This paper aims at evaluating the impact of two different cash transfer programs in rural Mexico - Procampo and Progresa - on total consumption, food consumption and other outcomes like investment, schooling and health care. Progresa is targeted to women, while Procampo goes to farmers, mostly men and many of which are poor. We show that both programs boost consumption. However, they obtain this effect through different channels. Progresa is destined to consumption expenditure directly, while Procampo, which is paid to landholders, boosts investments and needs time to produce its benefits. Furthermore, we separate program from gender effects and show that cash transfer programs targeted to men are beneficial only when the recipients own means of production. This suggest that policy makers should take into account the relationship between gender and ownership of assets when designing poverty reduction programs.
Interesting blog and link to Ben Davis’ paper, The Lure of Tequila or Motherly Love: Does It Matter Whether Public Cash Transfers Are Given to Women or Men?.
Leave a Reply