Poverty is a universal problem endured by many countries. In 2014, world population totaled to 7.2 billion. From this figure, more than 3 billion people live under $1.25 a day. This indicates that almost 50% of the people around the globe lives under extreme poverty (World Bank, 2015). The country is evidently not spared from this situation. In the circumstance of the Philippines, poverty remains rampant. Although the country attained economic growth, poverty was not reduced and income inequality remains high (Asian Development Bank, 2009).
Asian Developmen Bank. (2009). Poverty in the Philippines: Causes, Constraints and Opportunities. Manila, Philippines: Asian Development Bank
World Bank. (2011, January 1). Conditional Cash Transfers – Country Overviews & Project
Info. Retrieved November 30, 2014, from
Philippine poverty is mainly caused by low employment opportunities, substandard to moderate economic growth for several decades, income inequality, and external shocks such as natural calamities, economic crises, and political issues. Reports shows that poverty is attributed to the lack of human capital development and lack of educational attainment, the government has implemented several anti-poverty programs focusing on the improvement of human capital to alleviate poverty (Asian Development Bank (2013).
ADB. (2013). Poverty reduction: Promoting inclusive pro-poor growth. Retrieved April 5, 2014 from: http://www.adb.org/themes/poverty/overview
According to ADB (2009), Poverty in the Philippines and other developing countries is not only a matter of lack in financial access but is also caused by inadequate human competencies and limited access to social services. This is aggravated by the increasing economic and social inequality that is oftentimes biased to the nation’s poorest people. Social protection is then necessary in alleviating the poorest of the poor households and in reducing if not totally eliminating inequality in the country. The provision of social protection to the most marginalized and vulnerable groups is therefore considered significant in protecting them not only from vulnerability and deprivation but also in advancing their wellbeing and security and fulfilling their basic human rights as well. Social protection is hence a means of providing the essential needs for survival that enhances their quality of life and eventually leading to decent life and freeing the poor from the grasp of poverty (International Labour Office, 2003).
ADB, 2009. Annual Report 2008. Manila: Asian Development Bank. Available at: http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/institutional-document/31323/annual-report-2008vol01.pdf Accessed 10-4-2015
International Labour Office, 2003. Social protection: A life cycle continuum investment for social justice, poverty reduction and sustainable development. Available at: http://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/download/lifecycl/lifecycle.pdf Accessed 2015.
Aiming for a decent and quality life, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)1 were considerable efforts established in 2000 for poverty reduction across the globe. Twenty one (21) time-bound targets were recognized to measure progress in poverty reduction and hunger as well as improvements in health, education, living conditions, environmental sustainability and gender equality. The MDG 1 is specifically focused on “eradicating extreme poverty and hunger” coming with three targets namely halving the proportion of people whose income is less than $1.25 a day, achieving full and productive employment and decent work for women and people, and halving the proportion of people suffering from hunger between 1990 and 2015 (United Nations, 2011). The MDGs were heralded to have opened a new chapter in international development and described as ‘the most broadly supported, comprehensive and specific poverty reduction targets’ the world has ever established (Vandemoortele, 2011).
Bennagen, P. (2000). Anti-Poverty Programs. Retrieved from http://www.eldis.org/go/home;id=11479;type=Document
In In line with this MDGs efforts to provide financial aid, education and health to the poorest of the poor, countries across the globe has launching Conditional Cash Transfer after the promising result of the first conditional cash transfer programs integrated in Brazil and Mexico as a way of eradicating and poverty and reducing inequality all over the country. Brazil’s first CCT program was called Programa de Eradicacão do Trabalho Infantil, but this was later integrated to the country’s recent CCT called Bolsa Familia (World Bank, 2011). On the other hand, Mexico implemented its CCT, called Progresa, in an attempt to provide financial aid to poor households and improve education and health among children (Fiszbein et al., 2009). According to Jaramillo (2011), the positive initial impact that Progresa and Programa de Eradicacão do Trabalho Infantil had on enrollment and health encouraged other countries to follow the framework of CCT. One of the reasons for this is the spillover effect that CCTs cause. For instance, Lehmann (2009) found that in low income countries, CCTs have social spillover effects when women receive the cash transfer. This is exhibited when women become more empowered since they are the ones directly receiving the cash from the program. (Impact ang ref.)
Conditional cash transfers (CCTs) are programs that transfer cash, generally to poor households, on the condition that those households make prespecified investments in the human capital of their children. Countries have been adopting or considering adoption of CCT programs at a prodigious rate. (Fiszbein et al., 2009) The Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) programs serves as the government’s answers to the pressing issues regarding poverty. CCT is defines the as programs that provide cash benefits to finance the basic needs and foster investment in human capital to extremely poor households. These benefits are conditioned on certain behaviors, usually related to investments in nutrition, health, and education. (Calvo, 2011). As of 2014, there are 26 active CCT programs worldwide and numerous studies conducted on their CCT programs of Mexico, Brazil, Peru and Honduras.
