The program Universal Child Allocation for Social Protection and the changes in the Conditional Transfer Programs

The recent implementation of the social program "Universal Child Allocation for Social Protection” is an important step towards alleviating the children and adolescents vulnerability situation and a way to improve their household income. At the same time it set a new paradigm in the Conditional Transfer Programs (PTC) for several reasons. First, by recognizing that employment no longer guarantees social security benefits, and therefore it is necessary to reduce inequality and inequity suffered by children and adolescents whose parents do not have formal employment via other mechanisms. Second, because it seeks to reach 5 million beneficiaries, an ambitious challenge considering that the “Heads of Household Plan” reached 2 million people. Moreover, the program is open to enrollment of new beneficiaries, unlike the previous PTC, and the benefit takes into account family composition and amount depends on the number of children. As we know the largest families are found in more vulnerability. Thirdly, with regard to the budgetary significance, given the size of the program, again implies a greater involvement of PTC in the national budget, similar to what had happened to the “Unemployed Heads of Household Plan”, which from 2006 had lost prominence for the economic and energy subsidies in the composition of public expenditure. On the other hand, it is important to mention the challenges of this new program. First, to include beneficiaries who were out of reach, as is the case of informal workers children who earn above the minimum wage. Secondly, with regard to conditionalities, this program, like the previous PTC (Unemployed Heads of Household Plan and Families), continues to demand the fulfillment of conditions from the side of beneficiaries without raising an increase and improvement of supply services in education and public health for a genuine integral development for families in situations of greater vulnerability. Finally, the main challenge will be to reach all those children who do not receive social protection and achieve a true equal rights and reduction of social inequalities.Universal Child Allocation for Social Protection; Asignación Universal por Hijo para Protección Social; Programas de Transferencias Condicionadas; Conditional Transfer Programs; Plan Jefes de Hogar Desocupados y Familias; Unemployed Heads of Household Plan and Families; Plan Jefes de Hogar Desocupados

Social Public Expenditure Analysis in the 2010 National Budget

The National Budget has a key role as an instrument of funds allocation for different social priorities and resources redistribution with localized impact in the provinces. The main objective of Social Public Expenditure (GPS) is to promote the access of most vulnerable social groups to quality basic services. In this mission, the National Government has the essential function of guaranteeing minimum levels of interregional equity between provinces. The present research analyzes the allocated funds to the various social programs, priorities and allocation criteria used to provinces in the National Budget 2010, comparing these figures turn to the 2009 budget implementation. This study is part of a Siena Foundation project made possible by the support of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, Argentina headquarters, which includes the elaboration of Public Social Spending during the parliamentary debate, as well as monitoring their implementation in order to provide relevant and timely information on public finances in Argentina. From the study, it shows the critical importance of Social Public Expenditure in the National Budget, especially as a tool to complement the social services that provide the provinces to their inhabitants and the challenges that are imposed to improve the social conditions of the population. Among the key findings and challenges are the following: 1. 60% of the National Budget goes to Social Public Expenditure. In this way the National Budget becomes a key mechanism for prioritization and reallocation of resources 2. Increases in the GPS 2010 compared to 2009 allow to stakeout that the priorities were assigned to social security, education and science and technology programs. 3. The main distribution criteria for allocated resources among the provinces to social programs are the amount of population. That is, most resources are concentrated in provinces with larger populations. Second, in general, there are certain relationships with more objective distribution criteria, such as poverty rates, unemployment or housing deficit of the provinces. However, these indicators don’t play an important role, and there can be seen inequities in the distribution of the provinces. 4. The Finance Act 2010 has weaknesses in information and geographic distribution of social programs. In summary, the work highlights the critical importance of Social Public Expenditure in the National Budget, especially social security spending, which becomes more relevant with the new Universal Child Allocation for Social Protection program, as well as programs for education, health and advocacy and social assistance, among others, which together amount to 60% of National Budget. As a result, emerges the need to pay special attention to the priorities that are assigned each year to social spending and how it is distributed among the provinces, to thereby promote greater equity in the distribution of resources among the provinces. Therefore, it is a priority; discussing the criteria of direct or indirect resources allocation to the provinces, especially for programs with greater social impact. In these cases should be given greater weight to objective criteria related more to the social situation of the provinces, together with the amount of population, thus strengthening the role of national government as a guarantor of minimum standards in terms of interregional equity.Social Public Expenditure; National Budget; funds; allocation; National Goverment; interregional equity; social programs; priorities; guarantee; criteria; distribution; minimun standards; social impact

