Social Gains Show Signs of Stagnation in Latin America  Poverty reduction in the Latin American (LA) region came to a halt in 2015, as the region’s economy contracted, and middle class growth stagnated.  Poverty rates were effectively unchanged in 7 out of 13 countries as most countries faced an economic slowdown, and thus convergence towards low poverty reduction continued.  Income growth of the bottom 40 percent of the LAC income distribution turned negative in 2015, but the income drop among the richest 10 percent was even larger, driving an overall decrease in inequality.  Preliminary data suggests poverty outcomes are likely to continue to deteriorate into 2016. Poverty reduction in the Latin American (LA) vulnerable category than those moving from the vulnerable into the middle class. However, in 2015, region came to a halt in 2015, as the region’s the net increase is due to a shift in composition from economy contracted. The protracted economic mainly former-poor households to former-middle- slowdown since 2012 turned into a contraction of 1.4 class households. percent in regional GDP in 2015 and led to a halt in poverty reduction. Although poverty in the LA region Figure 1: Reversal of social gains in 2015? Halt to had continued to decrease through 2014 even amid poverty reduction and middle class growth the economic slowdown, the most recent data suggests that poverty rates in 2015 have stagnated. Neither 50 overall poverty nor extreme poverty registered a 45 significant change. Overall poverty marginally 40 increased from 23.3 to 23.6 percent between 2014 35 and 2015, while extreme poverty increased by 0.2 30 percentage points (10.8 to 11 percent) (see Figure 25 1).i The halt in poverty reduction has put in jeopardy 20 the social gains of the previous decade. 15 10 Similarly, in 2015 the middle class stagnated. The 5 middle class had been on pace to become for the first 0 time the largest population group in LA, but it has 2000 2005 2010 2015 been negatively impacted by the economic slowdown Poverty 2.5USD PPP Poverty 4 USD PPP Vulnerable $4-10 USD PPP Middle class $10-50 USD PPP and the 2015 economic contraction. As with poverty, the growth of the middle class has stagnated, Source: LAC Equity Lab tabulations using SEDLAC data (CEDLAS registering a marginal decrease from 35 percent of and the World Bank) the population in 2014 to 34.5 percent in 2015. The vulnerable population, those households who are not Poverty rates were effectively unchanged in 7 out in poverty nor in the middle class, is increasing since of 13 countries as most countries faced an 2012 and continues to be the largest share of the LA economic slowdown. Although GDP per capita population (39.4 percent in 2015). In previous years, contracted only in Brazil and Ecuador, GDP growth the net increase in the vulnerable share was due to was slow for most other countries. At the household more households moving out of poverty into the level, income movements varied across the 13 1 MAY 26, 2017 countries for which there is microdata in 2015. Per of 13 countries for which there is microdata in 2015, capita household income decreased for 5 of the 13 seven experienced poverty changes that were not countries, increased strongly for Panama and the statistically significant, with only Brazil showing a Dominican Republic, and experienced minor to statistically significant increase in moderate povertyii moderate increases for the remaining six. The (Figure 2). The poverty reduction achieved by the resulting impacts on poverty then depended on how remaining countries was not substantial, with the this income growth was distributed within the country, exception of Panama (-1.9), El Salvador (-3.0), and and what happened to prices faced by the poor. Out the Dominican Republic (-3.6) (see Annex 3). Figure 2. Moderate and Extreme Poverty change from 2014 to 2015 6% 6% 4% 4% 2% 2% 0% 0% bra pry bol ecu hnd chi ury cri col per pan slv dom bra ecu hnd chi cri ury per pry bol col pan dom slv -2% -2% -4% -4% -6% -6% Change in Moderate poverty Lower interval Higher Interval Change in Extreme poverty Lower interval Higher Interval Source: SEDLAC (CEDLAS and the World Bank) Across countries, convergence towards low 3). The range of the poverty changes were smaller in poverty reduction continued. Unlike previous years, 2015 than in any other year, and were clustered near poverty movements (up or down) were small between zero. In addition, Brazil in 2015 shows for the first 2014 and 2015 for the bulk of LA countries (Figure time the highest poverty increase in the region. Figure 3: Convergence towards low poverty reduction continues in 2015 12.0 Change