Program Design
79
Combining multiple targeting methods is a common practice in countries with public works programs. Only 24 percent of the programs reported using only a single method of targeting—the most popular being community-based poverty ranking—while 76 percent reported a combination of two or more methods. In the sample of 42 programs, 83 percent used community-based poverty ranking as a targeting method, either alone or in combination with another method. Geographic targeting ranks as the second most popular method, used by 60 percent of the programs. Not surprisingly, the combination of these two was the most used in the countries surveyed. As mentioned earlier, only one country reported having used proxy means testing (in combination with administrative and community-based methods), making it the least used method.
Determining Benefit Levels The determination of benefit levels using the wage rate not only has an important impact on targeting outcomes, but also on the efficiency of the program and on the welfare of the beneficiaries. As discussed above, the wage rate selected can allow the self-selection of the poor into the program while discouraging the nonpoor from participation. Also, it can significantly influence the overall cost of the program, with consequential implications for its efficiency as a safety net. But first and foremost, the wage rate determines the benefits accruing to program participants, for a given number of days of work. Because the wage rate determines the benefit level, sometimes it is set in relation to the particular needs of the beneficiaries as specified by the program goals. In those cases, when one of the objectives of the program is to alleviate food insecurity and increase food consumption the remuneration may be also be in-kind (e.g., a food transfer). This has been done in Bangladesh for many years in its Food for Work program and in Ethiopia’s PSNP, for example. A sample of 44 public works programs implemented in 38 countries shows that cash is the most common payment modality, used in 79 percent of the programs, while food payments were used in only 7 percent. Some programs paid a combination of cash and food (14 percent; see appendix A). The same data show that about 37 percent of the programs pay wages biweekly or every 15 days; 30 percent pay them monthly. Daily and weekly frequencies of payments were less favored, in 11 percent and 22 percent of programs, respectively. In-kind transfers are generally more expensive to manage than cash