El programa Asignación Universal por Hijo para Protección Social y los cambios en los Programas de Transferencias Condicionadas

The recent implementation of the social program "Universal Child Allocation for Social Protection” is an important step towards alleviating the children and adolescents vulnerability situation and a way to improve their household income. At the same time it set a new paradigm in the Conditional Transfer Programs (PTC) for several reasons. First, by recognizing that employment no longer guarantees social security benefits, and therefore it is necessary to reduce inequality and inequity suffered by children and adolescents whose parents do not have formal employment via other mechanisms. Second, because it seeks to reach 5 million beneficiaries, an ambitious challenge considering that the “Heads of Household Plan” reached 2 million people. Moreover, the program is open to enrollment of new beneficiaries, unlike the previous PTC, and the benefit takes into account family composition and amount depends on the number of children. As we know the largest families are found in more vulnerability. Thirdly, with regard to the budgetary significance, given the size of the program, again implies a greater involvement of PTC in the national budget, similar to what had happened to the “Unemployed Heads of Household Plan”, which from 2006 had lost prominence for the economic and energy subsidies in the composition of public expenditure. On the other hand, it is important to mention the challenges of this new program. First, to include beneficiaries who were out of reach, as is the case of informal workers children who earn above the minimum wage. Secondly, with regard to conditionalities, this program, like the previous PTC (Unemployed Heads of Household Plan and Families), continues to demand the fulfillment of conditions from the side of beneficiaries without raising an increase and improvement of supply services in education and public health for a genuine integral development for families in situations of greater vulnerability. Finally, the main challenge will be to reach all those children who do not receive social protection and achieve a true equal rights and reduction of social inequalities

Políticas públicas y toma de decisiones: Los think tanks en Argentina

La presente investigación, constituye una aproximación al estudio más detallado de los think tanks, sus características y su comportamiento en el caso argentino, haciendo especial hincapié en la manera que se involucran en el proceso de formulación de políticas públicas, y considerando las diferencias existentes entre los distintos tipos de organizaciones. Este documento se encuentra estructurado en cuatro Capítulos. En el Capítulo I se elabora una definición de los think tanks y su caracterización. Asimismo, se realiza una reseña histórica acerca del surgimiento de los think tanks en los Estados Unidos y en la Argentina. En el Capítulo II se detalla el listado de organizaciones relevadas, su clasificación y una breve descripción de cada una de ellas. En el Capítulo III se realiza el análisis de los distintos grupos de think tanks considerados en función de seis aspectos principales: órgano de conducción, financiamiento, recursos humanos, actividades y productos, los temas abordados en sus investigaciones y su posicionamiento público. Finalmente, en el Capítulo IV se elaboran las principales conclusiones del análisis realizado.'THINK TANKS' 'ARGENTINA' 'ADVOCACY GROUPS' 'USINAS DE PENSAMIENTO' 'POLÍTICAS PÚBLICAS' 'TOMA DE DECISIONES'

Delegación de facultades al Jefe de Gabinete de Ministros: Evolución e impacto en el contexto fiscal actual

El presente documento analiza los principales aspectos de la delegación de facultades al Jefe de Gabinete de Ministros (JGM) en relación al gasto público contenidas en el Proyecto de Ley de Presupuesto 2005 remitido por el Poder Ejecutivo al Congreso de la Nación y su impacto sobre el contexto fiscal actual. Pare ello, en la Sección I se estudia la evolución de las facultades delegadas al JGM en los últimos años, mientras que en la Sección II se presentan los argumentos utilizados en el debate. Por su parte, en la Sección III se explicita la interrelación con los Decretos de Necesidad y Urgencia para culminar con las principales conclusiones y los lineamientos de propuestas, contenidos en la Sección IV, donde se describe la tensión entre problemas coyunturales y estructurales que enfrenta el país, marco en el cual deben ser discutidas las facultades especiales otorgadas al Poder Ejecutivo sobre el Presupuesto.'DELEGACIÓN' 'DECRETO' 'PRESUPUESTO' 'FACULTADES' 'JEFE DE GABINETE' 'DELEGACIÓN DE FACULTADES' 'EJECUCIÓN PRESUPUESTARIA' 'ACCOUNTABILITY'

Inequities and Absence of Explicit Sharing Criteria : The National Budget distribution to the provinces in the post crisis period (2004-2007)