in moderate poverty - 9.0 percentage points 6.0 3.0 0.0 -3.0 -6.0 -9.0 -12.0 2004 2001 2002 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Year ARG BOL BRA CHL* COL CRI DOM ECU GTM HND HTI MEX* NIC PAN PER PRY SLV URY Source: LAC Equity Lab with tabulations using SEDLAC data (CEDLAS and the World Bank) 2 MAY 26, 2017 BOX 1. Brazil’s Economic Crisis and Poverty Brazil experienced a decade of success in reducing poverty and inequality, based on a policy of social inclusion, amidst a booming economy and favorable external conditions. As the largest country in the Latin America and Caribbean region, its success has helped drive down the region’s poverty rate. However, the 2015-2016 economic crisis in the country is posing a threat to the sustainability of these welfare gains. Brazil’s ec onomy underwent a deep recession in 2015, with Gross Domestic Product decreasing by 3.8 percent in 2015 and 3.6 percent in 2016. Almost 1.6 million formal sector jobs were lost in 2015 and average monthly real wages fell 4.2 percent. From 2014 to 2015, Brazil’s moderate poverty increased from 18.1 to 20.1 percent (under the US$4-a-day poverty line in 2005 PPP) and extreme poverty increased from 7.8 to 9.2 percent (US$2.5-a-day poverty line). Without Brazil, poverty in the LAC region would have decreased slightly in 2015. Brazil’s current economic crisis is behind the LAC region’s increase in poverty and decrease in the middle class. With almost 38 percent of the LAC population and 43 percent of its total household income in 2015, Brazil tells the overall story of poverty in LAC. If Brazil were excluded from the regional aggregate, moderate poverty in LAC would have decreased from 26.5 to 25.7 percent (see Figure 4), while extreme poverty would have decreased from 12.6 to 12.1 percent. Similarly, the region’s slight reduction in the middle class is mainly explained by the substantial drop of the middle class in Brazil (-2.2 pp) from 2014 to 2015. If Brazil were excluded from the regional aggregate, the vulnerable and middle class populations would have increased slightly. Figure 4. Poverty and Middle Class with and without Brazil Moderate Poverty $4USD PPP Middle class $10-50USD PPP 45 45 LAC 40 Brazil 35 35 Rate(%) Rate (%) LAC without Brazil* 30 25 25 20 15 15 2000 2005 2010 2015 2000 2005 2010 2015 Year Year Source: SEDLAC (CEDLAS and the World Bank) Recent technical work has focused on analyzing how Brazil’s current economic downturn could affect poverty and shared prosperity (see: “Safeguarding Against a Reversal in Social Gains During the Economic Crisis in Brazil”). The note summarizes the poverty and distributional impacts for 2016 and 2017 under two different scenarios for GDP, employment, and unemployment. It is based on the recently released 2015 Pesquisa Nacional de Amostra de Domicilios (PNAD), Brazil’s National Household Sample Survey, collected in October 2015. The microsimulation analysis suggests that poverty rates will rise in 2016 and remain high in 2017. The authors found that the crisis has likely primarily impoverished skilled, white, slightly younger people that live in urban areas, mainly in the southeast, and previously working in the service sector. Given the importance of Brazil in the LAC region, it is likely that regional poverty estimates for 2016 and 2017 will also show a further decline in welfare. The Brazil analysis also estimates that a 4.7 to 6.9 percent increase (depending on the alternative scenario considered) in the budget from 2015 to 2017 would be needed to target the most needy among the “new poor” households and prevent the extreme poverty rate from increasing beyond the 2015 rate. The analysis suggests that “the depth and duration of the current economic crisis… gives rise to the opportunity to expand the role of Bolsa Familia from an effective redistribution program to a true safety net program that is sufficiently flexible to expand its coverage to the `new poor’ households generated by the crisis.” Note: The technical note “Safeguarding Against a Reversal in Social Gains During the Economic Crisis in Brazil” was prepared by Emmanuel 3 and Equity Global Practice, December 2016. Skoufias, Shohei Nakamura, and Renata Gukovas from the LAC Poverty MAY 26, 2017 Income growth of the bottom 40 percent of the LA Although the negative income growth between income distribution turned negative in 2015, but 2014 and 2015 was driven by developments in the income drop among the richest 10 percent was Brazil, the rest of the region experienced on even larger. The share of the bottom 40 percent in average lower income growth than during the total LA income increased from 11.6 to 11.8 