poverty, inequality and social policies in brazil: 1995-2009

Poverty, inequality and social policies in Brazil, 1995-2009

Mr. Pedro H. G. Ferreira de Souza, Institute of Applied Economic Research (IPEA)

IPC-IG Seminar 7 October 2011 Brasilia www.ipc-undp.org

http://www.ipc-undp.org/

Brazil in the late 2000s, an overview

Macroeconomic stabilization (1990s) + high commodity prices + credit expansion + effective social policies = consumer-led economic boom

2004-2008: average per capita GDP growth of ~3.5% per year, the highest since the late 1970sThriving labor market:

Formalization and job creation:o 1999-2003: 2.4mo 2003-2007: 5.1mo 2007-2011: 8.7m

Just low-hanging fruit or sustainable growth?What were the impacts on poverty and inequality?

Data

The most widely used data set is the Pesquisa Nacional por Amostra de Domicílios (PNAD), a national household survey conducted by IBGE, the central statistics office of the country.

It is a multi-purpose survey similar to the General Household Survey and it has been carried out yearly since the mid-1970s (except on Census years).

Although it covers several broad areas (education, migration, fertility, income and earnings, housing, household access to services and facilities), a special emphasis is accorded to labor market participation.

Other data sets that are also used on poverty and inequality research include the Pesquisa de Orçamentos Familiares (POF), which is similar to the Income and Expenditures Survey and fielded every 5 years; the Pesquisa Mensal do Emprego (PME), a monthly labor market-oriented survey that is restricted to metropolitan areas; and the National Census, which is carried out every 10 years.

The use of administrative data to study poverty and inequality is still incipient yet promising.

PNAD

Advantageso Large sample sizes (~100k households per year);o Comparability issues are minimal, especially since the early 1980s;o Generally consistent and high-quality data;o Covers several broad areas (lots of variables!);o Permits fine-grained year-by-year analyses;

Major Limitationso Income - especially property-related and non-monetary - is underreported. This is a common

problem of such surveys and does not seem to cause any serious bias in income inequality measures.

o Purely a cross-sectional data set: there is a conspicuous lack of panel data in Brazil. This is probably the single biggest hurdle for poverty and inequality researchers; we know very little about life trajectories. Fortunately, this seems to be about to change in the next few years as IBGE is updating its household surveys.

o Sampling design is slightly biased towards larger municipalities.

Mean real per capita income (US$ PPP)

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20090

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

221

245

372

Hou

seho

ld p

er c

apita

inco

me

No

Equi

vale

nce

Scal

e (U

S$ P

PP)

∆ 1995-2003: +1.3% per year

∆ 2003-2009: +7.2% per year

The World Bank’s PPP index overstates the recent trend of growth in Brazil. Still, there has been substantial growth in the latter half of the past decade: per capita GDP rose a meager 3% between 1995 and 2003 and 17% between 2003 and 2009.

Note: no equivalence scales used.

Source: Pesquisa Nacional por Amostra de Domicílios, 1995-2009

Income inequality(Gini Index)

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20090.450

0.475

0.500

0.525

0.550

0.575

0.600

0.625

0.650

0.599

0.594

0.539Gin

i Ind

ex

Stagnant inequality


After decades of stagnant or rising inequality, the Gini index declined swiftly in the 2000s. Nevertheless, Brazilian income inequality is still considerably large: even if the current pace is maintained, it would take another couple of decades to reach the inequality levels presently found in developed countries.

∆ 2001-2009:-9.2%

Income growth by centiles(% 1995-2009)

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89 93 970

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

Centiles of household income per capita

US$

PPP

Inco

me

grow

th (%

)


Household per capita income growth: 127% for the bottom 20% and 54% for the top 20%.The average income of the top 20% was 27 times higher than that of the bottom 20% in 1995. In 2009, this ratio dropped to 18 times – a whopping 32% decline, although it is still unnacceptably high.

Extreme poverty(1.25 US$ PPP/day)

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20090

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

16.4%

6.1%

4.7%

Extr

eme

Pove

rty

(%)


Brazilian MDG goalreached in 2007

Poverty reduction dates back to the late 1990s but has picked up speed since the mid-2000s as the economic recovery was combined with the fall of income inequality. In 2011, poverty eradication was announced as the top priority of the newly inaugurated president Dilma Rousseff.