As part of a broader discussion of fiscal federalism in Argentina, this research analyzes the role of the National Budget as an instrument of resource allocation that has an impact located in the provinces. To do this, we consider the evolution between 2004 and 2007 transfers and budget programs from national level that have a geographic impact, which represented an average of 75% of the National Budget primary spending. At first we develop a classification of the National Budget programs according to their impact at the subnational level. It is found that 25% goes to functions such as Defense, Diplomatic Services or Justice, whose impact is not likely to be geographically distributed. Another 7% consists of direct transfers to the provinces, usually established by different laws. Meanwhile, the remaining 68% of the National Budget is allocated to various programs implemented from the national level, but whose benefits are geographically limited. Goods and services financed in this way, although for many provinces account for an amount greater than what they receive from the Federal Revenue Sharing Scheme, are often left out of the analysis of fiscal federalism. In a second instance, we conduct a detailed analysis of national programs with a subnational level impacts associated with the Social Services purpose. The aim is to consolidate the distribution criteria and the extent to which this distribution is aligned with the essential function of the National Government to ensure minimum levels of interregional equity. To do this, we did an analysis of the changes produced in the social programs in the considered period and performed exercises with empirical data to identify the extent to which this distribution is associated with indicators of socioeconomic status of each province. As a result of the analysis we observed that although there is a relationship between allocated funds and objective criteria such as poverty, unemployment or housing deficit of the provinces for the national program distribution, this relationship provides inequities and lack of explicit criteria for distribution. Overall, the predominant criterion is population size. This particularly occurs with Promotion and Social Assistance programs (except those which by law are distributed according to NBI). In the case of Housing and Urban Development, a role that increased significantly during the analysed period, with major housing schemes promoted by the National Government, the housing shortage indicator partly explain the average evolution of the resources distributed by this feature from 2004 - 2007, albeit with significant deviations, both positive and negative for some provinces. For its part, the geographical allocation of the funds of the Job function responds more to the level of poverty and the number of people, than the unemployment rate in each province. In all cases there are important cases of particular provinces benefited or harmed in the distribution, without regard to criteria linked to demographic or socioeconomic status. As a main conclusion, we highlight the relevance that the National Budget should have in the discussion of fiscal federalism. Unlike the Federal Revenue Sharing Scheme, the National Budget is discussed every year, a situation that allows for discussions on the funds distribution on a regular basis. In particular, it stands out the need to discuss the criteria that directly or indirectly with which the resources to the provinces are allocated, especially for programs with greater social impact. In these cases it is necessary to establish explicit and transparent criteria of distribution, linked further un the social situation of the provinces, thus strengthening the role of National Government as a guarantor of minimum standards of interregional equity.Inequidades; ausencia de criterio; reparto; Presupuesto Nacional; distribución; National Budget; distribution; resource allocation; social programs; housing; job; unemployment

Análisis del Gasto Público Social en el Presupuesto Nacional 2010

The National Budget has a key role as an instrument of funds allocation for different social priorities and resources redistribution with localized impact in the provinces. The main objective of Social Public Expenditure (GPS) is to promote the access of most vulnerable social groups to quality basic services. In this mission, the National Government has the essential function of guaranteeing minimum levels of interregional equity between provinces. The present research analyzes the allocated funds to the various social programs, priorities and allocation criteria used to provinces in the National Budget 2010, comparing these figures turn to the 2009 budget implementation. This study is part of a Siena Foundation project made possible by the support of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, Argentina headquarters, which includes the elaboration of Public Social Spending during the parliamentary debate, as well as monitoring their implementation in order to provide relevant and timely information on public finances in Argentina. From the study, it shows the critical importance of Social Public Expenditure in the National Budget, especially as a tool to complement the social services that provide the provinces to their inhabitants and the challenges that are imposed to improve the social conditions of the population. Among the key findings and challenges are the following: 1. 60% of the National Budget goes to Social Public Expenditure. In this way the National Budget becomes a key mechanism for prioritization and reallocation of resources 2. Increases in the GPS 2010 compared to 2009 allow to stakeout that the priorities were assigned to social security, education and science and technology programs. 3. The main distribution criteria for allocated resources among the provinces to social programs are the amount of population. That is, most resources are concentrated in provinces with larger populations. Second, in general, there are certain relationships with more objective distribution criteria, such as poverty rates, unemployment or housing deficit of the provinces. However, these indicators don’t play an important role, and there can be seen inequities in the distribution of the provinces. 4. The Finance Act 2010 has weaknesses in information and geographic distribution of social programs. In summary, the work highlights the critical importance of Social Public Expenditure in the National Budget, especially social security spending, which becomes more relevant with the new Universal Child Allocation for Social Protection program, as well as programs for education, health and advocacy and social assistance, among others, which together amount to 60% of National Budget. As a result, emerges the need to pay special attention to the priorities that are assigned each year to social spending and how it is distributed among the provinces, to thereby promote greater equity in the distribution of resources among the provinces. Therefore, it is a priority; discussing the criteria of direct or indirect resources allocation to the provinces, especially for programs with greater social impact. In these cases should be given greater weight to objective criteria related more to the social situation of the provinces, together with the amount of population, thus strengthening the role of national government as a guarantor of minimum standards in terms of interregional equity

