This chapter reviews the distributional impact of agricultural sector reforms in Africa. African governments have intervened in the agricultural sector for decades, but generous pricing policies and operational inefficiencies have often necessitated large budgetary transfers to parastatals. Over the past 20 years many African countries attempted to liberalize their agricultural sector, with mixed success. This chapter describes the forms of government intervention in agricultural markets, the liberalizing reforms undertaken in the past 20 years, the channels by which these reforms affected stakeholders, and the outcomes of the reforms on poor households.100
Trade liberalization and devaluation (TLD) policies have always been present in many IMF-supported programs. Tariffs, quotas, and other trade restrictions reduce the level of trade and tend to foster the development of import substitute industries that often fail to attain the degree of efficiency and flexibility shown by firms continuously exposed to international competition.66 Programs tend to promote the removal of trade restrictions in order to improve resource allocation and growth outcomes in the medium term. Devaluation policies in IMF programs tend to play a shorter-term adjustment role instead. The objective is in most cases to restore external viability by switching expenditures from the nontradables sector to the tradables sector.
The Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF) is used by the IMF to provide support for countries’ implementation of their poverty reduction and growth strategies. A key requirement in the design of PRGF programs is understanding the effects of reform program measures on vulnerable groups—particularly the poor—and how to devise measures to mitigate any negative effects. Poverty and social impact analysis (PSIA) is a critical instrument for pursuing this goal. The IMF has therefore established a small group of staff economists to facilitate the integration of PSIA into PRGF-supported programs. In this book, the group’s members review analytical techniques used in PSIA as well as several important topics to which PSIA can make valuable contributions. These reviews should prove useful and interesting to readers interested in PSIA in general and the IMF’s PSIA efforts in particular.
It is common for governments in developing countries to manipulate prices of goods and services using a range of policy instruments and institutional arrangements. The motivations behind these price manipulations reflect varying objectives, such as the need to raise revenue, the desire to redistribute income toward the poor or toward politically important groups, the desire to provide protection to domestic producers, or the desire to influence the levels of supply or demand in other related markets where prices cannot easily be influenced.17 For example, the major source of revenue in most developing countries is commodity taxation such as domestic sales and excise taxes and taxes on international trade (Burgess and Stern, 1993; and Keen and Simone, 2004); food prices are often kept artificially low for consumers in order to increase the real incomes of poor households (Pinstrup- Andersen, 1988; and Gupta and others, 2000); and public sector prices (e.g., of electricity, gas, petroleum, coal, other fuels, fertilizers) are also often controlled by governments, reflecting either the perceived strategic importance of these inputs for development or the need to provide these sectors with an independent source of revenue and thus greater financial autonomy (Julius and Alicbusan, 1986).
The poverty and social implications of macroeconomic and structural reform policies are increasingly being recognized in IMF-supported programs and IMF policy advice. In 1999, the IMF replaced the Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility, its assistance program for supporting low-income countries, with the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF), which explicitly gives poverty alleviation more prominence in its operations. In addition to its focus on promoting macroeconomic stability and growth, the PRGF program focuses on the relationship between macroeconomic policies and their poverty implications.
Mr. Ravi Balakrishnan, Sandra Lizarazo, Marika Santoro, Mr. Frederik G Toscani, and Mr. Mauricio Vargas
Over the past decades, inequality has risen not just in advanced economies but also in many emerging market and developing economies, becoming one of the key global policy challenges. And throughout the 20th century, Latin America was associated with some of the world’s highest levels of inequality. Yet something interesting happened in the first decade and a half of the 21st century. Latin America was the only region in the World to have experienced significant declines in inequality in that period. Poverty also fell in Latin America, although this was replicated in other regions, and Latin America started from a relatively low base. Starting around 2014, however, and even before the COVID-19 pandemic hit, poverty and inequality gains had already slowed in Latin America and, in some cases, gone into reverse. And the COVID-19 shock, which is still playing out, is likely to dramatically worsen short-term poverty and inequality dynamics. Against this background, this departmental paper investigates the link between commodity prices, and poverty and inequality developments in Latin America.
The Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF) is the instrument used by the IMF to provide support for countries in the implementation of their poverty reduction and growth strategies, as identified in their Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs). The core objective of the PRSP approach is to arrive at policies that are more clearly focused on growth and poverty reduction, in which the poverty reduction and macroeconomic elements of the program are fully integrated, and that embody a greater degree of national ownership, thereby leading to more consistent policy implementation. Key requirements in the design of the PRGF programs that support this approach are an understanding of the effect of program measures on vulnerable groups—particularly the poor—and designing measures to mitigate any negative effects. Poverty and Social Impact Analysis (PSIA) is, in turn, a critical instrument for pursuing this goal. In this regard, IMF staff is expected to draw on PSIAs carried out by other institutions (such as the World Bank) and donors in addressing distributive concerns in PRGF-supported programs. To this end, the IMF established a small in-house capability on PSIA to facilitate the integration of PSIA into PRGF-supported programs. The group has only four full-time positions, so its activities are designed to leverage expertise and available resources both inside and outside the IMF. In limited cases, the group also conducts PSIAs in areas that are central to the work of the IMF and where no other analysis is available. The goals of the PSIA group are to assist mission teams to
This paper reviews economic developments on Burkina Faso during 1994–98. Real GDP growth increased sharply following the 1994 CFA franc devaluation from an average of 0.8 percent in 1992–93 to an average of 4.2 percent in 1994–97. As a result, the decline in real terms of GDP per capita was reversed. In the mining sector, value added is estimated to have increased by about 10 percent in 1997, but official production of gold remains significantly below the level before 1994.
This Joint Staff Advisory Note focuses on the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) for Côte d’Ivoire, and discusses poverty trends, the PRSP’s strategic pillars, and key outcomes sought, including a sound macroeconomic framework, and monitoring and evaluation arrangements. IMF staff supports the authorities’ plans to link the strategic priorities of the PRSP with budgetary allocations and processes. The IMF staff also agrees with the assessment of poverty made in the PRSP, and urges an immediate and focused effort to reverse the rising trend in poverty.
This annual progress report reviews the joint staff advisory note on Burkina Faso’s Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs). IMF staff highlights the importance of increasing public revenue mobilization and strengthening expenditure management and efficiency, and securing financing in the form of grants, which would create space for an increase in pro-poor spending. Increasing spending on basic services and enhancing the management and efficiency of public expenditure in health and education, and continued progress on decentralization are critical to achieve the PRS public service delivery targets.