I will be introducing PROGRESA, going over the benefits, the costs or the cash transfer schedule. Evaluating the demand and supply side interventions and conclusion.
Introduced by the federal government of Mexico in 1997. Before Progresa, poverty was so severe, especially in rural areas, that a third of the Mexican people could not afford adequate food. Unlike other earlier social programs in Mexico, PROGRESA contains focuses on 3 objectives. Improve the educational, health, and nutritional status of poor families.
For my final paper I’m only looking at the education component.
SO. Cash transfers are given to mothers every two months and all children between 7 and 18 years of age are ...view middle of the document...
In order to reverse this tendency, PROGRESA grants were structured to be about 15 percent higher in the secondary school level for girls.
The most critical objective of PROGRESA’s education program is to increase the transition of poor rural youth into secondary school (grades 7-9). Because of which, educational grants for enrolling in the first year of junior secondary school increase by 75 pesos in the case of boys and 85 pesos in the case of girls.
After a number of studies and statistical tests, it was concluded that in all cases PROGRESA had a positive enrollment effect for both boys and girls at the primary and secondary level.
At the primary level, where enrollment rates before PROGRESA were between 90 and 94 percent, PROGRESA succeeded at increasing the enrollment rate of boys by 0.74 to 1.07 percentage points and of girls by 0.96 to 1.45 percentage points.
Similarly at the secondary level the impact was much greater. enrollment rates increased by 7.2 to 9.3 percentage points for girls. And 3.5 to 5.8 percentage points for boys.
They also found that the student-teacher ratio increased in 1998 and then decreased in 1999, indicating that schools were being at the time as well. Data showed that 12 new schools were built between 1997 and 1999, leading to a decrease in the average distance to the nearest secondary school from 2.02 km in 1997 to 1.95 km in 1999. Using the coefficients on distance from the regression analysis, the prediction is that this resulted in an average enrollment impact of 0.75 percentage points for girls and 0.45 percentage points for boys.
Given the difficulty of attaching a monetary value to measuring education. The effectiveness indicator is the extra years of schooling that was created. Using the impact, total level of grant and number of children enrolled gives us the cost of generating an extra year of schooling.
A few major points:
Cost per extra year is much higher for boys than girls on primary school, reflecting the higher enrollment impact for girls.
In secondary schools, we find the same pattern. Though the higher enrollment effect for girls offsets their higher subsidy rates.
Also cost per year across primary and secondary school is higher in primary than in secondary because the effect of higher subsidies is offset by a higher enrollment impact.
Table presents the cost effectiveness ratio i.e the cost of generating an extra year of education through extensive expansion of the school system. The lowest cost is for a forty-year period for girls’ enrollment with zero discounting at 110,000 which is much greater than the average subsidies 19 thousand for primary school and 10 thousand for secondary school.
The cost decreases the longer one assumes the extensive supply effect to last, reflecting the up-front infrastructure costs are spread over a longer period.
The cost is lower for girls than for boys, reflecting the larger effect of lower distances...