Mariel Amelia Olivo Villabrille
CONDITIONAL CASH TRANSFER PROGRAMS: A COMPARISON
BETWEEN ILAE AND BOLSA ESCOLA
Thesis submitted for the Master Programme in
International Social Welfare and Health Policy
Faculty of Social Science
Oslo University College
January, 2012
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ……………………………………….…………………………… iii
Abstract.. ………………………….………………………...……………………………iv
List of Acronyms …………………………………………………………………...…....v
1. Background …………………………………………………………………….………2
1.1.
Research Focus and Questions ……………………………………………5
1.2.
Study Limitations …………………………………………………………6
2. Theoretical Framework ………………..……………………….……………………...6
2.1. Fundamental Elements on Social Protection ………………………………..6
2.2. Capabilities Approach to Social Policies and Social Protection …………..13
2.3. Conditional Cash Transfers as an Enhancement of Capabilities …………..16
3. The CCT Programs: ILAE and Bolsa Escola ………………………………………..19
3.1. Incentivo a la Asistencia Escolar (ILAE – School Attendance Incentive)…19
3.1.1. Context of the Program …………………………………………...19
3.1.2. Objectives, Transfers and Targeting of the Program ……………..20
3.1.3. Conditionalities …………………………………………………...22
3.2. Bolsa Escola ……………………………………………………………….22
3.1.1. Context of the Program …………………………………………...22
3.1.2. Objectives, Transfers and Targeting of the Program ……………..23
3.1.3. Conditionalities …………………………………………………...23
4. Conclusions …………………………………………………………………………...24
References ………………………………………………………………………………26
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank to my family and friends for their unconditional support throughout
this and other important processes in my life the last year.
I would also like to thank to Ivar Lødemel and his support and patience in this process.
Thank you all
Mariel Olivo Villabrille
January 2012
iii
ABSTRACT
This work is based on the new welfare approach, called Conditional Cash Transfer
Programs and their role in contributing to addressing and alleviating poverty.
Through health and education components, programs, conditional cash transfers aim to
improve human capital thus enabling beneficiaries to break the cycle of poverty in which
they usually encounter themselves.
This paper compares a successful Conditional Cash Transfer Program - Bolsa Escola in
Brazil - with a program of the same type in another country – ILAE in Dominican
Republic. With this comparison there are some lessons to be learnt provided by the Bolsa
Escola and other regional programs.
iv
LIST OF ACRONYMS
CCT
Conditional Cash Transfer
CEPAL
Comisión Económica para Latinoamerica y el Caribe (Economic
Comission for Latin America and the Caribbean)
DR
Dominican Republic
ECLAC
Economic Comission for Latin America and the Caribbean
GCPS
Gabinete de Coordinación de la Política Social (Social Policy
Coordination Gabinet)
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
HDI
Human Development Index
ICV
Indice de Calidad de Vida (Quality of Life Index)
IDB
Inter-American Development Bank
IDH
Informe de Desarrollo Humano (Human Development Report)
ILAE
Incentivo a la Asistencia Escolar (School Attendance Incentive)
IMF
International Monetary Found
NGO
Non Governmental Organization
ODH
Oficina de Desarrollo Humano (Human Development Office)
OECD
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
PNUD
Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo (United Nations
Development Program)
SIUBEN
Sistema Único de Beneficiarios (Beneficiary System)
SRM
Social Risk Management
SP
Solidarity Program (Programa Solidaridad)
UDHR
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
TAE
Tarjeta
Asistencia
Escolar
v
(School
Attendance
Card
1.
BACKGROUND
The Solidarity Program is a program designed and developed in the Dominican Republic
as part of the social protection actions in the country to secure people. The Program has
been run since 2004 and has two main components: “Comer es Primero (Eating comes
First*) and Incentivo a la Asistencia Escolar - ILAE – (School Attendance Incentive). The
former consists of a monthly in-kind transfer equivalent of RD$ 700 pesos (the
equivalent of US$ 18.18) which allows the family to buy products from the basic family
basket. The last component consists also of an in kind transfer to the eligible families
depending on the number of children, ranging from RD$ 300 to RD$ 600 pesos (the
equivalent of US$ 7.7 to US$ 15.54) (GCPS 2008, page 9).
The program was developed within a context referred as an emergency, according to the
relevant government authorities. This was the result of a domestic economic crisis
following the breakdown of three commercial banks in the previously authorities´
government, from the opposition party. Among the conditionalities imposed by
international organizations, such as the International Monetary Fund – IMF –, World
Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank – IDB - concerning social assistance
programs developed in the country at the time of the economic crises, are involved an
institutional restructuring of the social assistance sector (Cañete and Dotel, 2007, 39-50).
Historically, all types of social policy in the Dominican Republic had followed a
political-patronage, and Solidarity Program has not been the exception. Despite the
aforementioned restructuring plan, this did not tackle the underlying problems of the
social policy in the DR such as bad management, poor efficacy and efficiency (Idem, 44).
On the other hand, Bolsa Escola program was developed in Brazil, starting as far ago as
1995, in the Campinhas State. It started to expand to other states independently, and, by
2003 with the new Anti-Poverty National Strategy it was included in a federal program
called Bolsa Familia (Villatoro 2004, 13-14).
*
Free translation
-2-
According to the definition, “social policy is not a technical term with an exact meaning”
(Abel-Smith and Titmuss 1974, 30), but the concept can take different forms according to
the theories underpinning it, their purposes, problems, decision–making processes,
among others.
However, the term can be used to “refer to all policies used by governments for welfare
and social protection” (Fleury 2006, 1280). There are some aspects to highlight from the
definition. That is, the term refer to policy as an intentional action originated within the
public sphere addressed to achieve certain specific goals. It is oriented to social welfare
goals, which means that some conception of human well-being underpins it, whether
defined in terms of capabilities, human needs, equity, and so on. And it operates through
a wide variety of policy instruments across a number of sectors (Gough 2004, 240).
From a more operational perspective, social policies are a series of decisions, orientations
and priorities from the state, used to generate programs, projects and actions addressed to
solve and identified problem in society (Fleury 2006, 1281).
In this sense, social policies are the means by which welfare and social security is
promoted in a determined society, as specified by Hill (2006) when stated that, the term
social security system, refers to a set of policies in a society which contribute to income
maintenance (Hill 2006, 1295).
According to Ginneken (2003), social security refers to the “benefits that a society
provides to individuals and households – through public and collective measures – to
guarantee them a minimum standard of living and to protect them against low or
declining living standards arising out of a number of basic risks and needs” (Ginneken
2003, 11).
Formal social security systems already exists in almost all developing and newly
industrialized countries, nevertheless, in most countries, an important share of the
population is excluded from any type of statutory social security protection, mainly
because they tend to be part of the informal economy. The strategies on extending social
security vary; one way to include the non-covered population is through social assistance.
-3-
Since benefits are not contribution-based nor dependant on long term employment
records, Social Assistance schemes can reach the poorest segments of population
(Overbye
2005, 305).
Although social assistance has a long history of implementation in most OECD countries
and some non-OECD countries, Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) are a new type social
assistance measure that represents an innovative approach to the delivery of social
services (Rawlings 2005, 134).
As it name implies, these programmes‟ aim to make investments in poor families‟ human
capital – either by asking the families to send children to school or sending them to health
centers on a regular basis – on the condition of receiving the money transfers (Idem).
This will be discussed in more depth further, nevertheless, important is to highlight that
these kinds of schemes differ from workfare as the latter are “programmes or schemes
that require people to work in return for social assistance benefits”. Namely, among
others, the primarily emphasis of workfare is put on working, rather than training or other
forms of activation (Lodemel & Trickey 2001, 6).
The conditionality of investing on human capital makes CCT programmes an instrument
not just for short term social assistance but for longer term human capital investment
(Rawlings 2005, 134).
The first chapter will focus on concepts such as social policies, social assistance and
conditional cash transfers, and its linkages to the concept of Amartya Sen‟s capabilities.
Also, I will illustrate with Latin American examples, since this concept of social cash
transfer and conditional cash transfer had been mainly developed in Latin American
countries.
The following chapter, I will present the programs that concern us: ILAE and Bolsa
Escola, conducted in the Dominican Republic and Brazil. I will approach the
characteristics of the programs, their design, the conditionalities, and the target
population. I will also focus on the connection between the different programs and the
policy context of the programs in the countries.
Finally, I‟ll will expose the conclusions arrived concerning the different conditional cash
transfers programs.
-4-
1.1 RESEARCH FOCUS AND QUESTIONS
This thesis focuses on Conditional Cash Transfers programmes from two countries: Bolsa
Escola, from Brazil and Incentivo para la Asistencia Escolar – School Attendance
Incentive – (ILAE), from Dominican Republic. The rationale underpinning this thesis is
a comparison between the two Programmes, both focused on Education. Since the
programme developed in the Dominican Republic is in its infancy and Bolsa Escola,
conducted in Brazil is more settled, I intend to compare both of them in terms of their
design and the social policies framework they respond to. I also intend to compare ILAE
program with Bolsa Escola because of the success in achieving the objectives of the
latter. According to some evaluations, the program seems to have increased school
attendance and prevented dropout (Villatoro 2004, 16). Moreover, the program reduces
the poverty gap that affects the beneficiary families (World Bank, in Villatoro 2004, 16).
These facts make Bolsa Escola a good case in which mirror and contrast the effectiveness
of ILAE and pose a good example for further recommendations and discuss alternatives
paths of development for ILAE.
In this sense, the research questions elaborated were the following:

What are the main similarities and differences of both ILAE and Bolsa Escola
Programme?

What‟s the social policy framework (broader educational and/or poverty reduction
policies) in which the programmes are embedded?

Are the programmes a result of a specific policy background in the different
countries (DR and Brazil)? What are the main drivers behind the introduction of
ILAE?

What recommendations can be made to ILAE from the learnings of Bolsa Escola?
-5-
1.2 STUDY LIMITATIONS
Several practicalities limited the focus of my research. Due to considerations on time and
resources, I intended to develop a literature review for making the comparison between
the programmes. Since the aim of this thesis was not on assessing the effectiveness of the
programmes, and the limited literature regarding this element – especially concerning
ILAE, there are no evaluations of the programme available – I will focus only on the
design of the different schemes. Another important element to take into consideration is
the relatively short time of implementation of these new types of social assistance
methods. Therefore, the literature is not conclusive in terms of replicability of their
success, for instance.
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1. FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS ON SOCIAL PROTECTION
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR) identifies three big categories of
rights that correspond to every person, without
discrimination of any kind. By signing, a State
Member undertakes to ensure compliance and
concretion through laws and resources to do
so.
It can be found thirty rights in the UDHR,
some of the most important ones and relevant
to this document are Article #25: “Everyone
has the right to a standard of living adequate
for health and well-being of himself and of his
family, including food, clothing, housing and
medical care and necessary social services,
and the right of security in the event of
-6-
HUMAN RIGHTS’ CATEGORIES
There are three major categories of individual rights
that correspond to all persons equally, without
discrimination of any type:
 Civil Rights: identified as first-generation rights.
Connote a set of individual liberties (of speech,
expression, thoughts, association, etc) that is
reaffirmed against any claim of the State or another
entity to infringe it. Guarantee the independence and
immunity of decisions against the power of the State.
 Political Rights: also identified as first-generation
rights, stand for the assurance of the faculty to
participate in the political system, to elect and to be
elected. Allow to participate in public decisions.
 Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: stand for the
right to work, protection against the effects of
disease, old age, death, disability and involuntary
unemployment, receive an income that ensures an
existence worthy of human dignity, enjoy a standard
of living adequate to ensure health and welfare, have
rest and leisure.
Adapted from ODH/PNUD 2010
unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in
circumstances beyond his control” (UDHR).
Article #26: “Everyone has the right to education. […] Education shall be directed to the
full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human
rights and fundamental freedoms” (UDHR).
Especially the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to be effectively achieved by the
citizens, demand public intervention in order to assure users‟ access to and utilization of
social services (Fleury 2006, 158). Thus, through the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, it‟s proclaimed the right to assistance among the citizens by the State.
Thus, and according to Piron (2004), one of the most important elements to highlight
from a human rights approach to social policies is the obligations placed on the States on
the priority given to citizens and the enforceability by the citizenship of certain life
conditions that embody the exercise of rights (Piron 2004, in CEPAL 2006).
According to the definition of social policies, these are policies used by governments for
welfare and social protection, aimed at promoting equity and well being (Fleury 2006,
1280). Therefore, the ultimate goal of social policy is to generate processes of
distribution and re-distribution in order to reduce economic, social, cultural, institutional
and spatial inequalities (Cañete, Dotel 2007, 18).
Consequently, social policies are a manner in which organize interventions from the State
that actually strengthens equitable access to opportunities throughout the life cycle of a
person, or a collective (ODH 2010, 23).
Although there is still quite bit confusion about the concept of social security, social
protection and the scope and limitations of both concepts, it is clear that they aim at
promote and protect living standards. Nevertheless, the extent and shape social policies
take that generate actions of social security and protection will depend on how the State
and society are organized in order to achieve the goal of human development
(ODH/PNUD 2011, 17).
-7-
This is relevant to mention because, as Fleury (2006) declare, social policies are valueoriented. Although in some cases there may not be correspondence between the final
outcome and the original intent of a policy (Fleury 2006, 1280), they respond to an
operational logic associated with ideologies, power structures, institutional accountability
and the extent to which policy is formulated and delivered (ODH/PNUD 2011, 17). Thus,
if we refer to the different typological approaches of the welfare regimes in order to look
at how the system is organized, it can be noticed how the theory and ideologies
underpinned behind it permeates the social services delivery.
For instance, in liberal welfare regimes, on one hand, the role of the State is minimal. The
risks are individualized promoting market solutions and social assistance measures are
considered compensatory (CEPAL 2006 in ODH/PNUD 2011, 12). Assistance is meanstested, entitlement rules are therefore strict. Because the progress of social reform has
been limited by traditional, liberal work-ethic norms, benefits cater mainly to a clientele
of low-income, usually working class, state dependants, and receipt of these benefits are
usually associated with stigma (Esping-Andersen 1990, 26).
On the other hand, in the social-democratic regime type, the participation of the State is
vast. Principles of universalism and egalitarianism are extended to the whole population.
Social protection is seen as a citizenship right and entitlements are universal (EspingAndersen 1990, 27). These broader and universal welfare actions contribute to a standard
of benefit provision to the population that are less stigmatizing, by eliminating the
minority status of social assistance recipients.
However, there have been numerous critiques to the different typologies of the welfare
regimes developed in the Global North, highlighting that, since it has been defined and
shaped by scholars in the Global North it had failed to understand the nature and diversity
of social policies in other parts of the world, namely, the so called Global South. James
Midgley (2004) points out that the consequences of miscarry such debate between the
Western welfarist perspective and the indigenous welfare phenomena in other regions of
the world “has impeded the emergence of a multifaceted perspective that recognizes
-8-
hybridity, incorporates diverse insights and promotes a truly global understanding of
social welfare” (Midgley 2004, 217).
In the Latin American context, on the other hand, social policies have been closely linked
to the ideological and economical reforms that have taken place in recent decades.
According to Andrenacci y Repetto (2006), quoted in ODH/PNUD 2010, the global result
of the social policy reform in Latin America was a fragmentation of social rights, from a
perspective never quite attained of full citizenship based on the right to a minimum
socially acceptable standard of living – as a result of the import substitution paradigm in
the seventies – to a structural adjustment policies in the eighties and nineties, and the
retrenchment of social expenditure as a result of the economic crisis (ODH/PNUD 2010,
13).
Nevertheless, since the past decade, there has been developing new frameworks that
attempt to re-orient and allow for a better design of social protection. One of these new
conceptual frameworks is called Social Risk Management (SRM) developed in the late
nineties and beginnings of two thousand by Holzmand and Jørgensen.
According to these authors, in a world in constant change, dealing with risks is not a new
challenge for humanity. But, new risks are emerging, such as those coming from the
development process itself, which can include environmental degradation, and this, in
turn, can raise the number of natural catastrophes, such as floods, droughts, hurricanes,
among other risks and increase the negative consequences for the population, which is
often poor. Also risks related to globalization and globalization-induced income
variability, combined with marginalization and social exclusion – with quite high rates in
Latin American countries – can, indeed, increase the vulnerability of specific groups in
the population (Holzmann and Jørgensen 2001, 531-533).
Social Risk Management considers Social Protection as “public interventions to (i) assists
individuals, households and communities to better manage risk, (ii) provide support for
the critically poor” (Holzmand and Jørgensen 2001, 530).
-9-
According to Holzman and Jørgensen, in this new framework, Social Protection is
considered

“As a safety net as well as a spring board for the poor. While a safety net for all
should exist, the programs should also provide the poor with the capacity to
bounce out of poverty or, at least, resume gainful work.

Not as a cost but rather as one type of investment. [It] involves helping the poor
keep access to basic social services, avoid social exclusion and resist coping
strategies with irreversible negative effects during adverse shocks

Focus less on the symptoms and more on the causes of poverty by providing the
poor with the opportunity to adopt higher risk-return activities and avoiding
inefficient and inequitable informal risk sharing mechanisms” (Idem)
This new concept of Social Protection focuses on the poor as a specific group of the
society and it does that since the poor are typically more vulnerable and, for instance,
more exposed to diverse risks. Also the poor have fewer adequate instruments to deal
with these risks, what prevents them – either because of inability or unwillingness – from
engaging in higher risk but also higher return-activities (Valdez 2005, 12).
Poverty makes the existence of some social groups at permanent risk because of their
high vulnerability to get harmed or damaged by changes in their environment or because
of individual characteristics (Valdez 2005, 10).
Thus, the main instruments that the Social Risk Management framework uses in order to
protect people from the diversity of risks along their lifetime are the strategies, the
systems and the actors.

