bolsa família in the headlines - world...

1

Bolsa Família in the HeadlinesAn Analysis of the Media’s Treatment of CCTs in Brazil

Preliminary ResultsKathy Lindert & Vanina Vincensini July 2008

2

DISCLAIMERS• The findings, interpretations, and

conclusions expressed in this presentation are preliminary. They are also entirely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the World Bank, its Board of Directors, or the countries it represents.

• This is a research study. It has no links to the World Bank’s direct engagement with the Bolsa Famíliaprogram, or the BFP itself.

• The findings are largely descriptive – based on the readings of the texts in the press, without cross-references to the actual CCT program developments except in a broad, macro-sense.

3

Outline• Brief Background:

– The Quiet Revolution of Bolsa Família• Objectives of Media Analysis

– How has the press treated this quiet revolution in social policy?

• Methodology for Media Analysis• Preliminary Results

– Coverage of CCTs in the Media– Macro Perceptions & Tone– Micro Perceptions: Design & Implementation

• Overview of Hot Button Topics• Drill Downs on Hot Button Topics

• Summary, Take-Away Messages

4

The “Quiet Revolution”of Bolsa Família

Brazilian Tradition:• CCTs pioneered in mid-1990s• BFP launched in 2003 to consolidate

Social Safety Net• CCT model has spread to dozens of

countries around the world

CCT Objectives:• Alleviate poverty today via cash

transfers to poor families• Reduce poverty tomorrow by

conditioning transfers on family investments in human capital (education and health)

Technical Report Card: Good!• Improvements in registry• Massive recertification• Payments through banking system• Conditionalities monitoring• Oversight and Controls Network• Innovations for implementation in

decentralized context• Building bridges to complementary

services

Near Universal Coverage of Poor• 11.1 million families• 46 million people• 25% of populationStrong targeting outcomes:• 73% of benefits to poorest 20%• 94% of benefits to poorest 40%Reducing Poverty & Inequality:• BFP accounts for 18% of fall in

Gini from 2001-06• BFP contributed to 25% of fall

in extreme poverty from 2001-06Human Capital Impacts:• School attendance• Drop-out rates• Food consumptionRelatively “cheap” price tag:• Less than 0.4% GDP

Innovations in Social Policy Impressive Impacts

5

How Has the Press Treated This“Quiet Revolution” in Social Policy?

• How much press coverage?• How has this varied over

time and with changes in CCT programs?

• How favorable or unfavorable has been the press treatment of CCTs in Brazil? (TONE)

• How has this tone varied:– Over time?– With changes in CCTs?– With political cycles?

Micro: “Hot Button Issues”• Which design and implementation

issues get the most attention in the press? – Coverage, unit values– Targeting, registry, payments– Fraud and fraud control– Conditionalities– Welfare dependency and graduation

• How has this attention varied over time?

• What is the flavor of the debate in the press regarding each of these “hot button” issues?

“Macro Perceptions” of CCTs

Basic Question: What is the debate in the press?

6

Media Analysis Methodology:Overview & Approach

• Unit of analysis = the printed press– Newspaper articles (reports, briefs, interviews, opinion

columns)– Excludes other important media (radio, television, internet)

• Study period: 6 years,two social policy eras:– Pre-BFP Era (2001-03): Bolsa Escola, Bolsa Alimentação,

Auxilio Gas, Cartão Alimentação– BFP Era (2004-06): Bolsa Família launched to consolidate

predecessor programs into single program

• Sample of six newspapers– 3 national, 3 state/regional– Use search engines to identify all articles that mention

CCTs across study period

• Catalogue articles into database– Read and classify all articles into database (types of

articles, key variables)– Study patterns using quantitative and qualitative means

How to Analyze the Media Treatment of CCTs?

