Transcript Choques de los trabajadores informales y sus familias

Gustavo Márquez, RES. Coordinador General
Alberto Chong,
RES;
Suzanne
Duryea,
RES;
Gustavo
Márquez,
RES.
General
Coordinator
Jacqueline
Mazza,
SCL;
Hugo Duryea,
Ñopo, RES
Alberto
Chong,
RES;
Suzanne
RES;
Jacqueline Mazza, SCL; Hugo Ñopo, RES
Economic and Social Progress in Latin America, IPES 2008
Inter-American Development Bank
Three main messages



Social exclusion is a phenomenon associated with,
but very different from poverty.
Social exclusion have significant economic costs
than can be measured.
Advancing social inclusion calls for public policies
that go beyond poverty alleviation programs.
2
Social exclusion is a
phenomenon associated with,
but very different from poverty.
Social Exclusion …

Nature
– Is a social, political and economic dynamic that blocks group and
individual access to resources and opportunities, thus limiting
their ability to obtain outcomes valuable in a market economy.

Mechanisms
– Operates through formal and informal institutions that reduce the
liberty and functioning of the excluded, reducing their well-being.

Results
– Affects the attainment of income, consumption, and political and
social participation by the excluded. Increase transaction costs
and hinders governance agreements for society as a whole.
4
5
Discrimination, Stigmatization
and Group Identity
The Traditional Forms of Exclusion
Who is Discriminated Against?
Most Discriminated-Against Groups in the Region, 2001
Poor
Indigenous peoples
Afro-descendants
Others
There is no discrimination
Elders
Immigrants
Disabled
Illiterate people
Homosexuals
Young
Women
Those belonging to a particular political party
Those belonging to an interest group
HIV-positive
Mulattos, mestizos
Jew ish
Chinese, Japanese, Asians
Religious groups
Whites
Arabs
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Percent
Source: Latinobarometer (2001).
Note: Figure presents responses to the question "Which groups do you think are the most discriminated against, or do you
think that there is no discrimination?"
7
Why Are They Discriminated Against?
Reasons for Discrimination That Most Affect Population, 2004 and 2005
Being poor
Not having enough education
Not having connections
None
Skin color
Being old
Everyone is treated equally
Being a w oman
Being "nobody"
2004
2005
Don't know or no reponse
Being an immigrant
Being disabled
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Percent
Source : Latinobarometer (2004, 2005).
Note: Figure reflects responses to the question "Out of all the reasons for w hich people are not treated equally, w hich
one affects you most?"
8
Beyond Perceptions



Perceptions are relevant only to the extent that they affect the
decisions, actions and outcomes of individuals.
There is a notorious difference in wage levels across different
groups (gender, ethnic, racial).
However, the literature on wage differentials reveal that
almost half of the wage difference is explained by different
human capital endowments.
 The evidence of discrimination, as shown by wage
differentials unexplained by individual characteristics, is
notably less than that arising from the simple comparison of
wage levels.
9
Results and Processes