Ancillary Statistics

Poverty Inequality

FGT(1) FGT(2) Mean Log DevGE(0)

TheilGE(1)

Half CV²GE(2)

1995 0.068 0.041 0.665 0.715 1.7062009 0.024 0.017 0.526 0.579 1.469

Change (%) -65 -59 -21 -19 -14

The same trends are reinforced by different statistics. Economic growth and the decline of inequality unquestionably reduced poverty. Results hold even if we take into account confidence intervals (ie: via bootstrapped standard errors).


Brazilian exceptionalism?

The 2000s were a good decade for developing economies especially in Latin America, where several countries went through a period of pro-poor growth.

Countries Annual GDP growth 2002-2009 (% per year)

Change in the Gini index of the household per capita income in the

2000s (%)

Argentina 3.7 -15

Brazil 3.7 -9

Chile 4.2 -6

Colombia 4.4 -1

Mexico 2.8 -6

Peru 5.6 -13

Venezuela 4.4 -1

Sources: GDP Growth: United Nations. World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011. Inequality: Socio-Economic Database for Latin America and the Caribbean (CEDLAS and The World Bank). Note that in order to ensure comparability CEDLAS makes a wide range of adjustments to the original data sets. The years used to estimate the Gini coefficient are as follows: Argentina, 2003-2009; Brazil, 2001-2009; Chile, 2000-2009; Colombia, 2001-2004; Mexico, 2000-2008; Peru, 2003-2009; Venezuela, 2000-2006.

Poverty, inequality and the State(Major public policies)

State interventions impinge directly and indirectly on poverty and inequality in a myriad of ways. Some are very pro-poor and help to reduce inequality (i.e.: Bolsa Família). Others are notoriously regressive: the Brazilian tax code, for instance, relies heavily on indirect consumption taxes which are known to take a greater toll on the poor. Several are either ambiguous or hard to measure (such as the expenditures on the Universal Health System).

The most prominent ones are related to typical areas of intervention of the 20th century Welfare States :o Educationo Minimum wage o Social Security and retirement pensionso Social assistance and cash transfers

Poverty, inequality and the State(Major public policies)

Expenditures Share of GDP (%)

Public education 3.8

Social security and pensions 11.1

Private sector 6.8

Civil servants 4.3

Social assistance 0.8

Benefício de Prestação Continuada (BPC) 0.4

Programa Bolsa Família (PBF) 0.4

Total 15.7

Total tax revenue 34.1

Source: Mostafa, J; Souza, PHGF; Vaz, FM. Efeitos econômicos do gasto social. In: Castro, JA; Ferreira, H; Campos, AG; Ribeiro, JAC (Org). Perspectivas da Política Social no Brasil. Brasília: Ipea, 2010. Total tax revenue from Ribeiro, MB. Uma análise da carga tributária bruta e das transferências de assistência e previdência no Brasil no período 1995-2009: evolução, composição e suas relações com a regressividade e a distribuição de renda. In: Castro, JA; Santos, CHM; Ribeiro, JAC. Tributação e eqüidade no Brasil: um registro da reflexão do Ipea no biênio 2008-2009.Brasília: Ipea, 2010.

Selected Government Expenditures in 2006 (% of GDP)

Education(i)

Historically, Brazil has been plagued by overall low levels of educational attainment and a very unequal distribution of educational opportunities biased towards the upper middle classes and the rich: very limited access to primary education + substantial resources were spent on free public post-secondary education.

It is no wonder then that education has been singled out for decades as one of the main determinants of inequality in Brazil, though different authors have different interpretations (ie: human capital theory, credentialism and so on).

The Brazilian educational system has gone through extensive reforms since the 1988 Federal Constitution. A stronger focus on primary and secondary education was accompanied by more effective funding arrangements. Public expenditures on education represented 2.7% of the GDP in 1980 and has hovered around 4%/4.5% since the mid-1990s.

In 2000, the ratio of public expenditures on education per capita between post-secondary and primary students was a staggering 11.1. In 2009, this ratio fell by more than half and reached 5.2 (Inep/Ministry of Education).

