Population, territory and sustainable development

64
combine a number of factors of which agriculture is one, but operating as an element that brings effective
traction to poverty reduction efforts. This operates alongside the development of other economic and
social activities that support self-employment (tourism, crafts, and so forth), as well as migration,
remittances, rural employment (agricultural and non-agricultural) and social transfers which also generate
a poverty-reduction impact. Box IV.7 looks at a number of conditional cash transfer (CCT) programmes,
which countries have implemented as part of their efforts to reduce rural poverty.
Box IV.7
CONDITIONAL CASH TRANSFER PROGRAMMES AND RURAL POVERTY
Conditional (or co-responsibility) cash transfers (CCTs) have become established in the region as a particularly effective
policy instrument for combatting poverty. According to the database on non-contributory social protection programmes in
Latin America and the Caribbean maintained by ECLAC, 18 of the region’s countries now operate CCTs, benefiting over
25 million families (around 113 million people), which represents 19% of the population of Latin America and the
Caribbean. Some of the better known among these schemes are Ecuador’s Human Development Grant, the CCT with the
largest percentage of population covered (44%), while Brazil’s Bolsa Família, Mexico’s Oportunidades and Colombia’s
Families in Action have the largest numbers of beneficiaries in absolute terms. CCTs consist of monetary and nonmonetary
resources which are provided to poor or extremely poor families with minor children, upon certain conditions
which families must meet. These conditions have to do with human-capacity-building and are an important step in
bringing poor and indigent families with children into contact with broader and more integrated social protection systems.
CCTs are aimed at the poor and so by definition should cover both the urban and the rural poor, although certain
programmes target particular vulnerable groups: indigenous peoples (Argentina, Colombia), displaced populations
(Colombia) and the rural population (in its early years Oportunidades in Mexico targeted the rural population, as does Peru’s
Juntos scheme now). There is very little information on CCTs in the rural population and it is not easy to isolate their impacts
on rural poverty as compared to total poverty. Very few studies envisage analysis of CCT impacts on rural populations.
Nevertheless, there are data on some CCTs. One of these in the Human Development Grant in Ecuador, which
provides immediate benefits for the low-income population and is aimed at vulnerable groups (mothers, disabled persons and
older persons). When it started, targeting errors occurred with this programme and it developed a markedly urban bias, since the
first targeting system and means of entry and exit hindered access by the rural population, particularly the inhabitants of
Amazonia. In Colombia, the Families in Action programme offers conditional transfers to poor families in municipalities with
under 100,000 inhabitants, treating the population of these districts as essentially rural even though they have municipal seats. An
assessment of the programme’s impact conducted between 2002 and 2006 showed differentiated impacts by area of residence
and found that in rural areas the scheme was meeting most of its objectives. In view of this evaluation and of the fact that in 2010
Families in Action covered over 2 million families in a country whose rural population stands at 21%, over half of it poor, it may
be supposed that the programme is well targeted and largely reaches the rural poor. In Mexico, meanwhile, Oportunidades
(formerly Progresa) targeted rural areas until 2002, covering 60% of the extremely poor according to the household survey
conducted that year. The scheme later changed name and its targeting shifted to both urban and rural areas.
There is no full picture with respect to the impact of CCTs in rural areas, specifically in relation to rural poverty,
since programme assessments do not always distinguish area of residence. As noted earlier, some schemes are directed
exclusively at the rural poor or specific groups which tend to inhabit rural areas, such as Progresa in its early years. In this
light, the findings of studies on CCTs show a tendency towards better results in rural than in urban areas, as regards income,
poverty and demand for education services. This has much to do with the rural population’s much lower participation in
education systems before entering programmes, which makes a relatively better performance more easily achieved. In terms
of health no evidence is available to differentiate the urban from the rural population; all that may be concluded is that in both
areas the results are less striking than in education. This may be because the education-related conditionalities are met day to
day, whereas changes in relation to user health are more difficult to ascertain, since users come to health centres sporadically,
rather than establishing routines of compliance.
In sum, information on CCT coverage in the rural population is short, it is difficult to isolate their effects on rural
poverty as opposed to total poverty, and few studies analyse the impacts of CCTs in rural populations except in cases where the
target population is exclusively rural. Nonetheless, results tend to be better in rural than in urban areas, both in terms of income
and poverty, and in terms of demand for education. This is probably because the starting level for school attendance is much
lower in rural than in urban areas, giving greater scope for better performance.
Source: S. Cecchini and A. Madariaga, “Conditional cash transfer programmes. The recent experience in Latin America and the
Caribbean”, Cuadernos de la CEPAL, No. 95 (LC/G.2497-P), Santiago, Chile, Economic Commission for Latin America and the
Caribbean (ECLAC), 2011.United Nations publication, Sales No. E.11.II.G.55 and M. Rangel, “Pobreza rural y los programas de
transferencias condicionadas en América Latina y el Caribe”, Documento de trabajo, No. 3, Proyecto conocimiento y cambio en
pobreza rural y desarrollo, Santiago, Chile, Latin American Center for Rural Development (RIMISP), 2011.