Progresa Flashcards
Authors and year
Gertler - Boyce 2001
Motivation for Progresa
people grow up in poverty and receive poor education, inadequate nutrition and little medical attention
when enter labour market, no adequate endowment of human capital to pull out of poverty
cycle: low HC, low productivity, low wage, no resources for children
intergenerational tragedy of poverty
Health related CCT conditions
every family member gets preventative healthcare
children 0-5 and lactating mother must attend clinics for education and nutrition
pregnant women must receive pre natal care
Education related CCT conditions
children attending high school
increases with higher grades
biased in favour of females - academic lit shows they have a higher dropout rate
Other aspect to Progresa (not CCTs)
free fortified food supplements for young and low weight children
How long did households receive CCT?
3 years, then reassessed
take up rate of Progresa in elegible areas?
97%
was Progresa transfer significant?
1/3 HH income, 46.5% of Mexican federal anti poverty budget
Who were payments given to?
female head of household - in accordance with international literature
Methodology: RCTs
- had 506 communities, roughly 10% of progresa program, base line survey conducted to later use as a proxy to check accuracy of responses.
- within these communities, eligible households identified using census data
randomly assigned to control or treatment
320 treatment, 185 control (received 2 years later)
ensured random selection of communities that had the same characteristics
Treatment and control groups had statistically indistinguishable characteristics (education, age, income)
Data Sources
1997 Census for determining eligibility
Surveys - 1998 baseline (lack of health data collected) then 4 follow ups every 6 months
IMSS - Solidaridad for health centre utilization
Surveyed questions to measure utilization
- attendance to clinics for preventative care
- in patient hospitalizations
- household visits to healthcare providers
Data Handling Approach?
difference - in - difference
- controls for area specific characteristics and secular trends
- to compare impact of treatment before and after intervention in treatment and control villages
Notes on importance of methodology
- D-I-D model controls for effects that change over time for both of them
- finding right comparison group is a challenge. if not equivalent comparison is not valid
- statistically unbiased only if compare similar groups of households that participate and do not
Results
CHILD HEALTH IMPROVED
- children 1-5 have 12% lower incidence of illness
- stronger nutrition measured
ADULT HEALTH IMPROVED
- measured in terms of days incapacitated/in bed due to illness/ difficulties with daily activity
- not much dif 6-17, but less sickness reported in 18-50, 51+
- people more productive under Progresa
UTILZATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH CLINICS FOR HOSPITALIZATION FELL
NO REDUCTION IN PRIVATE PROVIDER UTILZATION
- no crowding out effect
UTILIZATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH CLINICS INCREASED
- for all age groups except 0-2 due to increase in immunized babies
NUTRITION MONITORING SYSTEMS STRENGTHENED