022. "Housing Demand and Affordability in India : Implications for Housing Policy," Policy Research Working Paper Series 10031, The World Bank.
    16. Palash Kamruzzaman, 2020. "Exploring the Nexus Between Participation and Empowerment," Journal of Development Policy and Practice, , vol. 5(1), pages 32-53, January.
    17. Jayasinghe, Kelum & Wickramasinghe, Danture, 2011. "Power over empowerment: Encountering development accounting in a Sri Lankan fishing village," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 396-414.
    18. Michael J.G. Parnwell, 2003. "Consulting the poor in Thailand: enlightenment or delusion?," Progress in Development Studies, , vol. 3(2), pages 99-112, April.
    19. Jinnat Ara & Dipanwita Sarkar & Jayanta Sarkar, 2021. "Like mother like daughter? Occupational mobility among children under asset transfer program in Bangladesh," QuBE Working Papers 061, QUT Business School.
    20. Namatama, Nathan, 2020. "An assessment of stakeholders’ participation in land use planning process of Luapula Province Planning Authority," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Community/Rural/Urban Development; Consumer/Household Economics; Food Security and Poverty; International Development; Research Methods/ Statistical Methods;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C81 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data; Data Access
    • O12 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Microeconomic Analyses of Economic Development
    • O20 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Development Planning and Policy - - - General

    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:ags:yaleeg:160253. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/egyalus.html .

    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.