The region is extremely unequal, but
discrimination is not the only cause of
inequality. The confusion between relative
deprivation and discrimination is one of the
fundamental deficits in the literature.
The design of policies of social inclusion
depends on our capacity to understand the
processes through which social exclusion is
produced and reproduced, and to look
beyond solely traditionally excluded groups.
10
Democratization, Macro Stabilization,
Globalization and Changes in the
Patterns of Inclusion and Exclusion
The Modern Forms of Exclusion
Inclusion in Some Grounds for Some
Groups
Participation by Women in the Legislative Branch, 1990 and 2000
Argentina
Peru
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
Mexico
Ecuador
Bolivia
Colombia
Uruguay
Chile a
El Salvador
Nicaragua
Venezuela
Panama a
2000
1990
Honduras
Guatemala
Brazil
Paraguay
0
5
Source: Smith (2005).
10
15
20
Percentage of total members of legislative branch
a
No data are available for El Salvador and Honduras for 1990.
b
In the case of bicameral countries, the percentage relates to members of the lower house.
25
30
b
12
Changes in the Trend in Informal
Employment
Self-Employed Workers in Sectors Other Than Agriculture, 1980s and 1990s
World total
Africa
Latin America
Asia
1990 - 2000
Developed countries
1980 - 1989
0
10
20
30
40
Percentage of employees in sectors other than agriculture
50
60
Source: World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization (2004).
13
Inclusion: Education and Health
Distribution of Public Social Expenditure on Education and Health in Latin America, various years
Percentage of public expenditure on health and education
received by each income quintile
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Quintile 1
Quintile 2
Quintile 3
Quintile 4
Quintile 5
Argentina (1998)
Bolivia (2002)
Brazil (1997)
Chile (2003)
Colombia (2003)
Costa Rica (2000)
Guatemala (2000)
Mexico (2002)
Nicaragua (1998)
Peru (2000)
Uruguay (1998)
Source : ECLAC (2006a).
14
Exclusion: Pensions
Distribution of Public Spending on Social Security (Pensions) in Latin America, Various Years
90
Percentage of public spending on pensions
received by each income quintile
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Quintile 1
Quintile 2
Quintile 3
Quintile 4
Argentina (1998)
Bolivia (2002)
Brazil (1997)
Colombia (2003)
Ecuador (1999)
Guatemala (2000)
Mexico (2002)
Uruguay (1998)
Source: ECLAC (2006a).
Quintile 5
Costa Rica (2000)
15
Low-Wages and Exclusion
16
The Number of Low-Wage Jobs has Grown in
Most Countries in the Region
Evolution of the Percentage of Workers in Low-Wage Jobs
1990-1997 versus 1998-2004
Ecuador
Second Period: 1998-2004
50
40
Bolivia
Brazil
30
LatinAmerica
Venezuela
Nicaragua
20
-
Peru
El Salvador
Honduras
Mexico
Colombia
Paraguay
Uruguay
10
Argentina Panama
Chile
Costa Rica
-
10
20
30
40
50
First Period 1990-1997
Source: Márquez and Prada (2007) .
17
Education and Low-Wage Jobs
Percentage Change in Share of Workers in Low-Wage Jobs by Skill Level,
1990–1997 versus 1998–2004
Argentina
Nicaragua
Colombia
Paraguay
Venezuela
Brazil
Ecuador
Bolivia
M exico
El Salvador
Peru
Panama
Honduras
Costa Rica
Uruguay
Chile
-100
-50
0
50
Percentage change in share of unskilled workers
100
150
200
250
300
Percentage change in share of skilled workers
Source: Pagés and Prada (2007).
18
Female Labor Force Participation and Low-Wage Jobs
Percentage Change in the Share of Workers in Low-Wage Jobs by Gender,
1990–1997 versus 1998–2004
Argentina
Paraguay
Venezuela
Colombia
Ecuador
Bolivia
Panama
Peru
Uruguay
Nicaragua
Brazil
Mexico
Honduras
El Salvador
Costa Rica
Chile
-100
-50
0
Female
50
100
150
200
250
Male
Source : Pagés and Prada (2007).
19
Economic Fluctuations Cannot Fully Explain the
Increases in the Incidence of Low-Wage jobs
Percentage Change in Share of Low-Wage Employment Accounted for by Changes in Unemployment
Rates and in GDP per Worker, Early 1990s versus 2000s
Average
Argentina
Colombia
Nicaragua
Mexico
Venezuela
Paraguay
Peru
Uruguay
Honduras
Brazil
Chile
El Salvador
Panama
Costa Rica
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Percentage change in share of low-wage employment
Unexplained component
Source: Pagés and Prada (2007).
Predicted by change in GDP per worker
Predicted by change in unemployment
20
The Incidence of Low-Wage Jobs
has Increased in All Sectors
Decomposition of Low-Wage Employment Incidence by Effect, 1990–1997 versus 1998–2004
Venezuela
Colombia
Ecuador
Peru
Nicaragua
Bolivia
Uruguay
Brazil
Mexico
Costa Rica
Panama
El Salvador
Chile
Honduras
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
Percentage change in low -w age employment
Within effect
Shift effect
Cross-effect
Source : Pagés and Prada (2007).
Note : Because of the magnitude of the Argentine data, they are not included in the figure. The data for Argentina are as follow s: w ithin
effect=214.90; shift effect=-4.28; cross effect=14.02.
21
Increasing Female Participation
Decomposition of Changes in Low-Wage Employment Incidence by Gender, 1990–1997 versus
1998–2004
Venezuela
Colombia
Bolivia
Ecuador
Peru
Nicaragua
Paraguay
Uruguay
Brazil
Panama
Mexico
Honduras
El Salvador
Costa Rica
Chile
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
Percentage change in low -w age employment incidence
Within effect
Source: Pagés and Prada (2007).
Shift effect
Cross-effect
22
Mobility and Exclusion