Fiszbein, A., Schady, N., Ferreira, F., Grosh, M., Kelleher, N., Olinto, P. and Skoufias, E. (2009), Conditional Cash Transfers: Reducing Present and Future Poverty, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Calvo, C. (2011). Social Work and conditional Cash Transfers in Latin America. Journal of Sociology & Welfare, September 2011, Volume XXXVIII, Number 3.
Bolsa Família Program (BF), was innovatively launch decades ago in Brazil by President Lula, scaling up and coordinating scattered existing initiatives under a powerfully simple concept: trusting poor families with small cash transfers in return for keeping their children in school and attending preventive health care visits. It has been key to help Brazil more than halve its extreme poverty – from 9.7 to 4.3 % of the population. Most impressively, and in contrast to other countries, income inequality also fell markedly, to a Gini coefficient of 0.527 an impressive 15 % decrease. BF now reaches nearly 14 million households – 50 million people or around 1/4 of the population, and is widely seen as a global success story, a reference point for social policy around the world.
The World Bank Bolsa Família: Brazil’s Quiet Revolution by Deborah Wetzel Valor Econômico
November 4, 2013 http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/opinion/2013/11/04/bolsa-familia-Brazil-quiet-revolution
Oportunidades (previously named Progresa) is a CCT program in Mexico that consists of three components: one related to education, one to health, and one to nutrition. Oportunidades transfers represent, on average, 25 percent of household income for Mexico’s rural poor and between 15 and 20 percent for the urban poor1. The program has expanded rapidly since its inception: starting from 140 thousand households in August 1997, it reached 5 million households at the beginning of 2008. (IFPRI, 2017).
http://www.ifpri.org/publication/impact-oportunidades-mexico The impact of oportunidades in Mexico An integrated CGE-microsimulations modeling approach
PAUL A. DOROSH, DARIO DEBOWICZ, JENNIFER GOLAN
PROJECT FACT SHEET
2011 HTTP://WWW.IFPRI.ORG/PUBLICATION (RETRIVED ON SEPT. 16, 2017)
Peru’s Juntos following the suit of other countries in Latin America, as the first cash transfer programme in Peru, Juntos is officially labeled as “The National Programme of Support to the Poorest” (Nicola Jones el. Al) Juntos targets poor families mainly in rural areas in Peru. The programme was established in 2005, initially serving 70 districts in the southern highlands. Since its launched it has covered 834,000 families in 1,142 districts (out of 1,943 districts in the country). It is estimated that 72 per cent of all potential household beneficiaries are already covered by the programme. Up to 2009, the programme made a monthly fixed transfer of 100 Nuevos Soles (approximate US$30, or around 10 per cent of poor households’ monthly consumption). In 2010, this became a bi-monthly transfer of 200 Nuevos Soles. (Alan Sanchez et. al, 2016)
The Impact of the Juntos Conditional Cash Transfer Programme in Peru on Nutritional and Cognitive Outcomes: Does the Age of Exposure Matter? Alan Sanchez, Guido Melendez and Jere Behrman www.younglives.org.uk retrieved on April 16, 2018) Young Lives, Oxford Department of International Development (ODID), University of Oxford, Queen Elizabeth House, 3 Mansfield Road, Oxford OX1 3TB, UK Tel: +44 (0)1865 281751 • E-mail: [email protected]
Conditional Cash Transfers In Peru: Tackling The Multi-Dimensionality Of Poverty And Vulnerability Nicola Jones, Rosana Vargas and Eliana Villar1
Colombia’s Familias en Accion it has been observed that the communities in Cartagena that received coverage from the Familias en Acción exhibit a considerably higher level of community engagement in contrast to communities that do not receive coverage from the CCT program.
Although CCT globally has positive impact in alleviating poverty, there are some countries that is less successful in the progams implementation like Honduras’ Programa de Asignación Familiar, ASIGNACIÓN UNIVERSAL POR HIJO of Argentina and CCTs in Bolivia.
