Pa ne l 6 T he Impac t of the State Ho w fa r ha s the sta te - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Labour Market Inequality in Brazil and India: A Comparative Study

Pa ne l 6

T he Impac t of the State

Ho w fa r ha s the sta te mo difie d the distrib utio n o f inc o me in e a c h c o untry? Wha t ha s b e e n the ro le o f e duc a tio n a nd o the r so c ia l po lic ie s?

New Delhi, 17th February, 2015

Introduction

• So c ia l Po lic y; so c ia l a ssista nc e , e mplo yme nt

pro g ra mme s, a ffirma tive a c tio n, e duc a tio n a nd he a lth, so c ia l infra struc ture .

• Ro le o f e duc a tio n: c o nside re d impo rta nt fa c ilita to r o f

mo b ility

• Pla c e the se po lic ie s a nd o utc o me s in the b ro a de r

g ro wth re g ime s a nd sta te a c tio n

• I

nstitutio ns fo r de live ring so c ia l po lic ie s sinc e the 1930s in b o th c o untrie s. But ma ny diffe re nc e :

– Size o f e c o no my a nd the size o f fo rma l se c to r, a nd thus the na ture

• f unio nisa tio n, Na ture o f a g ric ultura l pro duc tio n, I

nte g ra tio n with wo rld e c o no my; Na ture o f so c ia l hie ra rc hie s, g e nde r diffe re nc e s; Re g io na l imb a la nc e s

• ‘ De ve lo pme nta l Sta te s’ : Go ve rnme nt’ s missio n to

pro mo te industria lisa tio n a nd e c o no mic de ve lo pme nt

2

3

• I

n Bra zil, Wo rke rs so c ia l pro te c tio n, a nd e duc a tio n re la te d me a sure s initia te d in the 1930s.

• Sta te –le d industria listio n, le a ding to a pha se o f rising ine q ua litie s a nd

c re a tio n o f rura l a nd urb a n pro le ta ria ts.

• I

ndustria l wo rkfo rc e e xpa nde d in the 70s, po ve rty de c re a se d, b ut so c ia l e xc lusio n inc re a se d; b ut pro c e ss le d to fo rma tio n o f we ll-o ff middle c la ss.

• But till 1988 it wa s a se g re g a te d so c ia l se c urity syste m, he a lth a nd

pe nsio ns fo r fo rma l se c to r, a nd e duc a tio n wa s unive rsa lise d (b ut the po o r c o uld no t a c c e ss it, e spe c ia lly se c o nda ry e duc a tio n)

• Po st – 1988 Bra zil re struc ture d the fra me wo rk; ma king

e duc a tio n, he a lth, pro -po o r po lic ie s during this pe rio d, no n- c o ntrib uto ry

• So me individua l la b o ur rig hts we re ma de funda me nta l rig hts; mic ro -

c re dit po lic ie s in Bra zil we re a lso e xpa nde d in this pe rio d

Social Policies in Brazil

Social spending as a percentage of GDP, Brazil, 1990-2009

4

90s saw rising expenditures on social policy – also consolidation of social security under ‘Family Allowance’ in 2000 2003, further shift towards more comprehensive and universal programmes Steady rise in GDP devoted to social policy – 18 per cent in 1990 to 27 per cent in 2009, social security from 9 per cent to 14 per cent India’s expenditure on social policy in 2013 around 7.5 per cent.

Social Policies in India

• Ma ny me a sure s suc h a s the fo o d ra tio ning syste m a nd

a ffirma tive a c tio n ha d a lre a dy b e e n in pla c e during c o lo nia l time s.

• Struc turing o f the I

ndia n Co nstitutio n: Critic a l ro le in de fining the ‘ ide a ’ o f so c ia l po lic y

• T

hre e pha se s up till 1980:

– 1950s: L a rg e ly ig no re d so c ia l po lic y, de pe nde d o n e c o no mic g ro wth to a ddre ss so c ia l g ro wth, limite d la nd re fo rm – 1960s: Re a lisa tio n fo r the ne e d fo r so c ia l po lic ie s due to the fa mine s a nd the fa ilure o f ‘ g ro wth. Ho we ve r little wa s do ne during this pe rio d. Me a sure s a t this time ma inly a ddre sse d rura l po ve rty. Gre e n re vo lutio n re g io na lly imb a la nc e d, fa vo uring la rg e r fa rme rs. – 1970s: Ne e ds a sse ssme nts; la rg e r pro g ra mme s imple me nte d, a nd 70s a nd 80s witne ss c o nside ra b le po ve rty re duc tio n

• Co ntinue d to b e do mina te d b y la rg e po o r a g ric ultura l po pula tio n

5

India: 1980s onwards

• 1980s: Policy development and implementation of new programmes
• continued. The programmes of the 70s were restructured and
• expanded. Shift from a welfare perspective towards an empowerment

perspective vis-à-vis women, some discussion on ‘quality’ of education.

