Argentina: Impacts of the child allowance programme on the labour-market behaviour of adults

Abstract

In 2009 Argentina implemented the Universal Child Allowance for Social Protection (auh), a cash transfer programme for households with children. Coverage provided by the contributory family allowance programme was extended to parents who are unemployed or who work in the informal sector (domestic workers, for example). This paper uses the difference-in-difference estimator and propensity score matching techniques to evaluate the short-term effects of the auh on adult labour participation and income generation.The results suggest that, during its first year of operation, no significant disincentives to work were generated by the programme, given that it did not discourage adults from working or lead to a reduction in the number of hours worked. These findings are highly relevant in the Latin American context where these kinds of cash transfers have become an important component of social protection systems.

Cash transfers and female labor force participation: the case of AUH in Argentina

“…Some previous studies show that the program generated relevant labor disincentives (Boffi 2013;Garganta and Gasparini 2015;Castillo et al 2013) while others fail to find significant changes in adults' labor supply (Maurizio and Vazquez 2014;Kliksberg and Novacovsky 2015). For instance, Maurizio and Vazquez (2014) find a slightly significant but not robust increase in the unemployment rate of beneficiary women. These authors, however, use a different identification strategy and analyze the evidence over a shorter period of time (2009)(2010) than our study.…”

“…The existing literature finds that the AUH had a significant impact on the reduction of poverty and income inequality (Gasparini and Cruces 2010;Agis et al 2010), discouraged labor market formalization (Garganta and Gasparini 2015), and increased school attendance (Edo et al 2015). Although there are also some few estimations of the effect of the AUH on adult's labor supply, no conclusive evidence was found in this regard (Boffi 2013;Castillo et al 2013;Maurizio and Vazquez 2014;Kliksberg and Novacovsky 2015) and there are still no studies assessing the impact of this program on labor participation with a main focus on the potential gender bias that CCTs could actually incite.…”

The dynamics of parental labour precarity by the parts of the labour process

“…Введение денежного пособия на ребенка в возрасте до 16 лет -денежной выплаты семьям, которые в состоянии подтвердить, что должным образом заботятся о ребенке (основанием для выплаты могут служить данные о школьной аттестации и периодической медицинской диспансеризации ребенка), -будет компенсировать потребительские затраты родителей на поддержание здоровья, обучение и организацию досуга детей, а значит, будет способствовать снижению прекаризации организационно-технической и экономической сторон родительского труда. Подобное универсальное пособие, денежные выплаты для семей с детьми, введено, например, в Аргентине [9]. В ЮАР детские пособия выплачиваются тому, кто заботится о ребенке [10].…”

Modelos colectivos de consumo y distribución intra-hogar

“…Datos más actuales obtenidos con la Encuesta de Protección y Seguridad Social (ENAPROSS) indican que el 18 % de la población elegible para obtener el beneficio no lo tiene (Preeters y Chudnovsky, 2019). Distintos estudios han analizado las posibles causas asociadas a la presencia de niños no alcanzados por el programa y han documentado factores relacionados con la no participación en el programa (Pautassi et al, 2013;Maurizio y Vázquez, 2014;Cetrángolo et al, 2017;Preeters y Chudnovsky, 2019). Por ejemplo, padres o hijos sin cédula nacional válida, retrasos en la inscripción del recién nacido en el programa por parte de hogares con un primer hijo, problemas familiares, auto-exclusión por dificultades para acceder a trámites administrativos o falta de requisitos asociados a las condicionalidades impuestas por el programa.…”