Risk Management Strategies to address shocks include:
A) Prevention Strategies – to reduce the probability of a down-side risk. These are
introduced before a risk occurs.
B) Mitigation Strategies – to reduce the potential impact of a future down-side
risk. Are also employed before the risk occurs, but, whereas preventive strategies
reduce the probability of the risk to occur, mitigation strategies reduce the
potential impact if the risk were to occur.
- 10 -
RISK MANAGEMENT MECHANISMS
Informal Mechanisms
Objective
Prevention
Risk Mitigation
Portfolio
Insurance
Risk Coping
Individuals/
Households/Community
- Migration
-Grow less risky crops
-Engaging in hygiene and
other disease preventing
activities
-Investment in human,
physical and real assets
-Diversify jobs
-Invest in social capital
-Marriage/ extended family
-Mutual insurance
networks
-Share tenancy
Formal Mechanisms
Market-Based
-Companybased and
market driven
labor standards
-Invest in
multiple
financial assets
-Microfinance
-Private
insurance
(disability,
accident and
others)
Public Provided
-Sound macroeconomic
policies
-Preventive health care
-Education and vocational
training policies
-Labor market policies
-Child labor reduction
intervention
-Disability policies
-Multi-pillar pension system
-Protection of property rights
-Support for extending
financial markets to the poor
-Mandated provided
insurance (unemployment,
old age, disability,
survivorship and others)
-Sale real assets
-Selling of
-Social Assistance
-Borrow
financial assets
- Cash Transfers
-Child labor
-Borrow from
-Subsidize important primary
-Cut back on consumption
banks
goods
-Dis-saving in human
-Public work
capital
Source: Adapted from Valdez 2005 and Holzmand and Jørgensen 2001
C) Coping Strategies – they seek to relieve the impact of the risk once it has
occurred (Holzmand and Jørgensen 2001, 541-542; Valdez 2005, 7-8).

System Risk Management can be categorized according to the level of formality,
into three: informal arrangements, market-based arrangements and publicly
mandated or provided arrangements.