Honduras introduced the first iteration of its Programa de Asignación Familiar (“Family Allowance Program”) or PRAF-I, aiming to compensate the poorest families for losses incurred under structural adjustment policies. However, by the late 1990s, it had become clear that the program was not fulfilling its potential due to a lack of targeting and a lack of enforcement of the conditions for receiving a voucher. In 1998, the IDB negotiated a $45 million loan to Honduras to help initiative a new version of the program called PRAF-II. Yet missteps begot more missteps: although PRAF-II corrected some of its predecessor’s deficiencies, new design flaws created new and unanticipated problems, with mixed and even adverse consequences for beneficiaries’ health. Yet missteps begot more missteps: although PRAF-II corrected some of its predecessor’s deficiencies, new design flaws created new and unanticipated problems, with mixed and even adverse consequences for beneficiaries’ health. Although there were modest gains in the utilization of health services among transfer recipients, they saw no improvements in health outcomes such as stunting, anemia, and diarrhea. The PRAF experience shows how cash transfers can lead to unintended consequences, mainly related to poor design choices. Regular monitoring of program implementation is critical to avoid pitfalls and identify adverse effects early, so that program design can be modified and corrected. The Honduran story is one of learning while doing and constant iteration over two decades—while still achieving mixed results.
http://millionssaved.cgdev.org/case-studies Center for Global Development, Million Save Case Study on Learning from Disappointment Honduras’s Programa de Asignación Familiar II. In Honduras, cash transfers help families access health services but don’t improve health.
ASIGNACIÓN UNIVERSAL POR HIJO CASH TRANSFER PROGRAM of Argentina, it is believed that the program has had a mostly very small positive impact with increased school attendance of primary and secondary students and a reduction in the dropout rate, but there appears to be a negative impact in grade promotion outcomes. (Gastón Pierri et. Al, 2015)
THE IMPACT OF ARGENTINA’S ASIGNACIÓN UNIVERSAL POR HIJO CASH TRANSFER PROGRAM ON CHILDREN’S EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES. Gastón Pierri, World Bank and Ragui Assaad, University of Minnesota February, 2015
Unlike to CCT programs elsewhere in Latin America, Bolivia’s CCT programs are universal and caters all regardless of the income level of the family rather than targeted to the poor. Bolivia’s has separate conditional cash transfer programs (CCTs), the Bono Juancito Pinto (2006) for schoolchildren and the Bono Juana Azurduy (2009) for expectant and new mothers and their infants and Bolivia also has a universalistic unconditional cash transfer program, Renta Dignidad (formerly Bonosol), which as of 2007 has given every Bolivian aged 60 or above about US $340 for those with no other pension income, and 75 percent of that amount for those with another pension. (James W.G., 2013)
***Conditional Cash Transfers in Bolivia: Origins, Impact, and Universality James W. McGuire Department of Government Wesleyan University [email protected] APRIL 2, 2013 Paper prepared for the 2013 Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, San Francisco, April 3-6, 2013.
In the Philippines, the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) has initiated the CCT program. Dubbed “Ahon Pamilyang Pilipino,” it was pre-pilot tested in the municipalities of Sibagat and Esperanza in Agusan del Sur; the municipalities of Lopez Jaena and Bonifacio in Misamis Occidental, the Caraga Region; and the cities of Pasay and Caloocan3 upon the release of the amount of P50 Million Pesos under a Special Allotment Release Order (SARO) issued by the Department of Budget and Management. On July 16, 2008, the DSWD issued Administrative Order No. 16, series of 2008 (A.O. No. 16, s. 2008),5 setting the implementing guidelines for the project renamed “Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program” (4Ps). (Pimentel in Supreme Court G. R. No. 195770 2012) From an initial coverage of 6,000 households in the pilot test, the program coverage was expanded to 666,000 households in response to the food and fuel crisis in 2008 and subsequent global economic crisis in 2009. (ADB 2011) In recent days 4Ps becomes a nationwide project operating in all the 17 regions in the Philippines, covering 79 provinces, 143 cities, and 1,484 municipalities.
Usui, Norio. Searching for effective poverty interventions: Conditional cash transfer in the Philippines. Mandaluyong City, Philippines: Asian Development Bank, 2011.
Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program was first introduced in 2007 as Ahon Pamilyang Pilipino, a CCT program,was tested in the municipalities of Sibagat and Esperanza in Agusan del Sur, the municipalities of Lopez Jaena and Bonifacio in Misamis Occidental, the CARAGA Region, and the cities of Pasay and Caloocan.
2008 marks the formal implementation of Ahon Pamilyang Pilipino and it was renamed as Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps). The Department of Social Welfare and Development set guidelines and objectives implemented with the coordinated inter-agency network among the Department of Education (DepEd), Department of Health (DOH), Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), the National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC) and the local government units (LGUs), given with specific functions in ensuring the efficiency of 4Ps. The target beneficiaries of 4Ps are poor families from the priority poor provinces and cities. An eligible household can have three (3) qualified children ranging from 0-14 years old. The selected families have 5 years maximum membership in the program. Currently, the maximum membership limit for the chosen household was terminated and the range of qualified children’s age is extended to 18 years old. (Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program Operations Manual, 2012).