A Reforma do Bolsa Familia: Avaliacao das Propostas de Reforma Debatidas em 2019
As part of the ongoing debate on the modernization of the Bolsa Familia (BF) program, several reform proposals were presented through 2019, including by the Ministry of Citizenship (MoC), Congress and the think tank IPEA, the latter as part of a broader proposal to consolidate various expenditures....
Gespeichert in:
| 1. Verfasser: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Elektronisch E-Book |
| Sprache: | English |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Washington, D.C
The World Bank
2019
|
| Schriftenreihe: | Social Protection and Labor Discussion Papers
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | kostenfrei |
| Zusammenfassung: | As part of the ongoing debate on the modernization of the Bolsa Familia (BF) program, several reform proposals were presented through 2019, including by the Ministry of Citizenship (MoC), Congress and the think tank IPEA, the latter as part of a broader proposal to consolidate various expenditures. This note uses the BraSIM microsimulation model to evaluate the 2019 proposals in the context of Brazil's tax benefit system. All proposals lead to a higher number of beneficiaries, with the poorest families, especially children and youth, benefitting the most. In general, the progressive incidence of the current program would vary little in the MoC and Congress reforms, but is reduced in IPEA's, which includes a universal component. The three proposals have different contributions on poverty-reduction: IPEA's reform is significantly less efficient than the current scenario and other reforms in terms of cost-effectiveness. However, IPEA's proposal most contributes to the reduction of inequality, and is the only one that identifies financing sources through the extinction of more regressive expenditures. Through this comparative analysis, the Note also highlights the main dilemmas about the future of the program, which remain relevant even in the post-COVID-19 reality: the tension between generosity and coverage; the priorization of certain groups for poverty-reduction; reconciling the program's objective of encouraging human capital for children with its role of minimum income guarantee; the risks of eliminating a "basic benefit". While only IPEA's proposal identified financing sources for the program's expansion, the Note reveals additional potential sources of financing for the BF program in the tax benefit system |
| Beschreibung: | 1 Online-Ressource |
| DOI: | 10.1596/37708 |
Internformat
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nmm a22000001c 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | BV049080059 | ||
| 003 | DE-604 | ||
| 007 | cr|uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 230731s2019 xxu|||| o||u| ||||||eng d | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1596/37708 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (ZDB-1-WBA)081686730 | ||
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)1392145114 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)KEP081686730 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-604 |b ger |e rda | ||
| 041 | 0 | |a eng | |
| 044 | |a xxu |c XD-US | ||
| 049 | |a DE-12 |a DE-521 |a DE-573 |a DE-523 |a DE-Re13 |a DE-19 |a DE-355 |a DE-703 |a DE-91 |a DE-706 |a DE-29 |a DE-M347 |a DE-473 |a DE-824 |a DE-20 |a DE-739 |a DE-1043 |a DE-863 |a DE-862 | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Morgandi, Matteo |e Verfasser |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a A Reforma do Bolsa Familia |b Avaliacao das Propostas de Reforma Debatidas em 2019 |c Matteo Morgandi |
| 264 | 1 | |a Washington, D.C |b The World Bank |c 2019 | |
| 300 | |a 1 Online-Ressource | ||
| 336 | |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 490 | 0 | |a Social Protection and Labor Discussion Papers | |
| 520 | 3 | |a As part of the ongoing debate on the modernization of the Bolsa Familia (BF) program, several reform proposals were presented through 2019, including by the Ministry of Citizenship (MoC), Congress and the think tank IPEA, the latter as part of a broader proposal to consolidate various expenditures. This note uses the BraSIM microsimulation model to evaluate the 2019 proposals in the context of Brazil's tax benefit system. All proposals lead to a higher number of beneficiaries, with the poorest families, especially children and youth, benefitting the most. In general, the progressive incidence of the current program would vary little in the MoC and Congress reforms, but is reduced in IPEA's, which includes a universal component. The three proposals have different contributions on poverty-reduction: IPEA's reform is significantly less efficient than the current scenario and other reforms in terms of cost-effectiveness. However, IPEA's proposal most contributes to the reduction of inequality, and is the only one that identifies financing sources through the extinction of more regressive expenditures. Through this comparative analysis, the Note also highlights the main dilemmas about the future of the program, which remain relevant even in the post-COVID-19 reality: the tension between generosity and coverage; the priorization of certain groups for