Geometric Intersection Number and analogues of the Curve Complex for free groups

For the free group $F_{N}$ of finite rank $N \geq 2$ we construct a canonical Bonahon-type continuous and $Out(F_N)$-invariant \emph{geometric intersection form} $$: \bar{cv}(F_N)\times Curr(F_N)\to \mathbb R_{\ge 0}.$$ Here $\bar{cv}(F_N)$ is the closure of unprojectivized Culler-Vogtmann's Outer space $cv(F_N)$ in the equivariant Gromov-Hausdorff convergence topology (or, equivalently, in the length function topology). It is known that $\bar{cv}(F_N)$ consists of all \emph{very small} minimal isometric actions of $F_N$ on $\mathbb R$-trees. The projectivization of $\bar{cv}(F_N)$ provides a free group analogue of Thurston's compactification of the Teichm\"uller space. As an application, using the \emph{intersection graph} determined by the intersection form, we show that several natural analogues of the curve complex in the free group context have infinite diameter.Comment: Revised version, to appear in Geometry & Topolog

Commitment to Equity Assessment (CEQ) A Diagnostic Framework to Assess Governments' Fiscal Policies Handbook

Fiscal policy can change poverty and inequality substantially or little depending on the government's redistributive effort. We develop a diagnostic framework to assess how aligned fiscal policies are with supporting a minimum living standard and human capital accumulation, as well as reducing inequality. The Commitment to Equity Assessment (CEQ) evaluates efforts based on whether governments: i. collect and allocate enough resources to support a minimum living standard for all; ii. collect and distribute resources equitably; iii. ensure spending is fiscally sustainable and that programs are of good quality and incentive compatible; iv. collect and publish relevant information as well as are subject to independent evaluations. The CEQ relies on inequality, poverty and tax and benefit incidence analyses.poverty, inequality, fiscal incidence, social policy, Latin America

Commitment to Equity Assessment (CEQ). A diagnostic framework to assess governments’ fiscal policies. Handbook

Fiscal policy can change poverty and inequality substantially or slightly depending on the government’s redistributive effort. We develop a diagnostic framework to assess how aligned fiscal policies are with supporting a minimum living standard and human capital accumulation, as well as with reducing inequality. The Commitment to Equity Assessment (CEQ) evaluates efforts based on whether governments: i. collect and allocate enough resources to support a minimum living standard for all; ii. collect and distribute resources equitably; iii. ensure that spending is fiscally sustainable and that programs are of good quality and incentive compatible; iv. collect and publish relevant information, as well as are subject to independent evaluations. CEQ relies on inequality, poverty and tax and benefit incidence analyses.poverty, inequality, fiscal incidence, social policy, Latin America.

Fiscal policy and income redistribution in Latin America: Challenging the conventional wisdom

Conventional wisdom states that fiscal policy redistributes little in Latin America. Lower tax revenues and – above all – lower and less progressive transfers have been identified as the main cause. Existing studies show that, while in Europe the distribution of all transfers combined (cash and in-kind) is egalitarian, the bulk of transfers in Latin America accrue to the upper quintile. Through an in-depth fiscal incidence analysis applied to Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Mexico and Peru we argue that conventional wisdom may be wrong. First, the extent and effectiveness of income redistribution and poverty reduction, revenue-collection, and spending patterns vary so significantly across countries that speaking of ?Latin America? as a unity is misleading. The (after direct taxes and transfers) Gini, for example, declines by over 10 percent in Argentina but by only 2.4 percent in Bolivia. In Argentina, Brazil and Bolivia government revenues are close to 40 percent of GDP, whereas in Mexico and Peru they are around 20 percent. Social spending (excluding contributory pensions) as a share of GDP ranges from 17 percent in Brazil to 5.2 percent in Peru. Second, social spending does not accrue to the richest quintile. On the contrary, concentration coefficients for social spending are highly negative (progressive in absolute terms) for Argentina and slightly so for Bolivia and Mexico. In Brazil and Peru social spending is progressive in relative terms only. Third, there is no obvious correlation between the size of government and the size of social spending, on the one hand, and the extent and effectiveness of redistribution, on the other: government size is similar for Argentina and Bolivia but they are on opposite sides in terms of the extent of redistribution. Fourth, due to indirect taxes households are net payers to the ?fisc? beginning in the third decile in Bolivia and Brazil; for Argentina, Mexico and Peru this happens in the fifth decile. Fifth, corrective measures differ too: in Argentina, Bolivia and Brazil they may involve the reduction in revenues and total spending, while revenues and social spending (especially direct transfers to the poor) should be increased in Mexico and Peru. Bolivia and Brazil need to introduce changes to their tax and transfer system so that net payers to the ?fisc? start at higher incomes. All five countries need to improve the progressivity of their spending, including non-social spending components.fiscal incidence, fiscal policy, inequality, poverty, redistribution, social policy, taxes, transfers; Latin America, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Mexico and Peru

Multidimensional indices of achievements and poverty: What do we gain and what do we lose?

Poverty and wellbeing are multi-dimensional. Nobody questions that deprivations and achievements go beyond income. There is, however, sharp disagreement on whether the various dimensions of poverty and wellbeing can be aggregated into a single, multi-dimensional index in a meaningful way. Is aggregating dimensions of poverty and wellbeing useful? Is it sensible? Here I summarize and contrast three key papers that respond these questions in strikingly different ways. The papers are: The HDI 2010: New Controversies, Old Critiques by Jeni Klugman, Francisco Rodríguez and Hyung-Jin Choi; Understandings and Misunderstandings of Multidimensional Poverty Measurement by Sabina Alkire and James Foster; and, On Multidimensional Indices of Poverty by Martin Ravallion.poverty measurement, multidimensional poverty, deprivation, axioms, Human Development Index, capabilities, substitutability, trade-offs, welfare, country classifications

Scholars Who Became Practitioners: the Influence of Research on the Design, Evaluation and Political Survival of Mexico's Anti-poverty Program Progresa/Oportunidades

Celebrated by academics, multilateral organizations, policy-makers and the media, Mexico's Progresa/Oportunidades conditional cash transfers program (CCT) is constantly used as a model of a successful anti-poverty program. Here I argue that the transformation of well-trained scholars into influential practitioners played a fundamental role in promoting a new conceptual approach to poverty reduction, ensuring the technical soundness and effectiveness of the program, incorporating rigorous impact evaluation, and persuading politicians to implement and keep the program in place. The involvement of scholars-practitioners also helped disseminate the new CCT "technology" to many countries around the world within a decade.anti-poverty programs, conditional cash transfers, scholars, practitioners, Progresa, Oportunidades, Mexico