Inequidades y Ausencia de Criterios Explícitos de Reparto: La distribución del Presupuesto Nacional a las provincias en el periodo post crisis (2004-2007)

As part of a broader discussion of fiscal federalism in Argentina, this research analyzes the role of the National Budget as an instrument of resource allocation that has an impact located in the provinces. To do this, we consider the evolution between 2004 and 2007 transfers and budget programs from national level that have a geographic impact, which represented an average of 75% of the National Budget primary spending. At first we develop a classification of the National Budget programs according to their impact at the subnational level. It is found that 25% goes to functions such as Defense, Diplomatic Services or Justice, whose impact is not likely to be geographically distributed. Another 7% consists of direct transfers to the provinces, usually established by different laws. Meanwhile, the remaining 68% of the National Budget is allocated to various programs implemented from the national level, but whose benefits are geographically limited. Goods and services financed in this way, although for many provinces account for an amount greater than what they receive from the Federal Revenue Sharing Scheme, are often left out of the analysis of fiscal federalism. In a second instance, we conduct a detailed analysis of national programs with a subnational level impacts associated with the Social Services purpose. The aim is to consolidate the distribution criteria and the extent to which this distribution is aligned with the essential function of the National Government to ensure minimum levels of interregional equity. To do this, we did an analysis of the changes produced in the social programs in the considered period and performed exercises with empirical data to identify the extent to which this distribution is associated with indicators of socioeconomic status of each province. As a result of the analysis we observed that although there is a relationship between allocated funds and objective criteria such as poverty, unemployment or housing deficit of the provinces for the national program distribution, this relationship provides inequities and lack of explicit criteria for distribution. Overall, the predominant criterion is population size. This particularly occurs with Promotion and Social Assistance programs (except those which by law are distributed according to NBI). In the case of Housing and Urban Development, a role that increased significantly during the analysed period, with major housing schemes promoted by the National Government, the housing shortage indicator partly explain the average evolution of the resources distributed by this feature from 2004 - 2007, albeit with significant deviations, both positive and negative for some provinces. For its part, the geographical allocation of the funds of the Job function responds more to the level of poverty and the number of people, than the unemployment rate in each province. In all cases there are important cases of particular provinces benefited or harmed in the distribution, without regard to criteria linked to demographic or socioeconomic status. As a main conclusion, we highlight the relevance that the National Budget should have in the discussion of fiscal federalism. Unlike the Federal Revenue Sharing Scheme, the National Budget is discussed every year, a situation that allows for discussions on the funds distribution on a regular basis. In particular, it stands out the need to discuss the criteria that directly or indirectly with which the resources to the provinces are allocated, especially for programs with greater social impact. In these cases it is necessary to establish explicit and transparent criteria of distribution, linked further un the social situation of the provinces, thus strengthening the role of National Government as a guarantor of minimum standards of interregional equity

Inequidades y Ausencia de Criterios Explícitos de Reparto: La distribución del Presupuesto Nacional a las provincias en el periodo post crisis (2004-2007)