7

Media Database: Sample Methodology, Cont’d

Identifying Articles on CCTs Using Search Engines

All Articles Identified:6,531 Articles

Articles FOCUSSED on CCTs:(“Focused Articles”)

1,991 Articles

Articles Merely Mentioning CCTs:(“Mere Mention Articles”)

4,540 Articles

8

Media Database: Methodology for Content & Variables

Overview and Classification of Variables

•Basic identification variables

•Contextual Variables•Perceptions Variables: Tone (see next slides)

• Variables Related to Design and Implementation (see later slide)

9

Media Database: Content & Variables, Continued

Coding the “Tone” Variable: Inherently Subjective

• Tone Variable:– “What is the take away message on CCTs that the average reader will keep in mind after reading the entire article?”

– Not tone of single quote, or headline– Whole article

• Inherently subjective:– But biases reduced by fact that all articles were read and coded by one person

– Database Researcher is:• Fluent in Portuguese• Politically independent (not Brazilian but strong enough familiarity with Brazil)

• Technically independent (not MDS or WB staff member)

10


Coding the “Tone” Variable: Tone Categories

No Tone = 0

Favorable Tone = 1

Ambiguous Tone = 2

Critical Tone = 3

Perception of CCT CONCEPT

Perception of CCT IMPLEMENTATION Overall Tone

Undefined

Favorable

Favorable

Critical

Undefined

Favorable

Critical

Critical

Undefined(for info only)

Favorable

Favorable WithLimitations

Unfavorable

11


Overview and Classification of Variables , Cont’d

• Design and Implementation Variables:– Coverage– Value of transfer– Funding– Registry, targeting & payments– Fraud & Fraud Controls– Conditionalities– Welfare Dependency & Graduation Strategies; Assistentialism– Complementary Programs

• “Drill-down” Sub-Databases– For themes in RED above– Random sub-sample 20% of articles covering each theme– Conducted more in-depth analysis of flavor of debate– Qualitative and quantitative

12

Preliminary Results – Macro AspectsPress Coverage

Substantial & Increasing Coverage (saturation by 2006):– 6,531 articles over total period (only 6 newspapers!)– Almost twice as many articles in BFP era– Increased to 2,172 articles in 2006 – averaging an article every day

in each newspaper!

Increasing Focus on CCTs Over Time

782 1,209

1,663

2,877

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

Pre BFP Era (2001-2003) BFP Era (2004-2006)

Num

ber

of A

rtic

les

Articles Focused on CCTs Articles With Mere Mention of CCTs

13

Preliminary Results:Macro Perceptions - Tone

Evolution of Tone of Press Articles on CCTs Over Time: % of Focused Articles, 2001-06

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

No Tone

Favorable

Ambiguous

Critical

• Scaling up dilemma: (2004 transition)– Scale up quickly, improve systems as you go?– OR: Pilot first, improve systems before scaling up?– How strong do core systems need to be before you scale up?– What sequencing is needed to strengthen core systems as

you scale up?

14

Preliminary Results – Macro Aspects: Tone & Electoral Cycles

Average Tone by Quarter and Political Events

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2

Q1 01

Q2 01

Q3 01

Q4 01

Q1 02

Q2 02

Q3 02

Q4 02

Q1 03

Q2 03

Q3 03

Q4 03

Q1 04

Q2 04

Q3 04

Q4 04

Q1 05

Q2 05

Q3 05

Q4 05

Q1 06

Q2 06

Q3 06

Q4 06

Time

Ave

rage

Ton

e

Mere Mention ArticlesArticles Focused on CCTs

More Critical of CCTs

3rd Year of FHC Mandate

3rd Year of Lula Mandate

4th Year of FHC Mandate

4th Year of Lula Mandate

1st Year of Lula Mandate

2nd Year of Lula Mandate

Year Leading to Presidential Elections

Year Leading to Municipal Elections

Year Leading to Presidential Elections

Launch of Bolsa Familia

3rd Year FHC 4th Year FHC 1st Year Lula 2nd Year Lula 3rd Year Lula 4th Year Lula

Pre-BFP (Bolsa Escola) Bolsa Familia

Elections Bring Increased Scrutiny, Criticism, Regardless of Program or Administration

15

Preliminary Results – Micro Aspects:Frequency of “Hot Button” Topics

Media Treatment of "Hot Button" Implementation Features: Frequency by Topic (2001-06)

4%8%9%

15%24%25%

44%44%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Compl. ProgramsFinancing

