Judy L. Baker

Poverty reduction through geographic targeting: How well does it work?

Abstract Simulated transfer schemes using household data for Venezuela, Mexico and Jamaica indicate that geographic targeting is a useful mechanism for transferring benefits to the poor. Poverty can be significantly reduced when compared with transfer schemes involving no targeting, such as general food subsidies. Of the various techniques used to identify priority regions for a targeted program, outcomes proved to be fairly similar. The level of geographic unit does, however, seem to have a notable impact on targeting outcomes. In the case of Mexico, the more narrowly defined the geographic region, the greater was the reduction in poverty. These findings have obvious implications for program design.

Analyzing urban poverty: a summary of methods and approached

In recent years an extensive body of literature has emerged on the definition, measurement and analysis of poverty. Much of this literature focuses on analyzing poverty at the national level, or spatial disaggregation by general categories of urban or rural areas with adjustments made for regional price differentials. Yet for an individual city attempting to tackle the problems of urban poverty, this level of aggregation is not sufficient for answering specific questions such as where the poor are located in the city, whether there are differences between poor areas, if access to services varies by subgroup, whether specific programs are reaching the poorest, and how to design effective poverty reduction programs and policies. Answering these questions is critical, particularly for large, sprawling cities with highly diverse populations and growing problems of urban poverty. Understanding urban poverty presents a set of issues distinct from general poverty analysis and thus may require additional tools and techniques. This paper summarizes the main issues in conducting urban poverty analysis, with a focus on presenting a sample of case studies from urban areas that were implemented by a number of different agencies using a range of analytical approaches for studying urban poverty. Specific conclusions regarding design and analysis, data, timing, cost, and implementation issues are discussed.

Urban Poverty and Transport: The Case of Mumbai

This paper reports the results of a survey of 5,000 households in the Greater Mumbai Region conducted in the winter of 2004. The goal of the survey was to better understand the demand for transport services by the poor, the factors affecting this demand, and the inter-linkages between transport decisions and other vital decisions such as where to live and work. This paper, the first of several research outputs, describes the salient facts about travel patterns in Mumbai for both poor and non-poor households. A striking finding of the survey is the extent to which all households-especially poor households-rely on walking. Overall, 44 percent of commuters in Mumbai walk to work. The proportion of the poor who walk to work is even higher-63 percent. Walking is an even higher modal share for nonwork than for work trips. A second finding is that public transit remains an important factor in the mobility of the poor, and especially in the mobility of the middle class. Overall, rail remains the main mode to work for 23 percent of commuters, while bus remains the main mode for 16 percent of commuters. The modal shares for bus are highest for the poor in zones 1-3 (21 percent of the poor in zone 2 take the bus to work), while rail shares are highest for the poor in the suburbs (25 percent of the poor in zone 6 take rail to work). Is the cost and lack of accessibility to transit a barrier to the mobility of the poor? Does it keep them from obtaining better housing and better jobs? This is a difficult question to answer without further analysis of the survey data. But it appears that transport is less of a barrier to the poor who live in central Mumbai (zones 1-3) than it is to the poor who live in the suburbs (zones 4-6). The poor who live in zones 1-3 (central Mumbai) live closer to the non-poor than do poor households in the suburbs. They also live closer to higher-paying jobs for unskilled workers. Workers in these households, on average, commute short distances (less than 3 kilometers), although a non-negligible fraction of them (one-third in zone 2) take public transit to work. It is true that the cost of housing for the poor is higher in central Mumbai than in the suburbs, but the quality of slum housing is at least as good in central Mumbai as in the suburbs. The poor who live in the suburbs of Mumbai, especially in zones 5 and 6, are more isolated from the rich than the poor in central Mumbai: 37 percent of the poor live in zones 5 and 6, whereas only one-fifth of higher income groups do. Wages for skilled and unskilled labor are generally lower in zones 5 and 6 than in the central city, and it appears that unemployment rates for poor males are also higher in these zones. The lower cost of slum and chawl housing in zones 5 and 6 may partly compensate for lower wages. However, a larger proportion of workers in poor households leave zones 5 and 6 to work than is true for poor workers in other zones. Commuting distances are much higher for poor workers in the suburbs than for poor workers in zones 1-3.

Integrated Urban Uprading for the Poor: The Experience of Ribeira Azul, Brazil

This study looks at the experience of integrated urban upgrading in a low-income neighborhood of Salvador, Bahia, Brazil. Infrastructure and social investments have been made in the community through a government program, with community participation playing a major role in the design and implementation. This approach is now perceived to be highly successful in terms of its implementation and positive impact on living conditions, and will provide the basis for a major state-wide program. This paper analyzes the lessons learned from the experience, with implications for scaling up as well as applications for other urban upgrading programs. Among the key issues looked at are: (1) what has worked well with the integrated urban upgrading approach and what has not; (2) how cost-effective the interventions were; (3) institutional arrangements given the multi-sectoral approach; and (4) sustainability issues of financing, tenure security, the prevention of further slum expansion, operations and maintenance, environmental sustainability, and job creation, and how they will impact on the poor over time. Key findings point to the importance of community participation, clear roles and responsibilities in institutional arrangements, the need for strong local government participation, and the high costs and challenges of providing housing for the poor.