And the actors in Risk Management framework goes from individuals,
households, communities, NGO, market institutions, government to international
institutions (Holzmand and Jørgensen 2001, 542-545; Valdez 2005, 7-8).
Other International Organizations, such as the Economic Commission for Latin America
and the Caribbean (ECLAC), also advocate for a restructuring of the social protection
concept so that it respond to the continuous changes in the society, especially to a
globalized world of open economies. This new conception of the social protection,
- 11 -
according to ECLAC, should try to find the balance between economic growth and social
equity, improving competitiveness – through an intensive human capital building process
– while ensuring the macroeconomic balance and strengthening the participatory and
inclusive political democracy (CEPAL 2006, 5).
Social protection should cover the costs of the ruptures of the traditional welfare state
paradigms from the 1970 decade and the changes modernity and globalization posts on it,
mainly to avoid loss of human capital and core income in periods of cyclical changes,
which have negative effects for the individuals and families, and which manifests
themselves mostly as dropouts from school, malnutrition and child labor, among many
other phenomena. Also, social protection should protect the tenure the access to basic
rights in health services and a dignified life in old age (Idem, 11).
Ultimately, for ECLAC, the social pact between different actors that generate social
protection policies must be based on a human rights approach, and, in its formulation,
should be considered the need of a integrated solidarity, for instance, the adoption of a
transfer system that offers protection against the risks in life, both through tax and noncontributory manner (CEPAL 2005, 19).
It is relevant to highlight at this point that these new approaches to social protection
mentioned above deal with poverty through sustainable affirmative action, not as a
palliative short response – which in countries like Dominican Republic, respond
furthermore to a clientelistic logic, not based on rights.
And this is so because, the notion of social protection based on human rights is not
limited to palliative responses but it extends to policies promoting development of human
capital and risk prevention in an integrated system of universal access to explicitly
guaranteed benefits (CEPAL 2005, 14).
Thus, this conception of social protection focuses on contributing to the materialization
of a series of rights that are obtained by the people based on their humanity and allow
them a decent life. Therefore, it gets away from the residual conception, which considers
intervention through social policies only to overcome market failures (ODH/IDH 2010,
32).
- 12 -
2.2. CAPABILITIES APPROACH TO SOCIAL POLICIES AND SOCIAL PROTECTION
This conception of rights-based social protection is closely linked to the Capabilities
Approach developed by Amartya Sen. For Sen, capabilities are “the substantive freedoms
he or she enjoys to lead the kind of life he or she has reason to value” (Sen 1999, 87).
This means that social protection policies should lead to eliminate the hardships that
prevent people to have choice.
People‟s freedoms are the result of their capacity to have functioning(s). A functioning is
an achievement of a person, what she or he manages to do or to be based on goods, while
capabilities reveal the person‟s ability to achieve those functioning(s) (Clark 2005, 4).
Thus, it can be said that the functioning(s) are related to life condition of the people, and
the capabilities are related to freedom and to the actual opportunity a person have to
achieve what she or he considers valuable (ODH/IDH 2010, 5).
Although Amartya Sen has never established a list of central human capabilities – on the
understanding that the selection and weighting of capabilities depend on personal value
judgments – some of his followers have attempt to develop such list. In fact, as quoted by
Clark (2005) Sen argues that “the problem is not with listing important capabilities, but
with insisting on one predetermined and canonical list of capabilities, chosen by theorists
without any general social discussion or public reasoning” (Sen 2004, 77-81 on Clark
2005, 7). Although, when exemplifying, Sen mentions intrinsically valuable capabilities
such as “being able to live long, escape avoidable morbidity, be well nourished, be able
to read, write and communicate, take part in literacy and scientific pursuits and so on”
(Sen 1984, quoted in Clark 2005, 5).
Nevertheless, the most influential and well-known attempt to complete Sen‟s capabilities
approach can be found in feminist philosopher Martha Nussbaum‟s writings. The list
developed by Nussbaum includes (Clark 2005, 6):
1. Life. Being able to live to the end of a human life of normal length
2. Bodily Health. Being able to have good health, including reproductive health
- 13 -
3. Bodily Integrity. Being able to move freely from place to place. To be secure
against violent assault (sexual and domestic violence). Having opportunities for
sexual satisfaction and for choices in matters of reproduction
4. Senses, Imagination and Thought. Being able to use the senses, to imagine, think
and reason – and to do these things in a „truly human‟ way.
5. Emotions. Being able to have attachment to things and people outside ourselves. In
general, to love, to grieve, to experience longing, gratitude and justified anger
6. Practical Reason. Being able to form a conception of the good and to engage in
critical reflection about the planning of one‟s life
7. Affiliation.
A. Being able to live with and toward others, to recognize and show concern for other
human beings.
B. Having the social bases to self-respect and non-humiliation.
8. Other Species. Being able to live with concern for and in relation to animals, plants,
and the world of nature
9. Play. Being able to laugh, to play and enjoy recreational activities.
10. Control over one’s environment.
A. Political. Being able to participate effectively in political choices that govern one‟s
life.
B. Material. Being able to hold property and having property rights on an equal basis
with others.
According to Nussbaum, this list of central human capabilities “provides basic political
principles that should be embodied in constitutional guarantees, human rights legislation
and development policy” (Clark 2005, 6).
This conception about freedoms and capabilities can be and has been used to investigate
on other social topics such as poverty, inequality, well-being, social justice, gender,
social exclusion, health, disability, child poverty and identity. Indeed, the Capability
Approach is the starting point of the Human Development Paradigm that led to the
Human Development Report and, specifically, the Human Development Index (HDI),
which covers income (opportunities), life expectancy and education (Idem, 11).
- 14 -
For instance, using this perspective, a definition of poverty can be seen as a “deprivation
on basic capabilities, rather than merely as lowness of income” (Sen 1999, 87).
Is important to mention that this perspective do not renounce to the fact that low income
is a clear indicator of poverty, indeed, as Sen has argued, lack of income can be a
principal reason for a person‟s capability deprivation, nevertheless, there are other
indicators of poverty, besides that lowness of income, that are sensible to this perspective.
But also the fact that, possessing goods does not necessarily guarantees real
accomplishments.
That means the two conceptions can be, to some extent, connected. A diminished in one
of them would lead to a diminished in the other, and vice versa; but the relationship in not
simply directly proportional, but conditional, as Sen refers when affirms that „relative
deprivation in terms of incomes, can yield absolute deprivation in terms of capabilities‟
(Sen 1999, 89).
Thus, the actual freedoms in which in based the Capability Approach depends on the
access to social opportunities and public goods. The supply of these goods is determined
by the level of resources of a country and the Rule of Law that regulates the power
relations. The level of resources provides the support and the material limits of the
opportunities. The Rule of Law guarantees the exercise of options by the people, given
the material possibilities. However, in an unequal society, and in a context of a defective