Dependency/ExitUnit value

ConditionalitiesFraud & Controls

CoverageTargeting, Payments

16

Preliminary Results – Micro Aspects:“Hot Button” Trends in Debate

Media Treatment of "Hot Button" Implementation Features: Trends in the Debate

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

% o

f arti

cles

trea

ting

issu

e

Targeting, PaymentsFraud & ControlsConditionalitiesDependency/Exit

17

Media Database: Methodology for Drilling Down on Hot Button Debates

Cadastro(registry, payments)

Fraud &Fraud Controls

Conditionalities

Assistencialismo

Welfare Dependency,Graduation

Focused Articles Covering Theme:

% of TotalFocused Articles

Total Articles(Full Sample)

Drill-Down #(Sub-Sample)

44%

25%

875 174 (20%)

24%

11%

9%

494

483

219

184

197 (40%)

193 (40%)

88 (40%)

73 (40%)

18

Frequency and Tone of Articles Treating Cadastro Issues Over Time (Full Sample)

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

% of Total FocusedCCT Articles

% with Ambiguous orCritical Tone

Preliminary Results – Micro Aspects:Focus on Cadastro (1)

Overall Frequency & Tone (Full Sample)

Interpretations - 2004:•Political: Election Year

•Technical: transition period, BFP inherited

Cadastro, major technical improvements in 2005/06

19

Preliminary Results – Micro Aspects:Focus on Cadastro (2)

Operational Mechanisms

Press Treatment of Operational Mechanisms Relating to Cadastro

(Sub-Sample, NOBS = 174)

0%20%

40%60%

80%

Institu

tiona

l Res

pElig

ibility

Crite

ria

Regist

ry Ops

Recert

ificati

onPay

ments

Ops

As %

of S

ub-S

ampl

e on

Arti

cles

on

Cad

astro

2001-03

2004-06

20

Preliminary Results – Micro Aspects:Focus on Cadastro (Registry) (3)

• Does the press pay more attention to errors of inclusion or exclusion?

Targeting Outcomes

Frequency of Press Treatment of Targeting Outcomes in Articles on Cadastro (Sub-Sample NOBS = 56)

-

10

20

30

40

50

TargetingOutcomes

Errors of Exclusion Errors of InclusionNum

ber o

f arti

cles

cov

erin

g ta

rget

ing

outc

omes

2001-03

2004-06

21

Frequency and Tone of Articles Treating Issues of Fraud & Fraud Control Over Time (Full Sample)

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006



Preliminary Results – Micro Aspects:Focus on Fraud & Fraud Control (1)

Interpretations - 2004:•Political: 2004 = election year•Press pushing policy debate:Fantastico report & follow up•Technical: transition period, Government responds by launching O&C network in 2005


22

Preliminary Results – Micro Aspects:Focus on Fraud & Fraud Controls (2)

• All transfer programs have some degree of fraud & errors

• Technicians distinguish between intentional fraud, corruption vs. errors

• The press also makes this distinction, but the terms are also often used inter-changeably

What is meant by F&E? Intentional

Unintentional

Claimant Staff

Fraud Corruption

Customer Error Official Error

Distinguishing Between Fraud and Irregularities(Drill-Down Sub-Sample, NOBS = 147)

0%

10%20%

30%

40%

50%60%

70%

Full Period 2001-03 2004-06

Artic

les

Usi

ng T

erm

Fra

ud v

s.

Irreg

ular

ities

as %

of A

rticl

es o

n F&

FC

FraudIrregularities / Errors

23


Types of F&E Reported in Press

Types of Alleged Fraud & Errors Mentioned in Press Articles

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Registry Out-of-Date

Official Errors

Errors of Exclusion

Fraudulent Interception of EBCs

Corruption

Duplicated Benefits

Errors of Inclusion

Clientelistic Fraud

% o

f arti

cles

on

fraud

& e

rror

s m

entio

ning

is

sue,

NO

BS s

ubsa

mpl

e =1

47

24


Who Alleges Fraud & Errors in Articles

Sources of Allegations of Fraud & Errors(Sub-Sample NOBS = 147)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