Education(ii)

1995 2009

Illiteracy rate: ages 15+ (%) 15.5 9.7

Illiteracy rate: ages 15-24 (%) 7.1 1.9

Attendance rate: ages 6-14 (%) 88.7 97.6

Attendance rate: ages 15-17 (%) 66.7 85.2

Economically active population 1995 2009

Completed at least primary education (%) 34.5 61.7

Completed at least secondary education (%) 20.7 44.1

Completed tertiary education (%) 5.6 10.2


Education(iii)

0.200

0.250

0.300

0.350

0.400

0.450

0.500

0.413

0.288

Gin

i ind

ex o

f yea

rs o

f sch

ool-

ing

(0 to

15

year

s)

0

3

6

9

12

15

5.88.3

Mea

n ye

ars

of s

choo

ling

(0 to

15

year

s)

Mean years of schooling among the economically active population increased from 5.8 in 1995 to 8.3 in 2009 (+42%).However, educational attainment is still quite low, as 8 years of schooling is just enough to complete the mandatory primary education.

The Gini index of the years of schooling among the economically active population plummeted from 0.413 in 1995 to 0.288 in 2009 (-30%). This was one the key driving forces behind the rapid fall of labor market inequality.


Minimum wage(i)

The Federal Minimum Wage law was first enacted in Brazil in the late 1930s and established more than a dozen regional minimum wages in order to take into account differences in cost of living. This was changed in 1984, when a new unified national minimum wage was created.

The Minimum Wage is adjusted annually but until recently there were no laws regulating such adjustments. As such, its real value has fluctuated wildly over time. This changed in the mid-2000s, as the government and employers’ and workers’ associations came to an agreement: each annual adjustment would recoup the previous year’s inflation compounded with the real GDP growth of the year before the last. This was finally signed into law earlier this year.

After the Federal Constitution of 1988 the importance of the minimum wage was greatly increased as it also became tied to social security benefits and other government programs.

Brazilian states and municipalities can set higher minimum wages. Nevertheless, this has been seldom the case.

Minimum wage(ii)

1 9 17 25 33 41 49 57 65 73 81 89 97 105

113

121

129

137

145

153

161

169

177

185

193

201

209

217

225

233

241

249

257

265

273

281

289

297

305

313

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

83

166

295

Mon

thly

min

imum

wag

e (U

S$ P

PP)

Source: Ipeadata.

Monthly minimum wage (US$ PPP) – 1985.01/2011.01

∆ 1995-2005:+7% per year

∆ 2005-2011:+10% per year

Minimum wage(iii)

According to the PNAD, in 2009 9 million workers (mostly in the formal sector) received the minimum wage as remuneration, which corresponds to roughly 11% of the labour force.

On the other hand, almost 60% of pensioners had benefits equal to the minimum wage – more than 13 million people. These benefits are heavily subsidized by the federal government and profoundly redistributive, though expensive.

Additionally, the social assistance benefit to poor people over 65 or with a disability (BPC) also paid a minimum wage to 1.5 million* people.

Social Security(i)

Social Security dates back to the late 19th Century industry-specific Funds for Retirement and Pensions which were progressively unified under a framework inspired by the Bismarckian German model. It became fully state-run in the 1960s and only after the 1988 Constitution it became entirely separate from the health care system.

To this day it has at least two main branches – one for private sector workers and one for civil servants. As a mandatory and contributory system that benefits mostly formal workers, it has traditionally left out a considerable proportion of the Brazilian population.

Since the 1988 Constitution, however, it has been expanded considerably – for instance, the so-called “Rural Social Security”, which is almost non-contributory as it encompasses mostly small farmers and poor rural workers, went from 4 million monthly benefits in 1991 to 7 million in 2003, a 75% increase in just 12 years. This development helped in reducing income inequality and poverty in rural areas. More recently, the rapid creation of formal jobs has been another key factor in enlarging the reach of the Social Security.

Social Security(ii)

The widening coverage coupled with the minimum benefits being tied to the minimum wage have turned the Brazilian Social Security into an useful tool to combat poverty among the elderly. In 2009, about 90% of the population over 65 received a Social Security benefit and poverty levels were below 1% for this group (vs ~8% among children 15 or younger).

The flipside of this system is that it runs significant deficits annually – about 1.3% of GDP for the Private Sector and 2% for the Civil Servants’ Social Security. This and the general ageing of the population has put the Social Security under scrutiny, with recent reforms trying to limit expenses by tightening the retirement conditions.

The deficits are not a particularly worrisome issue for the Private Sector Social Security, as those can be partially swayed if the recent trend of formalization continues. Also, the benefits paid are generally progressive and very important when it comes to alleviating poverty among the elderly.

On the other hand, the Civil Servants’ Social Security covers just a tiny fraction of the population and its large paychecks actually contribute to increase income inequality. Therefore, those deficits are far more troublesome. It is still too early to assess the impact of the 2003 reform, but preliminary evaluations suggest it may have far-reaching consequences.