Rule of Law, institutions reproduce inequality. As a result, access to opportunities
depends on the personal and group power to which the person belongs to and not on
rights (ODH/IDH 2010, 6).
In the context of inequality in Latin America, where the proportion of the income of the
richest 20% group is high in contrast with the 20% of the poorest group in society –
Dominican Republic is ranked 24 out of 126 Latin-American nations with the biggest
inequality gaps, and according to CEPAL´s estimations, the gap between rich and poor
tends to grow (ODH/IDH 2010, 32) – social protection should support social groups that,
because of institutional, social, politics or economic conditions, are clearly disadvantaged
in terms of opportunities and are less benefited by economic growth and have less access
to social institutions (ODH/IDH 2010, 18).
- 15 -
2.3. CONDITIONAL CASH TRANSFERS AS AN ENHANCEMENT OF CAPABILITIES
Thus in a rights-based social protection system, social programs developed to tackle
poverty need to focus not only on short term emergencies, but also encourage the
development of networks and capacities to promote medium and long term social
inclusion of the beneficiaries.
Poverty is a multidimensional social problem, as well as its procesual character and
relations, which has to be taken into account when designing policies focused to tackle it.
Hence, these programs should complement relief efforts to the manifestations of poverty
in the short term, along with measures focusing on the structural and intergenerational
causes (Idem, 44).
Along with low income, poor families have an insufficient level of human capital in
nutrition, health and education, among other aspects, which affects the future prospects of
the youth and puts at risk the access to equal opportunities (CEPAL 2005, 44). This is
important because poverty condition the development opportunities that families pass on
from generation to generation. For instance, the low level of education of broad segments
of the population is an important mechanism of intergenerational poverty transmission.
Indeed, low levels of education and lack of access to quality education for the young
people block their main channel of mobility and social inclusion (Idem, 47).
In this context, if we refer back to the Capabilities Approach, it can be noticed that all the
elements mentioned as affecting the future prospects of the youth – nutrition, health and
education – are considered in Martha Nussbaum‟s lists of central human capabilities.
Also is important to mention that as the substantial freedoms are the principal ends of
development, the means to achieve those freedoms are the income, technology,
institutions and social and environmental opportunities. As mentioned before, the actual
freedoms in which is based the Capability Approach depends on the access to social
opportunities and public goods (ODH/IDH 2010, 5-6).
There‟s an innovative approach to the delivery of social services, namely Conditional
Cash Transfers (CCT), that are design as a response to some of the elements identified
that reproduce poverty, such as low levels of education and the quality of that education,
- 16 -
and poor access to health and low levels of nutrition. These programs have been
established in numerous countries in recent years, particularly in Latin America and the
Caribbean. Several of these programs have acquired an important role in individual
countries‟ portfolio of poverty alleviation strategies.
CCT, as their name implies, provide money or in kind help to poor families on the
condition that they make investments on human capital of their children and invest on
improving their capabilities – such as sending the children to school or bringing them to
health centers (Rawlings 2005, 134).
This is how CCT combine immediate poverty relief – such as lack of income – while
strengthening the human capital of the new generations, encouraging positive synergies
between this short and long term objectives and between different dimensions of human
capital (CEPAL 2005, 47). Strengthening human capital is one of the main mechanisms
of poverty and inequalities reduction in the future and in overcoming intergenerational
reproduction of poverty, improving the productive capacity of people (Idem, 54).
This conception is based on the premise that one of the fundamental reasons on the
reproduction of intergenerational poverty is the lack or low inversion on human capital in
terms of education, nutrition and health (Villatoro 2004, 10) and low capabilities because
failure or inefficient access to social opportunities and public goods (ODH/IDH 2010, 56). In consequence, these kinds of programs seek, by conditioning transfer, develop the
necessary incentives to maintain or increment the inversion in human capital on
individuals and poor families (Villatoro 2004, 10). Also, enhance the access to the means
identified by Sen as the promotion of capabilities and, ultimately, enhance the substantial
freedoms of the people.
One important element of these types of programs is the role family plays in the
development of them, especially women, since they are the main recipients and
administrator of the benefits, as well as in the diffusion tasks of the activities (CEPAL
2005, 48). This is important since evidence shows that management of the benefits by
women (family‟s mothers) produces better results in the food security and quality of life
of the children (Villatoro 2004, 21).
- 17 -
Although still premature to assess the impact of these CCT programs on the future
poverty of the children participating, in some of the programs – namely Bolsa Escola in
Brazil and Oportunidades in Mexico – the programs have demonstrated a positive effect
on enrolment rates for both boys and girls (Rawlings 2005, 149). For instance,
preliminary evidence on Bolsa Escola, shows positives results on school assistance,
prevention on drop-outs and reducing the gap age/course level (World Bank 2001, in
Villatoro 2004, 15). Other programs refer also this trend, such as Red de Oportunidades
(Opportunity Network) in Panama, where when comparing the enrollment rate in the
geographical areas participating in the program, the rate goes above 90% in comparison
to those areas not participating in the program, with a rate of 78.5% (Rodriguez 2010,
30).
There are some critiques to the achievement of these kinds of programs, for instance,
although the enrollment rates increase, the evidence does not show significant statistical
differences on the level of the learning in children participating on one CCT program –
namely, Bolsa Escola – with children not participating in the program (World Bank 2001
in Villatoro 2004, 16). Another relevant element to consider is the conclusions on some
studies developed where the results indicate the Bolsa Escola program diminish the
poverty gap that affects beneficiary families, but, in terms of reducing the poverty, the
evidence is not consistent (Idem, 16).
From the information available, it can be concluded that the programs have had a
significant effect on the human capital of the beneficiaries in terms of enrollment rates,
school assistance, grade promotions and additional schooling years, nevertheless, some
further studies most be conducted in order to assess the ultimate impact of the programs,
since the results are related not only to human capital accumulation but with work
opportunities once the beneficiaries have left the program (CEPAL 2005, 49-54) this is
also relevant in terms of assessing the freedoms of the beneficiaries due to the
enhancement of their human capabilities.
- 18 -
3. THE CCT PROGRAMS: ILAE AND BOLSA ESCOLA
3.1 INCENTIVO A LA ASISTENCIA ESCOLAR (ILAE – SCHOOL ASSISTANCE INCENTIVE).
3.1.1 CONTEXT OF THE PROGRAM
The Program Incentivo a la Asistencia Escolar (ILAE because of Spanish acronyms –
School Assistance Incentive) started to be implemented in 2004, with the general aim of
breaking down the intergenerational transmission of poverty, on the understanding that
improving the inversion of poor families on education, health and food provision, will
enhance the accumulation of human capital in the family, especially in the children
(GCPS 2008, 6).
This programs comes to substitute the first conditional cash transfer program in the
Dominican Republic, known as Tarjeta de Asistencia Escolar (TAE – School Assistance
Card).
This program is developed as a result of a new orientation of the social policy in the