percent, 2012-2014 period. Taking the region as a whole all while the top 10 share decreased from 39.9 to 39.4 deciles experienced negative income growth (see left percent between 2014 and 2015. This means that, in panel in Figure 6). However, when Brazil is taken out 2015, the richest 10 percent of the population had of the LA aggregate, income of the bottom 9 deciles 3.3 times the total income of the poorest 40 percent, shows growth between 1.3 and 2.2 percent, with as compared to 3.4 times in 2014. A loss of income in positive impacts from both labor and non-labor the higher deciles has a comparatively higher income (Figure 6b). Only the richest 10 percent of the distributive effect when inequality is very high, and distribution experienced negative growth, as its thus this has impacted more strongly regional income decreased by 0.4 percent in the period. inequality. Over time, it can be seen that when the Nevertheless, the increase in incomes without Brazil is growth of the bottom forty is about two times higher less than the income growth experienced by the than the growth of the top ten or the growth of the region during the 2012-2014 period, highlighting latter is negative, inequality in the region decreases how the slowdown is impacting countries across LA (e.g., 2006-2009, 2015). In contrast, when both (Figure 6b). In addition, income growth for LA overall bottom forty and top ten grow at relatively the same was particularly adverse for the top and bottom ten rate, inequality remains stagnant. percent of the income distribution. The top 10 percent of households saw their incomes decrease by 3.8 percent between 2014 and 2015, while the bottom 10 percent saw income reductions of 2.3 percent. The strong contraction in the top income decile led Figure 5 Growth in Per Capita Household Income (year to year) by Decile and Gini to a larger reduction in inequality in LA between 2014 and 2015 than in the previous three years 0.54 12 combined. After four years of inequality stagnation, 10 0.53 the Gini coefficient decreased from 0.511 to 0.505 between 2014 and 2015, larger than the 0.004 8 0.52 point drop between 2011 and 2014 (Figure 5). The Income Growth (%) Gini Coefficient 6 0.51 reduction of inequality in 2015 was not driven by a 4 0.50 redistribution of income from the richest to the 2 poorest, but by a general contraction of income along 0.49 the distribution that affected more severely the richest 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 0.48 10 percent. Seven countries—out of 13—decreased -2 income inequality from 2014 to 2015, with Colombia, -4 0.47 Paraguay, and Brazil showing the strongest drops. If Bottom 40 Top 10 Gini these three countries were excluded from the aggregate, inequality in LA would have remained Source: SEDLAC and own calculations unchanged. 4 MAY 26, 2017 Figure 6 Growth Incidence curve (2014-2015) of the region, with and without Brazil 2.5 a) LAC (including Brazil) b) LAC (without Brazil) 5.5 1.5 0.5 Growth (%) -0.5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.5 -1.5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 -2.5 Non-labor Income LAC w/o BR -3.5 Labor Income LAC w/o BR -4.5 PCHI LAC w/o BR -4.5 LAC 2012-2014 Source: SEDLAC and own calculations Changes in the distribution of income contributed positively to the decline in poverty in the region, while income growth had a negative, and larger, Figure 7. Growth-redistribution decomposition of impact. Per capita household income (PCHI) growth poverty changes was negative in the region as a whole (-2.4 percent). Moderate and extreme Poverty (2015-2014) A growth-distribution decomposition of poverty Growth and distribution decomposition- Datt Ravallion changes from 2014 to 2015 shows that the contraction in mean income was the more important 1.2 0.87 factor in the poverty increase, but it was partly offset 0.9 by the beneficial impact from the change in its 0.6 0.4 Percent points distribution (Figure 7). The poverty increase in the 0.25 0.2 0.3 region in 2015 would have been 3.5 times more 0.0 severe if only the contraction in mean income had -0.3 -0.2 occurred. -0.6 -0.62 -0.9 Drilling down on the income component, both labor Poverty 4 USD_PPP Poverty 2.5USD_PPP and non-labor income equally drove the poverty decrease for the region without Brazil. A Shapley Growth Distribution Total change decomposition by sources of income shows the Source: Own calculations using SEDLAC outweighing effect of Brazil’s labor and non-labor income in the change of poverty. The labor income declines in Brazil outstripped the small but positive effect on poverty of the aggregate labor income in the rest of the region from 2014 to 2015. If Brazil were taken out from the regional estimates, the story would have changed substantially, for both labor and non-labor income contributed in similar amounts to reduce poverty in 2015 (Figure 8). 