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...
Main Authors: | , , |
---|---|
Format: | Policy Research Working Paper |
Language: | English |
Published: |
World Bank, Washington, DC
2012
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2012/04/16239557/pro-poor-progressive-social-spending-zambia http://hdl.handle.net/10986/6054 |
Summary: | 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. |
---|