• 1990s: The restructuring and expansion continued during the 90s.

The liberalisation process led to increasing inequalities, once again, there was some hope that the ensuing growth would address some social issues. Greater decentralisation (73rd and 74th amendment) were seen as tools for greater efficiency in policy making and implementation.

• 2000s: This decade was marked by a movement towards rights

based policies, after 2004-05, there has been a resurgence in social policy spending and may have had a role to play in not letting the Gini rise rural areas (which is the target of most social policies) such as the rise seen in urban areas.

6

Total government expenditure and social sector expenditure as a proportion of GDP; and social sector expenditure as a proportion of total expenditure, India, 1990-91 to 2013-14

7

Expenditure on the social sector as a proportion of Gross Domestic Product, India, 1990-91 to 20013-14

8

Social Security and Income Transfers

• Bra zil: Co ntrib uto ry pe nsio n syste ms, he a lth c o ve ra g e fo r wo rke rs sinc e the

1930s = pro po rtio na l to c o ntrib utio n

• Unive rsa l he a lth c o ve ra g e fo r a ll sinc e 1988
• No n c o ntrib uto ry pe nsio ns fo r o ld pe rso ns, wo rke rs a nd disa b le d sinc e 1988 = 1

minimum wa g e

• Sinc e the la te 90s, c a sh tra nsfe r pro g ra ms la unc he d (so me a re c o nditio na l),

sig nific a nt inc re a se in the se pro g ra ms sinc e L ula (2003) = le ss tha n o ne minimum wa g e – One in fo ur re c e ive so me kind o f tra nsfe r fro m the g o ve rnme nt

• India : So c ia l se c urity intro duc e d fo r e mplo ye e s in the 50s b ut limite d to sma ll

g ro ups o f industria l a nd pub lic se c to r wo rke rs, c o ntrib uto ry sc he me s fo r fo rma l se c to r a nd o c c upa tio na l g ro ups in info rma l se c to r

• No n c o ntrib uto ry pe nsio ns fo r o lde r pe rso ns, disa b le d, wido ws (po o r): Ha ve

g o o d c o ve ra g e b ut a mo unt o f pe nsio ns is e xtre me ly sma ll, suppo rts sub siste nc e

• F
• o d Ra tio ning / PDS: Sub sidise d ite ms. T

a rg e te d a t po o r ho use ho lds. Sta te - wide diffe re nc e s

• NRE

GS – Rig ht to wo rk, g ua ra nte e s 100 da ys o f e mplo yme nt/ ye a r in rura l I ndia , se ts minimum wa g e . Hig h pa rtic ipa tio n o f wo me n a nd SC, ST s. Sig nific a nt impa c t, multiplie r e ffe c ts.

9

Rights, Access and Participation: Health and Affirmative Action

• I

n Bra zil, he a lth se c urity fo r fo rma l wo rke rs, we a lthie r a c c e sse d priva te c a re , e xpa nde d with g ro wing so c ia l se c urity, la te 1980s se e s unive rsa lise d he a lth syste m, g o b e yo nd o c c upa tio na l struc ture , ho we ve r ha ve funding a nd ma na g e me nt pro b le ms, spe nding g re w little . So me ne w pro g ra mme s in mid 2000s

• I

n I ndia , he a lth fa c ilitie s in princ ipa l unive rsa l b ut po o r q ua lity a nd a c c e ss, se c urity limite d to fo rma l se c to r, c o nc e ntra te d in urb a n a re a s, fo c us o n fa mily pla nning . Na tio na l he a lth po lic y in 1983, b ut imple me nta tio n hurdle s, q ua lity a nd e ffic ie nc y. Priva tisa tio n – tho se who c a n pa y. Re ne we d fo c us sinc e mid-2000s

• I

n Bra zil, a ffirma tive a c tio n a t the unive rsity le ve l fo r b la c ks, po o r a nd pub lic sc ho o l stude nts ha s b e e n intro duc e d sinc e 2000. Sta te s ha ve so me a uto no my in se tting rule s.