Social Assistance(i)

Historically, social assistance programs in Brazil have been highly fragmented and spearheaded by non-profit charitable foundations. This has started to change since the 1988 Constitution. Since the mid-1990s, in particular, the widespread popularity of targeted cash transfer programs has been the most visible and effective side of social assistance in Brazil.

There are two major programs: The earliest one was the Benefício de Prestação Continuada (BPC), a monthly

unconditional cash transfer equal to the minimum wage targeted to individuals of any age with severe disabilities and to the elderly over 65, with family per capita income below ¼ of theminimum wage. It is a constitutional right enshrined by the 1988 Constitution and was effectively implemented in the mid-1990s.

The most renowned is the Programa Bolsa Família (PBF), a conditional cash transfer created in 2003 as a result of the unification of several similar pre-existing programs. It is targeted at poor families, especially those with children, and has educational and health conditionalities (school attendance, children’s immunizations and pre- and post-natal care). Unlike the BPC, it is not an entitlement: the number of beneficiaries depends largely on budget constraints.

Social Assistance(ii)

# of benefits (dec/2010)

2010 Budget (as % of GDP)

Eligibility line (family per capita income;

PPP US Dollars)

Mean monthly benefit per individual (PPP US Dollars)

Elderly 1.8m 0.2872 288Disabled 1.6m 0.26

Total 3.4m 0.55

Benefício de Prestação Continuada - 2010

Programa Bolsa Família - 2010

Source: Ministry of Social Development.

# of family benefits (dec/2010)

2010 Budget (as % of GDP)

Eligibility lines (family per capita income;

PPP US Dollars)

Mean monthly benefit per family

(PPP US Dollars)

Programa Bolsa Família 12.8m 0.39

40 (even with no children)

80 (with children)55

Source: Ministry of Social Development.

Social Assistance(iii)

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89 93 970

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Programa Bolsa Família

BPC

Centiles of household per capita income (net of social assistance transfers)

% o

f ind

ivid

uals

who

ben

efit

dire

ctly

or i

ndire

ctly

Individuals who benefit directly or indirectly from transfers - 2009

Source: Pesquisa Nacional por Amostra de Domicílios, 2009

Gini decomposition(i)

),cov(2

),cov(2

1

1

h

hih

hh

k

hhii

k

hhhi

xi

nC

xx

Cxin

G

Shorrocks decomposition by factor components

Household income per capita is disaggregated in k factor components

Income share of each component

The Concentration Coefficient is a measure of how unequally distributed is each component

The Gini index can be written as a weighted sum of the k Concentration Coefficients

Source: Shorrocks, AF. Inequality decomposition by factor components. Econometrica, v. 50, n. 1, pp. 193-211, 1982.

Gini decomposition(ii)

2001 2009 2001 2009 2001 2009 2001 2009

LaborMinimum

wage -0.115 -0.091 0.021 0.036 -0.002 -0.003 -0.4 -0.6

Other 0.608 0.576 0.759 0.726 0.461 0.418 77.7 77.5

PensionsMinimum

wage 0.097 0.157 0.037 0.057 0.004 0.009 0.6 1.7

Other 0.743 0.742 0.134 0.131 0.099 0.097 16.7 18.0

Programa Bolsa Família & other CCTs -0.315 -0.526 0.001 0.007 0.000 -0.004 0.0 -0.7

BPC -0.081 -0.016 0.001 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.0 0.0

Other 0.672 0.603 0.048 0.037 0.032 0.022 5.4 4.2

Gini 1 1 0.594 0.539 100 100

Concentration Coef Income share Contribution to Gini % of Gini

Source: Pesquisa Nacional por Amostra de Domicílios, 2001 & 2009

Gini decomposition(iii)

))((1

hhh

k

hh CGCG

Dynamic decomposition:

2001-2009 Composition effect

Concentration effect Total As % of

∆Gini

Labor

Minimum wage -0.010 0.001 -0.010 17.9

Other -0.001 -0.024 -0.025 45.5

Pensions

Minimum wage -0.009 0.003 -0.006 10.5

Other 0.000 0.000 -0.001 1.0

Programa Bolsa Família & other CCTs -0.006 -0.001 -0.007 12.7

BPC -0.003 0.000 -0.003 5.7

Other -0.001 -0.003 -0.004 6.7

Total -0.031 -0.024 -0.055 100

= Composition + Concentration


46.8% of the ∆Gini

GE(0) Decomposition(i)

Income inequality decompositions by population subgroups have always been of interest, especially in Brazil, where regional, racial and educational inequalities have such prominence.

