How pro-poor and progressive is social spending in Zambia ?
This paper analyzes the distributional effect of public spending in Zambia using the most recent data from the 2010 Living Conditions Monitoring Survey. The analysis focuses on both the"traditional"social sectors, such as education and public healthcare, as well as other spending areas less thoroughly studied, such as agricultural support programs. Ultimately, this benefit incidence analysis addresses the extent to which spending is pro-poor and progressive; that is, it primarily benefits the poor and does so at an increasing rate as welfare levels decrease. The results indicate that overall public education spending in Zambia is neither pro-poor nor progressive, but while this is true for the system as a whole it is not true for all of its parts. The net unitary benefits of primary and secondary education are clearly both pro-poor and progressive. However, their progressivity is ultimately outweighed by the extreme concentration of tertiary education benefits among the wealthiest members of Zambian society. Health spending is also regressive and not pro-poor. Although unitary net benefits are slightly progressive, unequal access remains the key constraint. In contrast, the benefits of agricultural-input subsidy programs follow a somewhat progressive pattern (for each beneficiary in the top quintile there are almost two beneficiaries in the poorest quintile) but clearly suffer from targeting problems. Consequently, without better-designed and more conscientiously implemented targeting mechanisms, public spending on health, education, and fertilizers will not be able to further the government's larger objectives for pro-poor and progressive development policy.
|Date of creation:||01 Apr 2012|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 1818 H Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20433|
Phone: (202) 477-1234
Web page: http://www.worldbank.org/
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Ariel Fiszbein & Norbert Schady & Francisco H.G. Ferreira & Margaret Grosh & Niall Keleher & Pedro Olinto & Emmanuel Skoufias, 2009. "Conditional Cash Transfers : Reducing Present and Future Poverty," World Bank Publications, The World Bank, number 2597, September.
- van de Walle, Dominique, 1998.
"Assessing the welfare impacts of public spending,"
Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 365-379, March.
- van de Walle, Dominique, 1996. "Assessing the welfare impacts of public spending," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1670, The World Bank.
- 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.
- Breceda, Karla & Rigolini, Jamele & Saavedra, Jaime, 2008. "Latin America and the social contract : patterns of social spending and taxation," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4604, The World Bank.
- David E. Sahn & Stephen D. Younger, 2000. "Expenditure incidence in Africa: microeconomic evidence," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 21(3), pages 329-347, September. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)