flâneur

The meaning of ‘pro-poor’ (as understood by the World Bank) - Development Pathways

developmentpathways.co.uk · 1,663 words · saved by 1 readers

How can social protection schemes that exclude the majority of the poorest in Kyrgyzstan and globally be described as ‘pro-poor’? Stephen Kidd investigates in a new blog for the New Year. A short while ago, I wrote a blog explaining how poverty-targeted social protection schemes are ‘pro-rich’ while universal schemes are ‘pro-poor’. It’s a pretty obvious point: poverty-targeted schemes have low budgets and, as a result, the demands on the rich to finance them from taxes are much less than when universal schemes are implemented. And, the rich – or, at least, most of them – love lower taxes (ask Donald Trump and his cronies). So, why does the World Bank continue to refer to poverty-targeted schemes as ‘pro-poor’? How can schemes that exclude the majority of people living in poverty – while offering low-value transfers – be more pro-poor than universal schemes that are much more effective in reaching the poorest members of society while also providing higher-value transfers? The answer is

The meaning of ‘pro-poor’ (as understood by the World Bank) - Development Pathways: A DT Global Company Home » Blog » The meaning of ‘pro-poor’ (as understood by the World Bank) Finding all the poor? Poverty-targeting is described as pro-poor, whilst excluding many of the poorest. Image: Kyrgyzstan. How can social protection schemes that exclude the majority of the poorest in Kyrgyzstan and globally be described as ‘pro-poor’? Stephen Kidd investigates in a new blog for the New Year. Stephen Kidd A short while ago, I wrote a blog explaining how poverty-targeted social protection sc

saved by

related reading