country as a result of the economic crisis in 2003, which generated a rise of the poverty
rate, from between 16 to 20% of the people living under poverty (PNUD quoted in GCPS
2008, 6).
It is important to highlight that, in the Dominican Republic social policy has not been part
of a development strategy, but social policy has been reduce to assistance aid, which have
debilitated the public awareness of the society of rights, has encouraged individual
responses to the social problems and weaknesses empowerment of society to participate
in the social decisions that affect them (ODH/IDH 2010, 40). This context along with the
use of the social benefits for politics as a culture based on primary relations, encouraging
political patronage, in the long run has made social policy in the Dominican Republic
residual, disarticulated and eminently assistencialist (Idem).
But there have been some attempts to strengthen the rights based approach to social
policy in the country.
For instance, in 2000 was born the Gabinete de Coordinación de la Política Social (GCPS
– Social Policy Coordination Gabinet) and, along with the first poverty map developed in
1997 and the development of the Sistema Único de Beneficiarios (SIUBEN – Beneficiary
- 19 -
System) represented a huge step on identifying the beneficiaries of the programs based on
objective criteria. Also in 2002, the first CCT program (TAE) was designed and
implemented. This first step moved forward and in 2004 with the interest of promoting
welfare programs targeted at the poor, was developed the Solidarity Program, under the
leadership of the GCPS. It is noteworthy the efforts made in education, health and social
security with the development of the Education Law in 1997, General Health Law in
2001 and the Dominican Social Security System that same year, which have found a
tortuous path for their development (ODH/IDH 2010, 40).
3.1.2 OBJECTIVES, TRANSFERS AND TARGETING OF THE PROGRAM
The ILAE program is part of the Solidarity Program. The program´s main objective is to
“Promote the breakdown of the intergenerational transmission of poverty, improving the
investment that households make in education, health and nutrition” (Sánchez et al 2009,
3). This program has two main components: 1) Comer es Primero (Eating Comes First)
and 2) Incentivo a la Asistencia Escolar (School Attendance Incentive).
Eating Comes First consists on a monthly transference of RD$ 700 pesos (the equivante
of US$ 18.18) to the household head through a debit card oriented to buy food and
conditioned to the compliance of the conditionalities of the program (Manual Operativo
del Programa de Transferencias Condicionadas de Solidaridad 2009, 25).
ILAE program, on the other hand, has its own objective which is to “Promote and
encourage attendance, retention and school performance through a monthly monetary
incentive to be given to poor mothers living in rural and marginal urban areas” (Cañete
and Dotel 2007, 111).
The transfers in ILAE are variable, depending on the number of children beneficiaries of
the program. For families with 1-2 children between 6 and 16, the transfers reach RD$
300 pesos. For families with three eligible children, the transfers reach RD$ 450 pesos,
and for families with four or more children, transfers reach RD$ 600 pesos (Manual
Operativo del Programa de Transferencias Condicionadas de Solidaridad 2009, 25). It is
- 20 -
important to say that transfers are paid through a debit card that can be used in a specific
network of authorized shops.
Targeting of the beneficiaries is made through the SIUBEN, is made based on a
socioeconomic assessment of the potential beneficiaries to prioritize and select them so
that are allowed to access to the different social programs. In this way households are
arranged according to socio-economic gap criteria. Solidarity program households‟
beneficiaries are identified and classified according to the SIUBEN in moderate (ICV-II)
or extreme poverty (ICV-I). This classification is performed according to the Quality of
Life Index (ICV for its Spanish acronym). Active beneficiaries of the program
correspond to eligible households in which there are children among 6 and 16 years old
enrolled in public education between 1st and 8th grade. In which households´ heads holds
a Dominican identity document and accepts to be part of the program and to comply with
the conditionalities (Manual Operativo del Programa de Transferencias Condicionadas de
Solidaridad 2009, 12; GCPS 2008, 7).
By June 2010, the households being beneficiaries of the Solidarity Program were
525,578, this evidence an important expansion if it is compared to the 193,988
households receiving the benefits in 2005 (Programa Solidaridad 2010, 2). It is important
to mention that this data is not disaggregated by component, which is hard to say how
many households receive benefits from ILAE program.
The Solidarity Program (both components: Eating Comes First and School Attendance
Incentive) holds an annual budget of US$16.4 million which corresponded to
approximately 0.4% of the GDP of 2005. By 2009, the annual budget reached US$119.9
million, which corresponded to 2.36% of the GDP of 2009 (Idem). Contrary to the
information regarding the scope of the Solidarity Program, the budget is disaggregated
around the different components. Thus, for 2005 Eating Comes First had a budget of
RD$576,428,600 (approximately US$14.9 millions) and ILAE had a budget of
RD$57,286,800 (approximately US$1.49 million). By 2009 the numbers behind the
different components of the programs were RD$ 3,890,322,800 (approx. US$101.04
millions) for the Eating Comes First component. ILAE had a budget of RD$728,719,200
- 21 -
(aprox.US$18.93 millions) (Idem, 3). If we compare the budget allocated at the
beginnings of the implementation of the program and the one allocated 4 years later, it
can be noticed the increase in the budget which should reflect the importance of the
program for the State and for the poverty alleviation strategy.
3.1.3. CONDITIONALITIES
As a Conditional Cash Transfer, ILAE is based upon a conditionality system through
which, both the Dominican government and the beneficiaries are committed to. In order
to receive the transfer, the beneficiaries need to meet some requirements as guarantee the
school attendance of the children in at least 80% of the days per month.
In this component, the program does not consider as conditionality to receiving the
transfer the participation of the household´s head in promotion action – in the other
component Eating Comes First participation in this meetings is part of the conditionality
– such as meetings to share knowledge about preventive health, family planning, hygiene
and environmental sanitation. Also the meetings are held for support and understanding
of the conditionalities of the component (Manual Operativo del Programa de
Transferencias Condicionadas de Solidaridad 2009, 22).
Monitoring System of the conditionalities is held bimonthly starting on SeptemberOctober each year with enrollment and the starting of the school year. July/August is not
monitored because of general holydays, where it is not paid.
3.2 BOLSA ESCOLA PROGRAM
3.2.1 CONTEXT OF THE PROGRAM
The Bolsa Escola Program was first implemented by the government of the Campinhas
municipality, located in the Southeast State of São Paulo, Brazil in 1995.
Bolsa Escola programs are a poverty-targeted social assistance programs which gives
chash transfers to poor families with school-age children on the basis on some
conditionalities, such as attending school a minimal agreed.
- 22 -
In that same year of 1995, it started to be implemented a new version of the program in
the Federal District of Brasilia. By 2001, 6 years later, 7 more States and around 200
municipalities were running Bolsa Escola-type programs (Villatoro 2004, 13).
In 2003, in the context of the new poverty reduction strategy, Fome Zero, all the
programs were included in the federal program Bolsa Familia, in which were centralized
the administration of all the conditional transfer devices (Idem, 13-14).
By 2005, Bolsa Familia program in Brazil was being introduced as an overarching
welfare reform program that consolidated numerous smaller programs to become the
largest CCT program internationally, in terms of both coverage and financing (Rawlings
2005, 135).
3.1.2 OBJECTIVES, TRANSFERS AND TARGETING OF THE PROGRAM
According to the World Bank report, from 2001, Bolsa Escola Program has four central
objectives, which are:

Increase educational attainment

Reduce short-term poverty
and subsequently reduce poverty

Reduce child labor
in the long term.

Act as a potential safety net
Transfers in Bolsa Escola program are given to households with children from 6 to 15
years old which meet the requirements. But in this program, transfers do not depend on
the number, age or gender of the children of the beneficiaries‟ households and they vary
from one municipality to the other. It has been suggested that and adjustment of the
amounts of the transfers according to the characteristics of the families could improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of the program (Villatoro 2004, 14).
Target of the programs are done geographically but through a national system. This
means that the program start targeting geographically with the poorest neighborhoods
within a municipality. Beneficiaries of those neighborhoods are chosen based on an
income means test or the score system, which considers various aspects of the potential
beneficiaries‟ living standards, such as housing status, engagement in the labor market,
- 23 -
educational attainment, number of children in the house, among others (World Bank
2001,8).
The selection of eligible families is made for a federal government body, and the final
selection of the beneficiary families is made at the local level with the participation of
Social Boards, which include representatives of civil society organizations (Villatoro
2004, 14).
Active beneficiaries are households with school-age children among 6 to 15 years old
who are enrolled in primary or secondary school, and which belongs to families with
monthly incomes below R$90 (approx. US$50).
3.1.3. CONDITIONALITIES
As a Conditional Cash Transfer, Bolsa Escola is based upon a conditionality system
through which, both the Bazilian government and the beneficiaries are committed to. In
order to receive the money transfer, the beneficiaries need to meet some requirements as
guarantee the school attendance of the children in at least 85% of the days per month. If
the child does not meet the minimum attendance requirement for the month, then the cash
transfer is not paid to the family. In order to assure the requirements, the monthly
payment is made once school attendance is deemed satisfactory (BID 2001, 19).
Monitoring system is held in a 3-month period (Rawlings 2005, 142). Participation of
local stakeholders ensures good targeting and that monitoring occurs at various levels
(BID 2001, 19).
- 23 -
4. CONCLUSIONS
The experience from Conditional Cash Transfer Programs in Latin America holds several
lessons for the Dominican Republic to learn in terms of design, implementation and
articulation with other poverty alleviation strategies.

Among the lessons learnt in terms of the design of the program it can be said
that there have been important advancements as to target criteria used to reach the
eligible beneficiaries of the program. For instance, the creation of the SIUBEN
has represented an important step forward on selecting people using technical
criteria and diminishing the political patronage. However the system is still
vulnerable to possible bad practices and to the use of the program for patronage
purposes. A geographical system, as the one used in Bolsa Escola, seems to be
stronger when diminishing the potential bad practices associated with targeting
criteria (Cañete and Dotel 2007, 76).