• I

n I ndia , in Pub lic Jo b s, Hig he r E duc a tio n a nd L e g isla tive Asse mb lie s

– Hig hly po litic ise d , c o nc e ptua lize d a s a n e xc e ptio n fo r SCs a nd ST s, e xpa nd e d to c o ve r the OBCs (re q uire me nt is d e b a ta b le ), so me g ro ups pe rha ps mo re d e prive d le ft o ut. Re se rva tio ns o f wo me n in jo b s, e d uc a tio n, a s we ll a s PRIs, b ut no t in le g isla tive a sse mb lie s – Ha ve ha d so me po sitive impa c t, a ffe c te d b y imb a la nc e s in a c c e ss to e d uc a tio n, to so me d e g re e a ppro pria te d b y mid d le c la sse s (OBCs) 10

• Bra zil:

– In Bra zil, prima ry/ fund a me nta l e d uc a tio n ha s b e e n unive rsa lise d d uring the 70s-90s. Se c o nd a ry unive rsa lisa tio n is still a g o a l, a nd so is unive rsity e d uc a tio n. – Qua lity is a n issue a t a ll le ve ls o f e d uc a tio n, a nd linka g e s b e twe e n d iffe re nt le ve ls o f g o ve rnme nt a re no t e ffic ie nt. – Vo c a tio na l tra ining fo r tho se d ro ppe d o ut o f se c o nd a ry sc ho o l a nd unive rsity ha ve b e e n se t up sinc e 2000, in a d d itio n, so me limite d pro -po o r VE T .

• I

ndia :

– Initia l fo c us o n q ua lity hig he r e d uc a tio n, b ut e xpa nsio n in prima ry a nd se c o nd a ry e d uc a tio n d uring the first thre e d e c a d e s – Atte mpts to unive rsa lise prima ry e d uc a tio n sinc e the 1960s, b ut ma rke d b y va rio us limita tio ns. Qua lity a lwa ys a n issue . So c ia l b a rrie rs ha ve c o ntinue d to e xist. – Priva tisa tio n in sc ho o ling a c c o mpa nie d b y so me impro ve me nts in le a rning , b ut e xpe nsive fo r the po o re r/ po o re st. Ma y a ffe c t q ua lity o f e d uc a tio n a c c e sse d b y the se g ro ups. Rig ht to E d uc a tio n 2009 – e xpa nsio n a ffe c te d q ua lity. Ine q ua litie s a c c umula ting a t the le ve l o f se c o nd a ry a nd hig he r e d uc a tio n – Vo c a tio na l tra ining : so me d isc ussio n sinc e the 70s, b ut po lic y d e sig ns no t me a nt to wo rk. Re c e nt inte re st sinc e the la te 2000s b ut is a mb ig uo us.

• In Ind ia , b o th Affirma tive Ac tio n a nd E

d uc a tio n Po lic ie s ha ve b e ne fitte d the mo re d e prive d g ro ups, b ut se e m to ha ve b e e n d e sig ne d / ultima te ly b e ne fitte d the mid d le c la sse s mo re . 11

Rights, Access and Participation: Education

The Role of Education

• Wa g e Ra tio s

– I n 1980, I n I ndia wa g e ra tio b e twe e n te rtia ry a nd illite ra te s is 3- 4 in urb a n a nd rura l a re a s. L

• we r fo r c a sua l wo rke rs. I

n Bra zil a b o ut 10. – Middle sc ho o l a nd illite ra te s, ra tio 1.5 -2 in I ndia , a nd 3 in Bra zil – I n 2011, I n I ndia , rise n to 4.5 b e twe e n te rtia ry e duc a te d a nd illite ra te s, b ut fa lle n to 1.4 fo r middle sc ho o l a nd illite ra te s. I n Bra zil, the y ha ve b e e n ha lve d to 5 a nd 1.5 re spe c tive ly.

• Ra pid e xpa nsio n, unive rsa liza tio n ha ve to so me de g re e b e e n

a t the c o st o f q ua lity – this ha s b e e n true in b o th c o untrie s

• Priva te e duc a tio n b e ing use d b y ric he r se c tio ns, stre ng the ning

re pro duc ing ine q ua lity a s b e tte r e duc a tio n a va ila b le to tho se who c a n pa y.