The Generalized Enthropy (GE) family of inequality measures is well suited to such decompositions. The GE(0) index – also known as the Theil-L index or the mean log deviation – is particularly useful as it allows a counterfactual interpretation of the Between-Group inequality (ie: if the inequality between groups A and B is responsible for X% of total inequality, this means that the total inequality would be X% lower if the average income of both groups were the same).

)ln()(])ln([)0()0()0(

)1

ln()0()0(

1111

11

j

k

jjjjj

k

jj

k

jjj

k

jjj

j

k

jj

k

jjjgroupbetweengroupwithin

fvfGEfGEfGE

fGEfIIGE

jf

jj jvPopulation share of group j Income share of group jRelative mean income of group j

“Pure inequality” effect “Allocation” effect “Income” effect

GE(0) Decomposition(ii)

All employed with earnings 2002 2009 Δ (%) 2002 2009 Δ (pp)

GE(0) 0.582 0.491 -16 100 100 -

Between-group components

State + Schooling + Industry 0.275 0.211 -23 47.2 43.1 -4.1

Schooling (16 groups) 0.209 0.158 -24 35.9 32.2 -3.9

Industry (8) 0.085 0.072 -15 14.6 14.8 +0.2

Race (5) 0.057 0.039 -33 9.9 7.9 -2.0

State (27) 0.050 0.032 -36 8.6 6.6 -2.0

Urban/rural areas 0.033 0.019 -43 5.6 3.8 -1.8

Male/female 0.014 0.013 -5 2.4 2.7 +0.3

LABOR INCOME Absolute Relative


GE(0) Decomposition(iii)

LABOR INCOME Δ2002-2009 %

Pure inequality effect -0.041 45.3

Allocation effect 0.013 -14.9

Income effect -0.062 69.2

Total -0.091 100


Educational improvement entailed a negative allocation effect, but a more homogeneously educated labor force sustained a dominant income effect as declining returns to education narrowed the income gaps among the different levels of educational attainment. Within-group inequality also contributed tremendously to the overall drop of the GE(0) index.

Conclusions

Poverty and inequality reduction was made possible by more effective social policies and a consumer-led economic boom. As Brazil is still a middle-income country with an unacceptably high level of income inequality, the recent trajectory of pro-poor growth must be preserved at all costs.

There has been a renewed commitment to social programs since the 1988 Constitution and they now comprise a hefty 16% of the GDP and represent extremely valuable tools to reduce poverty and inequality. Educational policies and minimum wage hikes have had a great impact on the labour market while Social Security and Social Assistance expenditures have greatly diminished poverty among the elderly and, to a lesser extent, children.

There is still plenty of room for improvement:Bolsa Família is formidable, but the benefits are still too low and there are eligible

families that are not in the program.Civil servants' social security is inordinately expensive and runs huge annual deficits.Educational attainment is still too low and the overall quality of public schools is

substandard.Some policies that could do a lot to reduce poverty and inequality have been pretty

much set aside (ie: land reform).

Recent Bibliography(English)

Ferreira, FHG; Leite, PG; Litchfield, JA. The rise and fall of Brazilian inequality: 1981-2004. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2006. (World Bank Policy Research Working Paper #3867)

Foguel , M. N.; Barros . R. P. The Effects of Conditional Cash Transfer Programmes on Adult Labour Supply: An Empirical Analysis Using a Time-Series-Cross-Section Sample of Brazilian Municipalities. Estudos Econômicos, São Paulo, v. 40, n. 2, p. 259-293, 2010.

Jaccoud, L; Hadjab, PDE; Chaibub, JR. The consolidation of social assistance in Brazil and its challenges, 1988-2009. Brasília: International Poverty Centre for Inclusive Growth, 2010. (IPC-IG Working Paper #76)

Medeiros, M; Diniz, D; Squinca, F. Cash benefits to disabled persons in Brazil: an analysis of the BPC Continuous Cash Benefit programme. Brasília: International Poverty Centre for Inclusive Growth, 2006. (IPC-IG Working Paper #16)

Medeiros, M; Britto, T; Soares, FV. Targeted cash transfer programmes in Brazil: BPC and the Bolsa Familia. Brasília: International Poverty Centre for Inclusive Growth, 2008. (IPC-IG Working Paper #46)

Soares, FV. Brazil's Bolsa Família: a review. Economic & Political Weekly, v. XLVI, n. 21, May 21, 2011.Soares, FV; Soares, S; Medeiros, M; Osorio, RG. Cash transfer programmes in Brazil: impacts on inequality and poverty.

