In this article, the authors analyze the development of Progresa, a Mexican antipoverty program that conditions monetary transfers to human capital investment of its beneficiary families. The program is the principal antipoverty strategy of the Mexican government and has served as a model for similar programs in a number of countries in Latin America. Progresa is also noteworthy because it was subject to a rigorous evaluation effort in rural areas, which included an experimental design. The authors first describe the rationale behind the design of Progresa, in particular, the conditioning of monetary transfers to children's school attendance and regular health clinic visits. The authors then turn to the evaluation effort, analyzing the randomized trial, the evaluation results, and the effect of the evaluation on the evolution of the program. Finally, the authors consider the limitations of the evaluation as well as areas where more research is needed.
Adato, Michelle . 2000. Final report: The impact of PROGRESA on community social relationships. September. Report submitted to PROGRESA. Washington DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
2.
Attanasio, Orazio , and Valerie Lechene. 2002. Tests of income pooling in household decisions. Review of Economic Dynamics5 (4): 720-748.
3.
Becker, Gary S.1993. Human capital. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4.
Becker, Gary S.1999. “Bribe” third world parents to keep their kids in school. Business Week, November 22.
5.
Behrman, Jere R. , and John Hoddinott. 2000. An evaluation of the impact of PROGRESA on pre-school child height. July. Report submitted to PROGRESA. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
6.
Behrman, Jere R. , Piyali Sengupta, and Petra E. Todd. 2000a. Final report: The impact of PROGRESA on achievement test scores in the first year. September. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
7.
Behrman, Jere R. , Piyali Sengupta, and Petra E. Todd. 2000b. Progressing through PROGRESA: An impact assessment of a school subsidy experiment. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
8.
Behrman, Jere R. , and Petra E. Todd. 1999. Randomness in the experimental samples of PROGRESA(education, health, and nutrition program). February. Report submitted to PROGRESA. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
9.
Coady, David P.2000. Final report: The application of social cost-benefit analysis to the evaluation of PROGRESA. November. Report submitted to PROGRESA. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
10.
Coady, David P. , and Susan W. Parker. 2004. A cost-effectiveness analysis of demand and supply side education interventions: The Case of Progresa in Mexico. Review of Development Economics8 (3): 440-451.
11.
Duryea, Suzanne , and Mary Arends-Kuenning. 1999. New gender gaps in schooling: Adolescent boys at risk in Latin America. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, New York.
12.
Gertler, Paul J.2000. Final report: The impact of PROGRESA on health. November. Report submitted to PROGRESA. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
13.
Gomez de Leon, Jose , Susan W. Parker, and Daniel Hernandez. 1999. The design and methodology of the impact evaluation of the Education, Health and Nutrition Program(PROGRESA) in Mexico. Photocopy.
14.
Heckman, James J.1992. Randomization and social policy evaluation. In Evaluating welfare and training programs, ed. C. Manski and I. Garfinkel. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
15.
Hoddinott, John , Emmanuel Skoufias, and Ryan Washburn. 2000. The impact of PROGRESA on consumption: A final report. September. Report submitted to PROGRESA. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
16.
Krueger, Alan B.2002. Economic scene: A model for evaluating the use of development dollars, south of the border. The New York Times, May 2.
17.
Martinelli, Cesar , and Susan W. Parker. 2003. Should transfers to poor families be conditionalon school attendance? A household bargaining approach. International Economic Review44 (2): 523-544.
18.
Mincer, Jacob . 1974. Schooling, experience and earnings. NewYork: National Bureau of Economic Research.
19.
Parker, Susan W.2005. Following up PROGRESA migrants: Evidence from theMexican state of Queretaro. Photocopy, Mexico City.
20.
Parker, Susan W. , and Carla Pederzini. 2001. Gender differences by education in Mexico. In The economics of gender in Mexico: Work, family, state, and market, ed. Elizabeth Katz and Maria Correia. Washington, DC: World Bank.
21.
Poder Ejecutivo Federal. 1997. Progresa: Programa de Educacion, Salud y Alimentacion. Mexico City: Office of the President.
22.
Rubalcava, Luis N. , Graciela M. Teruel, and Duncan Thomas. 2004. Spending, saving and public transfers paid to women. California Center for Population Research, On-Line Working Paper Series, Paper CCPR-024-04. http://repositories.cdlib.org/ccpr/olwp/CCPR-024-04/.
23.
Schultz, T. Paul . 2004. School subsidies for the poor: Evaluating a Mexican strategy for reducing poverty. Journal of Development Economics74 (1): 199-250.
24.
Skoufias, Emmanuel . 2001. PROGRESA and its impacts on the human capital and welfare of households in rural Mexico: A synthesis of the results of an evaluation by IFPRI. Washington DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
25.
Skoufias, Emmanuel , and Bonnie McClafferty. 2001. Is PROGRESA working? Summary of the results of an evaluation by IFPRI. Report submitted to PROGRESA. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
26.
Strauss, John A. , and Duncan Thomas. 1995. Human resources: Empiricalmodeling of household and family decisions. In Handbook of development economics, ed. T. N. Srinivasan and J. Behrman. Amsterdam: North Holland.
27.
Strauss, John A. , and Duncan Thomas. 1998. Health, nutrition, and economic development. Journal of Economic Literature36 (2): 766-817.
28.
Teruel, Graciela M. , and Luis N. Rubalcava. 2003. The effect of PROGRESA on the demographic structure of the household. Photocopy, Universidad Iberoamericana, Mexico City.
29.
Thomas, Duncan . 1990. Intrahousehold resource allocation: An inferential approach. Journal of Human Resources25 (4): 635-664.
30.
Thomas, Duncan , Elizabeth Frankenberg, and James P. Smith. 2001. Lost but not forgotten: Attrition in the Indonesian Family Life Survey. Journal of Human Resources36 (3): 556-592.
31.
Todd, Petra E. , and Kenneth I. Wolpin. 2004. Using experimental data to validate a dynamic behavioral model of human capital investments in children: Evaluating the impact of Mexico's PROGRESA program. Photocopy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
32.
Torre, Wilbert . 2000. Mural. Reforma, December 26.