5 MAY 26, 2017 Figure 8. Shapley decomposition of poverty changes by sources of income LAC LAC without Brazil 2012-2014 2014-2015 2012-2014 2014-2015 0.50 0.50 Change in poverty rate Non-labor income Change in poverty rate 0.00 0.00 Non-labor income -0.50 -0.50 Labor income -1.00 -1.00 Labor income -1.50 -1.50 Source: Own calculations using SEDLAC In the labor market unemployment increases were to the LA region in terms of population and in terms larger among poorer households. Unemployment in of the number of poor, it is likely that regional the region increased from 5.6 percent in 2014 to 7.9 poverty will increase in 2016. In addition, the Labor percent in 2015.iii However, households in the lower Income Poverty Index (LIPI), which is based on the most deciles received most of the unemployment shock, due recently available quarterly data on labor incomes, to unemployment increases for the less well-off in shows increases in 2016 for five of the six currently Brazil. For instance, the unemployment rate of the first available countries (Figure 10). Given the importance decile increased from 13 to 21 percent between of labor incomes for poverty reduction, the LIPI results 2014 and 2015. In contrast, unemployment in the suggest that poverty in countries other than Brazil tenth decile increased by only 0.5 percent (Figure 9). may also increase in 2016. At the country level, unemployment rates increased from 2014 to 2015 for four out of the six countries that experienced an increase in moderate poverty. Figure 9 Unemployment rate by decile in LA Namely, Brazil (2.7 percentage points), Bolivia (1.1 pp), Ecuador (1.04 pp), and Uruguay (0.9 pp).iv In the Unemployment rate by decile in LAC same vein, countries for which poverty decreased, 25% unemployment decreased as well, in particular in the Dominican Republic (-0.2 pp), El Salvador (-0.2 pp), 20% and Costa Rica (-0.62 pp). Unemployment in Peru 15% remained unchanged (-0.03 pp). Finally, a safety net program in Panama (covering 30 percent of total 10% income for the poorest 40 percent of households), helped offset an increase in the unemployment rate 5% and resulted in a 1.8 percentage point decrease in poverty. 0% 0 2 4 6 8 10 Preliminary data suggests poverty outcomes are 2014 2015 likely to continue to deteriorate into 2016. A Source: Own Calculations based on SEDLAC microsimulation analysis undertaken for Brazil based on 2016 and projected 2017 macro data suggests that poverty in Brazil will increase in 2016 and stay high in 2017 (see Box 1). Given Brazil’s importance 2 MAY 26, 2017 Figure 10 Preliminary 2016 labor income data suggests poverty will increase 2.60 2.40 Labor Income Poverty Index (LIPI) 2.20 2.00 1.80 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Argentina Brazil (PNADC) Chile Colombia CostaRica Ecuador ElSalvador Guatemala Mexico Peru Uruguay Source: Own Calculations based on LABLAC Boosting economic growth and protecting the education and labor market reforms. The region vulnerable are increasingly important areas to should also focus on ways to protect the poor and avoid a reversal in the social gains of the last those susceptible to falling back into poverty (the decade. The growth agenda, with its impact on labor vulnerable), while maintaining investments in human markets, continues to be critical, as labor income capital. For the region, non-labor income is an continues to be the most important driver of poverty important component in poverty reduction. To reduction. The commodity-fueled growth of the past maintain this while growth is slow will require may need to be replaced by growth based on increasing the focus and the efficiency of programs in sustainable investments, including in universal public the face of trade-offs. 7 MAY 26, 2017 Annex 1. About this Brief This brief was produced by the Latin America and Caribbean Team for Statistical Development (LAC TSD) in the Poverty and Equity Global Practice of the World Bank. The core team consisted of Carolina Diaz-Bonilla, Andrés Castañeda, Jorge Soler, and Christian Gomez. The team worked under the guidance of Oscar Calvo-Gonzalez and received valuable contributions from Laura Moreno, Martha Viveros, Germán Reyes, Natalia Garcia-Peña, María Ignacia Contreras, and María Laura Oliveri. The numbers presented in this brief are based on a regional data harmonization effort known as SEDLAC, a joint effort of the World Bank and CEDLAS at the National University of La