Brasília: International Poverty Centre for Inclusive Growth, 2006. (IPC-IG Working Paper #21)Soares, S; Osorio, RG; Soares, FV; Medeiros, M; Zepeda, E. Conditional cash transfers in Brazil, Chile and Mexico:

impacts upon inequality. Estudios Económicos, número extraordinario, p. 207-224, 2009.Soares, S; Ribas, RP; Soares, FV. Targeting and coverage of the Bolsa Família programme: why knowing what you

measure is important in choosing the numbers. Brasília: International Poverty Centre for Inclusive Growth, 2010. (IPC-IG Working Paper #71)

Teixeira, CG. A heterogeneity analysis of the Bolsa Família programme effect on men and women's work supply. Brasília: International Poverty Centre for Inclusive Growth, 2010. (IPC-IG Working Paper #61)

Recent Bibliography(Portuguese, I)

Barros, RP; Carvalho, M; Franco, S; Mendonça, R. Conseqüências e causas imediatas da queda recente da desigualdade de renda brasileira. Rio de Janeiro: Ipea, 2006. (Texto para Discussão #1201)

Barros, RP; Franco, S; Mendonça, R. A recente queda na desigualdade de renda e o acelerado progresso educacional brasileiro da última década. In: Barros, RP; Foguel, MN; Ulyssea, G (Orgs). Desigualdade de renda no Brasil: uma análise da queda recente, v. 2. Brasília: Ipea, 2007.

Castro, JA; Santos, CHM; Ribeiro, JAC (Orgs). Tributação e equidade no Brasil: um registro da reflexão do Ipea no biênio 2008-2009. Brasília: Ipea, 2010.

Cotta, TC; Paiva, LH. O Programa Bolsa Família e a proteção social no Brasil. In: Castro, J.A. e Modesto, L (Org.). Bolsa Família 2003-2010: avanços e desafios, v. 1. Brasília: Ipea, 2010.

Hoffmann, R. Transferências de renda e redução da desigualdade no Brasil e em cinco regiões entre 1997 e 2005. In: Barros, RP; Foguel, MN; Ulyssea, G (Orgs). Desigualdade de renda no Brasil: uma análise da queda recente, v. 2. Brasília: Ipea, 2007.

Ipea. Boletim de Políticas Sociais #13. Brasília: Ipea, 2007. Ipea. Boletim de Políticas Sociais #17. Brasília: Ipea, 2009.Osorio, RG; Souza, PHGF; Soares, S. Desenvolvimento, modernização e condições de vida. In: Ipea.

Perspectivas da Política Social no Brasil. Brasília: Ipea, 2010.Osorio, RG; Soares, S; Souza, PHGF. Erradicar a pobreza extrema: um objetivo ao alcance do Brasil. Brasília:

Ipea, 2011. (Texto para Discussão n. 1619).

Recent Bibliography(Portuguese, II)

Rocha, R. Programas condicionais de transferência de renda e fecundidade: evidências do Bolsa Família. Paper presented at the 31st Encontro Brasileiro de Econometria, 2009.

Silveira, FG. Tributação, Previdência e Assistência Sociais: impactos distributivos. PH.D. dissertation, Economics, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, 2008.

Soares, S. Distribuição de renda no Brasil de 1976 a 2004 com ênfase no período entre 2001 e 2004. Brasília: Ipea, 2006. (Texto para Discussão #1166).

Soares, S. Volatilidade de renda e a cobertura do Programa Bolsa Família. Rio de Janeiro: Ipea, 2009 (Texto para Discussão #1459).

Soares, S; Souza, PHGF; Osorio, RG; Silveira, FG. Os impactos do benefício do Programa Bolsa Família sobre a desigualdade e a pobreza. In: Castro, J.A. e Modesto, L (Org.) Bolsa Família 2003-2010: avanços e desafios, v. 2. Brasília: Ipea, 2010.

Soares, S.; Sátyro, N. O Programa Bolsa Família: desenho institucional, impactos e possibilidades futuras. Brasília: Ipea, 2009 (Texto para Discussão #1424).

poverty, inequality and social policies in brazil: 1995-2009

Business

inequality

poverty

brazil

ipc

income

coversseveralbroadareas

year