The little we know about social mobility in the
region suggests that it is unlikely that the majority
of individuals will see significant improvements in
their social or economic position within their
lifetimes or that of their children.
This aggravates the consequences of exclusions
and creates intergenerational transmissions of
socio-economic disadvantages.
Improving mobility requires equal opportunities and
actions directed at changing the processes that
generate social immobility.
23
Social exclusion have
significant economic costs
than can be measured.
Cooperation, Social Distance and
Exclusion

Within the problem of exclusion is the problem of lack of
confidence, limiting collective action and cooperation.

With a number of economic experiments, applied to
representative samples of 6 capital cities in the region, we
explored questions such as: To what extent do Latin
Americans collaborate with each other? What role does social
distance play in the determination of these egoistic or
cooperative behaviors ?
What do We Find?...
25
Cooperation and Social Distance
Trust, Education Gap, and Welfare Generation
60
45
44
43
55
42
41
40
Foregone welfare generation (line)
(percent)
Percentage of initial stake offered by
player 1 (bars)
46
50
Betw een -17 and -9 Betw een -8 and -3 Betw een -2 and 2
Betw een 3 and 8 Betw een 9 and 17
Education gap betw een player 1 and player 2
Source : Cárdenas, Chong, and Ñopo (2007).
26
Heterogeneity and Confidence
Heterogeneity of Session and Likelihood of Trust in Group
90
Percentage of participants who invested in
group account, per session
80
70
60
50
R2 = 0.0679
Caracas
40
30
Montevideo
San José
Buenos Aires
20
Lim a
Bogotá
10
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
S t a nda r d de v i a t i on of y e a r s of e duc a t i on, pe r se ssi on
Source : Cárdenas, Chong and Ñopo (2007).
27
What do We Find?

The limitations of trust and cooperation imply
friction in markets and increased transaction costs.
As a result, market efficiency and value generation
are reduced.

Our experiments found that increases in trust and
cooperation among Latin Americans could imply
gains in the generation of social product that range
from 20% to 70%.
28
Advancing social inclusion
calls for public policies that
go beyond poverty alleviation
programs.
Public Policy and Social Inclusion



Inclusion is not a policy objective, but a societal
process that public policy can stimulate.
Exclusion is a multi-dimensional, changing and
dynamic phenomenon. Social inclusion shares these
characteristics.
The policies of inclusion are a dynamic process to
promote social, economic and cultural equality,
fighting discrimination, and increasing diversity.
30
Inclusion and Public Policy



Inclusion changes outcomes and the processes through which
people obtain them. Changes in the environment of and
access to institutions are crucial.
Inclusion is a range of advances in different areas in varying
moments.
The process of inclusion is dynamic and multi-dimensional:
changes in education are necessary, but not sufficient, nor
substitutes for changes in other dimensions (ie: labor market).
31
In Summary



Social exclusion is a phenomenon associated with, but
different than poverty. Inclusion requires different public
policies than those traditionally used to combat poverty.
Social exclusion has significant economic costs. Advances in
social inclusion reduce transaction costs and facilitate the
achievement of governance agreements.
Progress in the process of inclusion requires fundamental
changes in the ways institutions are managed and in the
design, analysis and implementation of public policies.
32