As part of a broader discussion of fiscal federalism in Argentina, this research analyzes the role of the National Budget as an instrument of resource allocation that has an impact located in the provinces. To do this, we consider the evolution between 2004 and 2007 transfers and budget programs from national level that have a geographic impact, which represented an average of 75% of the National Budget primary spending. At first we develop a classification of the National Budget programs according to their impact at the subnational level. It is found that 25% goes to functions such as Defense, Diplomatic Services or Justice, whose impact is not likely to be geographically distributed. Another 7% consists of direct transfers to the provinces, usually established by different laws. Meanwhile, the remaining 68% of the National Budget is allocated to various programs implemented from the national level, but whose benefits are geographically limited. Goods and services financed in this way, although for many provinces account for an amount greater than what they receive from the Federal Revenue Sharing Scheme, are often left out of the analysis of fiscal federalism. In a second instance, we conduct a detailed analysis of national programs with a subnational level impacts associated with the Social Services purpose. The aim is to consolidate the distribution criteria and the extent to which this distribution is aligned with the essential function of the National Government to ensure minimum levels of interregional equity. To do this, we did an analysis of the changes produced in the social programs in the considered period and performed exercises with empirical data to identify the extent to which this distribution is associated with indicators of socioeconomic status of each province. As a result of the analysis we observed that although there is a relationship between allocated funds and objective criteria such as poverty, unemployment or housing deficit of the provinces for the national program distribution, this relationship provides inequities and lack of explicit criteria for distribution. Overall, the predominant criterion is population size. This particularly occurs with Promotion and Social Assistance programs (except those which by law are distributed according to NBI). In the case of Housing and Urban Development, a role that increased significantly during the analysed period, with major housing schemes promoted by the National Government, the housing shortage indicator partly explain the average evolution of the resources distributed by this feature from 2004 - 2007, albeit with significant deviations, both positive and negative for some provinces. For its part, the geographical allocation of the funds of the Job function responds more to the level of poverty and the number of people, than the unemployment rate in each province. In all cases there are important cases of particular provinces benefited or harmed in the distribution, without regard to criteria linked to demographic or socioeconomic status. As a main conclusion, we highlight the relevance that the National Budget should have in the discussion of fiscal federalism. Unlike the Federal Revenue Sharing Scheme, the National Budget is discussed every year, a situation that allows for discussions on the funds distribution on a regular basis. In particular, it stands out the need to discuss the criteria that directly or indirectly with which the resources to the provinces are allocated, especially for programs with greater social impact. In these cases it is necessary to establish explicit and transparent criteria of distribution, linked further un the social situation of the provinces, thus strengthening the role of National Government as a guarantor of minimum standards of interregional equity

El deterioro de la integralidad del presupuesto nacional : la creación de fondos fiduciarios

Fil: Cogliandro, Ana Gisell. Universidad de San Andrés. Departamento de Ciencias Sociales; Argentina."La existencia de los Fondos Fiduciarios y organismos que no consolidan o se encuentran fuera del Presupuesto Nacional limitan y reducen el nivel de integralidad del mismo. La importancia de la integralidad del presupuesto reside en que permite dimensionar el verdadero impacto del sector público sobre la economía nacional. Asimismo, el cumplimiento de esta regla permite limitar la discrecionalidad de los actores involucrados en el proceso presupuestario (Poder Ejecutivo Nacional y Poder Legislativo Nacional) y contribuir a una mayor transparencia del Presupuesto Nacional. En Argentina, los Fondos Fiduciarios tuvieron un crecimiento exponencial, el primero se crea en el año 1995, mientras que en el año 2007 alcanzaron a 16. Al mismo tiempo, que su gasto creció un 6.900% aproximadamente entre el 2001 y el 2007, pasando de $96,9 millones a$6.850 millones, deteriorando la integralidad del Presupuesto Nacional. En efecto, en el año 2001, los Fondos Fiduciarios representaban el 0,2% ($96 millones) del Presupuesto Nacional ($47.904 millones), mientras que en el 2007 representaban el 5% ($6.850 millones). El objetivo del trabajo de investigación es estudiar las causas, mecanismos e incentivos del Poder Ejecutivo Nacional (PEN) y del Poder Legislativo Nacional (PLN) para la creación de los fondos fiduciarios vinculándolo con las características particulares del proceso presupuestario. El proyecto parte de la hipótesis que la pérdida de integralidad del Presupuesto Nacional a través de la creación de los Fondos Fiduciarios por parte del PEN, responde, por un lado, a la búsqueda de mecanismos alternativos de financiamiento por fuera del Presupuesto Nacional. Por otro lado, busca asegurar la disponibilidad de los recursos más allá del año fiscal y contar con mayor autonomía en el manejo de los mismos, de la que tienen los organismos que se encuentran dentro del Presupuesto Nacional. Esta situación fue posible, por un lado, por la existencia de un sistema presupuestario dual. Por otro lado, por la existencia de un sistema presupuestario jerárquico, el cual se caracteriza por una concentración de poderes en el PEN y de un Congreso débil que no controla y no limita la discrecionalidad del PEN y que influye sobre el presupuesto fuera del proceso presupuestario formal."Braun, Migue