• E

ve n with unive rsa liza tio n, ine q ua litie s shift to the ne xt le ve l o f e duc a tio n

12

Bolsa Familia, the NREGS and the PDS

• Ma ny pro g ra ms in b o th c o untrie s, b ut the Bo lsa F

a milia in Bra zil a nd the NRE GS a nd PDS in I ndia ha ve b e e n e spe c ia lly sig nific a nt

• BF

: T a rg e te d Co nditio na l Ca sh T ra nsfe r Pro g ra mme fo r po o r. Almo st 95 pe r c e nt c o ve ra g e . Give n to wo me n. Co nditio ns: He a lth a nd Nutritio na l c he c k-ups, e nro lme nt in sc ho o l, a tte nda nc e . F ro m 7 $ to 80$. I n so me a re a s suc h a s NE it is pa rtic ula rly sig nific a nt.

• NRE

GS: Gua ra nte e s hundre d da ys o f e mplo yme nt a t se t wa g e , se lf- se le c ting , a ro und 2134 millio n da ys o f wo rk in 2011-12, pub lic wo rks c o mpo ne nt. I mpro ve d pa rtic ipa tio n o f b a c kwa rd g ro ups suc h a s SCs a nd wo me n. Othe r multiplie r e ffe c ts suc h a s ra ising wa g e s, a wa re ne ss

• f minimum wa g e . Sig nific a nt impa c t o n rura l po ve rty, de spite issue s

a nd re g io na l va ria tio ns.

• PDS: Sub sidise d fo o d a nd o the r e sse ntia l ite ms a t a b o ut 10-20 pe r c e nt
• f a c tua l c o st, sinc e inde pe nde nc e (b ut ha s e vo lve d), ta rg e te d a t

po o r. T he b e dro c k o f a nti-po ve rty po lic ie s in I ndia . Re g io na l va ria tio ns imple me nta tio n.

• Diffe re nt de sig ns in the two c o untrie s, re spo nding to diffe re nt pro b le ms.

13

Social Policies in Brazil and India: Some Comparisons (1)

• Sta te s in I

ndia ha ve g re a te r a uto no my, b o th de jure a nd de fa c to , to influe nc e so c ia l po lic ie s a nd the ir o utc o me s. I n Bra zil, a uto no my do e s e xist b ut it is sub o rdina te d to a so me wha t c o he re nt fe de ra l po lic y.

• I

n Bra zil, the c ha ng e in g o ve rnme nts ha s b e e n a c c o mpa nie d b y mo re ra dic a l c ha ng e s in so c ia l po lic y. I n I ndia po lic ie s ha ve b e e n mo re e vo lutio na ry. E ve n the a do ptio n o f sc he me s suc h a s the NRE GA, a nd the Rig ht to F

• o d a nd E

duc a tio n Ac ts ha s b e e n a re sult o f de c a de s o f a dvo c a c y.

• Sinc e so c ia l se c urity de live re d thro ug h fo rma l la b o ur ma rke t,

re a c h in Bra zil wa s muc h b ig g e r, a lo ng with la rg e r re so urc e s in g e ne ra l

14

Social Policies in Brazil and India: Some Comparisons (2)

• Ag ra ria n o rie nta tio n o f po lic ie s in I

ndia , fo c us o n po ve rty re duc tio n; b ut witho ut the m ine q ua lity wo uld ha ve pe rha ps b e e n wo rse .

• I

n Bra zil the rig hts b a se d a ppro a c h ha s pre do mina te d a nd g ive n rise to ne a r unive rsa l so c ia l sa fe ty ne t (ma de o ut o f no n- c o ntrib uto ry pe nsio ns, a nd c a sh tra nsfe r me c ha nisms). I n I ndia , so c ia l se c urity ha s b e e n mo re o r le ss limite d to the fo rma l se c to r.

• Po lic ie s in I

ndia ha ve b e e n mo re ta rg e te d with a mixe d re spo nse ; b ut in the la st de c a de , so c ia l po lic ie s ha ve b e e n slig htly mo re unive rsa listic a nd ha ve a lso mo ve d to wa rds a Rig hts-b a se d a ppro a c h. But Bra zil putting muc h mo re re so urc e s to wa rds unive rsa liza tio n.

• Co ntrib uto ry sc he me s in b o th c o untrie s re pro duc e d

ine q ua litie s.

• Sta te ha sn’ t de live re d in ma ny se c to rs, pro life ra tio n o f priva te

se c to r, suc h a s in he a lth a nd e duc a tio n, whic h pro vide s b e tte r se rvic e s to tho se who c a n pa y

15