poverty-reduction; reconciling the program's objective of encouraging human capital for children with its role of minimum income guarantee; the risks of eliminating a "basic benefit". While only IPEA's proposal identified financing sources for the program's expansion, the Note reveals additional potential sources of financing for the BF program in the tax benefit system | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Poverty Assessment | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Poverty Reduction | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Social Assessment | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Social Development | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Social Protections and Assistance | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Social Protections and Labor | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Cereda, Fabio |e Sonstige |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Farias, Alison |e Sonstige |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Sousa, Liliana D. |e Sonstige |4 oth | |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1596/37708 |x Verlag |z kostenfrei |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a ZDB-1-WBA | ||
| 943 | 1 | |a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-034341949 | |
Datensatz im Suchindex
| _version_ | 1812671838832033792 |
|---|---|
| adam_text | |
| adam_txt | |
| any_adam_object | |
| any_adam_object_boolean | |
| author | Morgandi, Matteo |
| author_facet | Morgandi, Matteo |
| author_role | aut |
| author_sort | Morgandi, Matteo |
| author_variant | m m mm |
| building | Verbundindex |
| bvnumber | BV049080059 |
| collection | ZDB-1-WBA |
| ctrlnum | (ZDB-1-WBA)081686730 (OCoLC)1392145114 (DE-599)KEP081686730 |
| discipline | Wirtschaftswissenschaften |
| discipline_str_mv | Wirtschaftswissenschaften |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1596/37708 |
| format | Electronic eBook |
| fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>00000nmm a22000001c 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV049080059</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr|uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230731s2019 xxu|||| o||u| ||||||eng d</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1596/37708</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ZDB-1-WBA)081686730</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)1392145114</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)KEP081686730</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-604</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="e">rda</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="044" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">xxu</subfield><subfield code="c">XD-US</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-12</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-521</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-573</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-523</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-Re13</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-19</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-355</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-703</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-91</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-706</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-29</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-M347</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-473</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-824</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-20</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-739</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-1043</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-863</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-862</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Morgandi, Matteo</subfield><subfield code="e">Verfasser</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">A Reforma do Bolsa Familia</subfield><subfield code="b">Avaliacao das Propostas de Reforma Debatidas em 2019</subfield><subfield code="c">Matteo Morgandi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Washington, D.C</subfield><subfield code="b">The World Bank</subfield><subfield code="c">2019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">1 Online-Ressource</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="490" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Social Protection and Labor Discussion Papers</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1="3" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">As part of the ongoing debate on the modernization of the Bolsa Familia (BF) program, several reform proposals were presented through 2019, including by the Ministry of Citizenship (MoC), Congress and the think tank IPEA, the latter as part of a broader proposal to consolidate various expenditures. This note uses the BraSIM microsimulation model to evaluate the 2019 proposals in the context of Brazil's tax benefit system. All proposals lead to a higher number of beneficiaries, with the poorest families, especially children and youth, benefitting the