|
|
|
|
LEADER |
02758nmm a2200589 u 4500 |
001 |
EB000932477 |
003 |
EBX01000000000000000726073 |
005 |
00000000000000.0 |
007 |
cr||||||||||||||||||||| |
008 |
150128 ||| eng |
020 |
|
|
|a 9781451872071
|
100 |
1 |
|
|a Coady, David
|
245 |
0 |
0 |
|a Targeting Social Transfers to the Poor in Mexico
|c David Coady, Susan Parker
|
260 |
|
|
|a Washington, D.C.
|b International Monetary Fund
|c 2009
|
300 |
|
|
|a 33 pages
|
651 |
|
4 |
|a Mexico
|
653 |
|
|
|a Population & demography
|
653 |
|
|
|a Economics
|
653 |
|
|
|a Income
|
653 |
|
|
|a Taxation and Subsidies: Incidence
|
653 |
|
|
|a Budget Systems
|
653 |
|
|
|a Demographic Economics: General
|
653 |
|
|
|a Income distribution
|
653 |
|
|
|a Personal income
|
653 |
|
|
|a Budget planning and preparation
|
653 |
|
|
|a Aggregate Factor Income Distribution
|
653 |
|
|
|a Budgeting
|
653 |
|
|
|a Personal Income, Wealth, and Their Distributions
|
653 |
|
|
|a National accounts
|
653 |
|
|
|a Education
|
653 |
|
|
|a Population and demographics
|
653 |
|
|
|a National Government Expenditures and Welfare Programs
|
653 |
|
|
|a Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics: Household Analysis: General
|
653 |
|
|
|a Demography
|
653 |
|
|
|a Education: General
|
653 |
|
|
|a Household consumption
|
653 |
|
|
|a Budget
|
653 |
|
|
|a Consumption
|
653 |
|
|
|a Population
|
653 |
|
|
|a Macroeconomics
|
653 |
|
|
|a Public financial management (PFM)
|
653 |
|
|
|a Income inequality
|
653 |
|
|
|a National Budget
|
653 |
|
|
|a Budgeting & financial management
|
700 |
1 |
|
|a Parker, Susan
|
041 |
0 |
7 |
|a eng
|2 ISO 639-2
|
989 |
|
|
|b IMF
|a International Monetary Fund
|
490 |
0 |
|
|a IMF Working Papers
|
028 |
5 |
0 |
|a 10.5089/9781451872071.001
|
856 |
4 |
0 |
|u https://elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/001/2009/060/001.2009.issue-060-en.xml?cid=22683-com-dsp-marc
|x Verlag
|3 Volltext
|
082 |
0 |
|
|a 330
|
520 |
|
|
|a Mexico’s main social support program, Oportunidades, combines two methods to target cash to poor households: an initial self-selection by households who acquire knowledge about the program and apply for benefits, followed by an administrative determination of eligibility based on a means test. Self-selection improves targeting by excluding high-income households, while administrative targeting does so mainly by excluding middle-income households. The two methods are complementary: expanding program knowledge across households substantially increases applications from non-poor households, thus reinforcing the importance of administrative targeting. The paper shows that targeting can be further improved through redesigning the means test and differentiating transfers according to demographic characteristics
|