Plata in Argentina (see Annex 4 for the list of surveys used in this brief). They increase cross-country comparability of selected findings from official household surveys. For that reason, the numbers discussed here may be different from official statistics reported by governments and national offices of statistics. Such differences should not be interpreted in any way as a claim of methodological superiority, as both sets of numbers serve the same important objectives: regional comparability and the best possible representation of the facts of individual countries. Indicators for LA are calculated using data from Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay (LA-17). MAY 26, 2017 Annex 2. Household surveys used from SEDLAC harmonization Circa Country Name of survey Coverage 2015 Argentina Encuesta Permanente de Hogares- Continua 2014 Urban-31 Cities Bolivia Encuesta Continua de Hogares- MECOVI 2015 National Brazil Pesquisa Nacional por Amostra de Domicilios 2015 National Encuesta de Caracterización Socioeconómica Chile 2015 National Nacional Colombia Gran Encuesta Integrada de Hogares 2015 National Costa Rica Encuesta Nacional de Hogares 2015 National Dominican R. Encuesta Nacional de Fuerza de Trabajo 2015 National Ecuador Encuesta de Empleo, Desempleo, y Subempleo 2015 National El Salvador Encuesta de Hogares de Propósitos Múltiples 2015 National Guatemala Encuesta Nacional de Condiciones de Vida 2014 National Encuesta Permanente de Hogares de Propósitos Honduras 2015 National Múltiples Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Mexico 2014 National Hogares Encuesta Nacional de Hogares Sobre Medición de Nicaragua 2014 National Niveles de Vida Panama Encuesta de Hogares 2015 National Paraguay Encuesta Permanente de Hogares 2015 National Peru Encuesta Nacional de Hogares 2015 National Urban- Montevideo and Uruguay Encuesta Continua de Hogares 2015 Interior > 5,000 inhabitants MAY 26, 2017 Annex 3. International Poverty Rates by Country Poverty Rates at USD 4.0 a day (%) - 2005 Poverty Rates at USD 2.5 a day (%) - 2005 PPP PPP 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Argentina 11.6 10.8 10.9 12.8 4.6 4.7 4.5 5.4 Bolivia 29.0 29.2 27.2 25.9 26.5 16.1 17.1 14.4 14.0 13.5 Brazil 23.8 20.8 18.1 20.1 11.7 9.6 0.0 7.8 9.2 Chile 13.2 7.9 7.9 4.4 0.0 2.4 0.0 2.9 Colombia 32.8 32.9 30.8 28.9 28.2 16.8 17.6 15.2 14.5 13.7 Costa Rica 13.0 12.2 12.2 12.0 11.4 5.1 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.5 Dominican Republic 33.3 33.3 33.1 28.6 25.0 14.0 14.6 13.9 11.6 9.4 Ecuador 29.5 27.8 26.1 23.6 24.1 13.6 12.9 10.5 9.3 10.4 El Salvador 37.9 34.8 31.8 31.4 28.4 16.6 14.7 12.7 12.3 10.0 Guatemala 60.3 37.3 Honduras 56.4 61.3 59.3 58.1 58.2 37.4 42.4 39.6 38.4 39.0 Mexico 27.6 27.5 11.4 11.7 Nicaragua 36.0 16.1 Panama 21.2 20.9 20.4 18.7 16.9 11.6 11.8 9.9 10.2 8.6 Paraguay 27.5 24.1 20.2 18.8 19.6 14.3 12.0 8.3 9.0 8.8 Peru 24.3 22.1 21.3 20.1 19.3 11.8 10.9 9.9 9.2 9.0 Uruguay 8.7 8.1 7.8 6.9 6.8 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.0 1.9 LAC 26.8 25.3 24.1 23.3 23.6 13.1 12.1 11.2 10.8 11.0 MAY 26, 2017 References Azevedo, J.P., V. Sanfelice, and M. C. Nguyen. 2012. “Shapley Decomposition by Components of a Welfare Measure.” World Bank (mimeo). Datt, G. and M. Ravallion. 1992. “Growth and Redistribution Components of Changes in Poverty Measures: A Decomposition with Applications to Brazil and India in the 1980s.” Journal of Development Economics, 38, pp 275–95. Foster, James; Joel Greer; Erik Thorbecke (1984). "A class of decomposable poverty measures". Econometrica. 3. 52: 761–766. Gini, Corrado (1921). "Measurement of Inequality of Incomes". The Economic Journal. Blackwell Publishing. 31 (121): 124–126. Ravallion, M., and S. Chen. 2003. “Measuring Pro-poor Growth.” Economics Letters 78 (1): 93–99. Skoufias, Emmanuel, Shohei Nakamura, and Renata Gukovas. 2016. “Safeguarding Against a Reversal in Social Gains During the Economic Crisis in Brazil.” LAC Poverty and Equity Global Practice. World Bank (mimeo). i Poverty is measured based on the $4-a-day international poverty line in 2005 Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) prices. Extreme Poverty is based on the $2.5-a-day international poverty line in 2005 PPP prices. ii Poverty increase in Bolivia (0.54 pp), Brazil (1.97 pp), Ecuador (0.52 pp), Honduras (0.11 pp), Paraguay (0.8 pp), and Uruguay (0.18 pp) iii Argentina, Mexico, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Haiti do not have microdata available for 2015. iv If Brazil were excluded from the aggregate, unemployment in the region would have increased as well from 5.1 percent in 2014 to 6 percent in 2015. MAY 26, 2017