As mentioned above, the Solidarity Program provides in-kind transfers to the
beneficiaries of the program through a debit card which can be used to buy in
different authorized shops. Nevertheless, this system is prone to divert the funds
which can lessen the benefits. Moreover, this manner minimize the freedom of the
family in how spend the money (World Bank 2001, 12). Evidence from other
CCT of the region – as Mexico and Brazil – demonstrate that families spend much
of the money transfer on food and other basic necessities without need to coercion
(IDB 2005, 62).

The conditionalities represent a vital part of the ILAE program and the
assurance of investing in the human capital of the beneficiaries, so, monitoring
that children actually are attending school represent one of the most important
elements of the programs. An adequate monitoring system both of the compliance
of the conditionalities by the beneficiaries as well as the achievement of the
objectives of the program, constitute a very important element for the
- 24 -
sustainability of the program. Without an adequate monitoring and evaluation
system, ILAE can become a simple financial outlay with no more effects than of
minimally soothe the immediate needs of poor families (Cañete and Dotel 2007,
77). Moreover, a monitoring and evaluation system would help the citizenship
being accountable of the cost-effectiveness of the programs run by the State.

In the Dominican Republic attending school does not necessarily results in
enhancing the human capital of the children. Actually, although attendance rate
has increase in the last 12 years, quality of education, compared with those from
the region, is discouraging: 90% of the Dominican students in third-grade math
have a performance that is at worst level or below, while, on average, only 46% of
Latin-American student are placed in this two categories (ODH/IDH 2010, 34). In
these sense, ILAE programs should be seen as a complement but never as a
substitute for investments in school, either by the national government of by the
municipalities (World Bank 2001, 24).
Also these programs have revived the debate of providing accessible, high-quality
health and education services in poor areas (Rawlings 2005, 152).

Lastly, for poverty strategy to be effective in tackle poverty it needs to be
articulated with other development instruments. For instance, CCT could be
linked to other actions on promoting employment, so that the employment needs
are met, once a person leaves the program. Nevertheless, in the Dominican
Republic, social assistance needs to be resized so that is offers instruments for the
beneficiaries to progressively not longer needs assistance and can manage by and
contribute to society.
- 25 -
REFERENCES

Abel-Smith, Brian and Kay Titmuss, editors. 1974. Richard Titmuss. Social
Policy. London. George Allen and Unwin.

Sánchez, Mario et al. 2009. República Dominicana. Apoyo al Programa de
Protección Social. Primera Fase. Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (BID).

Cañete, Rosa, Olaya Dotel. 2007. Política Social en República Dominicana 19302007. ¿Inclusión o asistencialismo? República Dominicana: Centro de Estudios
Sociales Padre Juan Montalvo, S.J.

Clark, David. 2005. The Capability Approach: Its development, critiques and
recent advances. Manchester, UK: Economic and Social Research Council
(ESRC).

Comisión Económica para América Latina (CEPAL). 2006. La protección social
de cara al futuro. Acceso, financiamiento y solidaridad. Montevideo, Uruguay.

Esping-Andersen, Gosta. 1990. The three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism.
Cambridge: Polity Press.

Fleury, Sonia. 2006. International Encyclopedia of Social Policy. Ed. Tony
Fitzpatrick et al. London: Routledge.

Ginneken, Wouter van. 2003. Extending Social Security. Policies for developing
countries. EES Paper No.13. Geneva: International Labour Office (ILO).

Gough, Ian. 2004. A handbook of Comparative Social Policy. Ed.Patricia Kennet.
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
- 26 -

Hill, Michael. 2006. International Encyclopedia of Social Policy. Ed. Tony
Fitzpatrick et al. London: Routledge.

Holzmann, Robert and Steen Jørgensen. 2001. Social risk management: a new
conceptual framework for social protection and beyond. International Tax and
Public Finance vol 8 (4), 529 – 556.

Interamerican Development Bank. 2005. Informe sobre la Pobreza en República
Dominicana, 2005. Logrando un crecimiento económico que beneficie a los
pobres en República Dominicana. Resumen de los principales resultados e
implicaciones de políticas.

Gabinete de Coordinación de la Política Social (GCPS). 2008. Impacto del
Programa Solidaridad en Asistencia Escolar y Niveles Nutricionales: Un Enfoque
Empírico. Santo Domingo: Solidaridad.

Lodemel, Ivar and Heather Trickey. 2001. An offer you can’t refuse: Workfare in
International perspective. Bristol: Policy Press.

Manual Operativo del Programa de Transferencias Condicionadas de Solidaridad
2009. Programa Solidaridad.

Midgley, James. 2004. A handbook of Comparative Social Policy. Ed.Patricia
Kennet. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Rodríguez Mojica, Alexis. 2010. Programa de transferencias condicionadas,
políticas sociales y combate a la pobreza en Panamá. Serie Políticas Sociales.
Santiago de Chile: División de Desarrollo Social, CEPAL.
- 27 -

Oficina de Desarrollo Humano. 2010. Política Social, capacidades y derechos.
Análisis y propuestas de políticas sociales en República Dominicana. Santo
Domingo: ODH/PNUD.

Overbye, Einar. 2005. Extending social security in developing countries: A review
of three main strategies. International Journal of Social Welfare, Oxford, UK:
Blackwell Publishing.

Programa Solidaridad. Resumen de Logros Alcanzados. Periodo 2006-2010.
Santo Domingo: Programa Solidaridad.

Rawlings, Laura. 2005. A new approach to social assistance: Latin America’s
experience with conditional cash transfers programmes. International Social
Security Review, Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.

Sen, Amartya. 1999. Poverty as Capability Deprivation. In Development as
freedom, 87-110. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Valdez, Julián. 2005. Sistematizando la Asistencia Social: Hacia una Red de
Protección Social en la República Dominicana. Santo Domingo: Unidad de
Información Social (UIS), Secretariado Técnico de la Presidencia vol 1.

Villatoro S., Pablo. 2004. Programas de reducción de la pobreza en América
Latina. Un análisis de cinco experiencias. Santiago de Chile: División de
Desarrollo Social, CEPAL.

World Bank. 2001. Brazil. As Assesment of the Bolsa Escola Programs. Human
Development Sector Management Unit. Latin America and the Caribbean
Regional Office. Brazil: World Bank.
- 28 -