most. In general, the progressive incidence of the current program would vary little in the MoC and Congress reforms, but is reduced in IPEA's, which includes a universal component. The three proposals have different contributions on poverty-reduction: IPEA's reform is significantly less efficient than the current scenario and other reforms in terms of cost-effectiveness. However, IPEA's proposal most contributes to the reduction of inequality, and is the only one that identifies financing sources through the extinction of more regressive expenditures. Through this comparative analysis, the Note also highlights the main dilemmas about the future of the program, which remain relevant even in the post-COVID-19 reality: the tension between generosity and coverage; the priorization of certain groups for poverty-reduction; reconciling the program's objective of encouraging human capital for children with its role of minimum income guarantee; the risks of eliminating a "basic benefit". While only IPEA's proposal identified financing sources for the program's expansion, the Note reveals additional potential sources of financing for the BF program in the tax benefit system</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Poverty Assessment</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Poverty Reduction</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Social Assessment</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Social Development</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Social Protections and Assistance</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Social Protections and Labor</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Cereda, Fabio</subfield><subfield code="e">Sonstige</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Farias, Alison</subfield><subfield code="e">Sonstige</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sousa, Liliana D.</subfield><subfield code="e">Sonstige</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1596/37708</subfield><subfield code="x">Verlag</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ZDB-1-WBA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="943" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-034341949</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
| id | DE-604.BV049080059 |
| illustrated | Not Illustrated |
| index_date | 2024-07-03T22:27:57Z |
| indexdate | 2024-10-12T04:02:56Z |
| institution | BVB |
| language | English |
| oai_aleph_id | oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-034341949 |
| oclc_num | 1392145114 |
| open_access_boolean | 1 |
| owner | DE-12 DE-521 DE-573 DE-523 DE-Re13 DE-BY-UBR DE-19 DE-BY-UBM DE-355 DE-BY-UBR DE-703 DE-91 DE-BY-TUM DE-706 DE-29 DE-M347 DE-473 DE-BY-UBG DE-824 DE-20 DE-739 DE-1043 DE-863 DE-BY-FWS DE-862 DE-BY-FWS |
| owner_facet | DE-12 DE-521 DE-573 DE-523 DE-Re13 DE-BY-UBR DE-19 DE-BY-UBM DE-355 DE-BY-UBR DE-703 DE-91 DE-BY-TUM DE-706 DE-29 DE-M347 DE-473 DE-BY-UBG DE-824 DE-20 DE-739 DE-1043 DE-863 DE-BY-FWS DE-862 DE-BY-FWS |
| physical | 1 Online-Ressource |
| psigel | ZDB-1-WBA |
| publishDate | 2019 |
| publishDateSearch | 2019 |
| publishDateSort | 2019 |
| publisher | The World Bank |
| record_format | marc |
| series2 | Social Protection and Labor Discussion Papers |
| spellingShingle | Morgandi, Matteo A Reforma do Bolsa Familia Avaliacao das Propostas de Reforma Debatidas em 2019 Poverty Assessment Poverty Reduction Social Assessment Social Development Social Protections and Assistance Social Protections and Labor |
| title | A Reforma do Bolsa Familia Avaliacao das Propostas de Reforma Debatidas em 2019 |
| title_auth | A Reforma do Bolsa Familia Avaliacao das Propostas de Reforma Debatidas em 2019 |
| title_exact_search | A Reforma do Bolsa Familia Avaliacao das Propostas de Reforma Debatidas em 2019 |
| title_exact_search_txtP | A Reforma do Bolsa Familia Avaliacao das Propostas de Reforma Debatidas em 2019 |
| title_full | A Reforma do Bolsa Familia Avaliacao das Propostas de Reforma Debatidas em 2019 Matteo Morgandi |
| title_fullStr | A Reforma do Bolsa Familia Avaliacao das Propostas de Reforma Debatidas em 2019 Matteo Morgandi |
| title_full_unstemmed | A Reforma do Bolsa Familia Avaliacao das Propostas de Reforma Debatidas em 2019 Matteo Morgandi |
| title_short | A Reforma do Bolsa Familia |
| title_sort | a reforma do bolsa familia avaliacao das propostas de reforma debatidas em 2019 |
| title_sub | Avaliacao das Propostas de Reforma Debatidas em 2019 |
| topic | Poverty Assessment Poverty Reduction Social Assessment Social Development Social Protections and Assistance Social Protections and Labor |
| topic_facet | Poverty Assessment Poverty Reduction Social Assessment Social Development Social Protections and Assistance Social Protections and Labor |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1596/37708 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT morgandimatteo areformadobolsafamiliaavaliacaodaspropostasdereformadebatidasem2019 AT ceredafabio areformadobolsafamiliaavaliacaodaspropostasdereformadebatidasem2019 AT fariasalison areformadobolsafamiliaavaliacaodaspropostasdereformadebatidasem2019 AT sousalilianad areformadobolsafamiliaavaliacaodaspropostasdereformadebatidasem2019 |