ThePress/Media

Hotlines &Complaints

Federal AuditAgencies

Govt Ministries

% o

f Arti

cles

Cite

d as

Sou

rce

of

Alle

gatio

ns o

f Fra

ud &

Err

ors

Government sources = 33%

25

Frequency and Tone of Articles Treating Conditionalities Over Time (Full Sample)

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

% of Total FocusedCCT Articles% with Favorable Tone

Preliminary Results – Micro Aspects:Focus on Conditionalities (1)

Interpretations - 2004:•Political: election year (2004)•Technical:

Conditionalities monitoring did lapse during transition year (2004)

Substantial debate in 2004 about whether conditionalities or monitoring / enforcement mattered


26


Conditionalities Do Matter to the Press / Public

Debate on the Importance of Conditionalities in the Press (Drill-Dow n Sub-Sample, NOBS = 193)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2001-03 2004-06% o

f arti

cles

men

tioni

ng im

porta

nce

of

issu

e (e

xist

ence

, mon

itorin

g)

Existence of Conditionalities

Monitoring & Compliance

27


Why Do Conditionalities Matter?

Why Do Conditionalities Matter? Frequency of Perceived Role of Conditionalities

(Full Period, Drill-Dow n Sub-Sample: NOBS = 86)

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%

As Rights to SocialServices

For Incentives For Long-RunStructural Impacts

To ReduceAssistencialism

% o

f Arti

cles

Hig

hlig

htin

g Im

porta

nce

of S

peci

fic R

ole

28


Which Conditionalities Get More Attention?

Which Conditionalities Get More Attention? Education or Health?

(Drill-Dow n Sample NOB = 193)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

% o

f arti

cles

on

cond

itiona

lities

m

entio

ning

hea

lth o

r edu

catio

n co

nditio

ns Education Conditions

Health Conditions

29


• High and increasing• Highest for “monitoring”• Increasing reporting on:

– Beneficiary non-compliance

– Enforcement & penalties• Press perceptions of

effectiveness of monitoring:– Very negative in 2004– More favorable since 2004

Attention to Monitoring and Enforcement of Conditionalities

Press perceptions mirror technical challenges and

improvements

Increasing Attention to Monitoring and Enforcement of Conditionalities

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

% o

f Arti

cles

on

Con

ditio

nalit

ies

Men

tioni

ng M

onito

ring

Asp

ects

Monitoring ofcompliance

Beneficiary Non-Compliance

Enforcing Penalties

Press Perceptions of Effectiveness of Conditionalities Monitoring

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Not Effective

Effective

30

Frequency and Tone of Articles Treating Welfare Dependency & Graduation Strategies Over Time (Full Sample)

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

% of Total Focused CCTArticles

% w ith Ambiguous orCritical Tone

Preliminary Results – Micro Aspects:Welfare Dependency & Graduation Agenda (1)


2nd generation CCT issue

31


% of articles mentioning WDG Agenda that conclude that....

Do CCTs Inherently Create Welfare Dependency?

Perceptions on CCTs & Welfare Dependency (Drill-Dow n Sub-Sample, NOBS = 73)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

CCTs createdependency

CCTs do not createdependency

Neither; CCT shouldbe designed to avoid

dependency

% o

f Arti

cles

on

WD

G A

gend

a th

at

Con

clud

e th

at C

CTs

do

or d

o no

t cre

ate

depe

nden

cy

32


What is Meant by “Exit Doors” (Portas de Saida)?

Many Meaningsof Exit Doors

in Press

Examples of Exit Doors

in Press

The Many Meanings of "Exit Doors" (Graduation Agenda) (Full Period, Drill-Dow n Sub-Sample, NOBS = 44)

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%

Emancipation frompoverty

Tools to promoteproductivity and

employmentopportunities

Exit from transfers(time limits, etc.)

Dignity andcitizenship%

of A

rticl

es M

entio

ning

Exi

t Doo

rs

Examples of Exit Doors (Full Period, Drill-Dow n Sub-Sample, NOBS = 44)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Adult education and literacy programs

Job training

Micro-credit

Health and food security

Time limits

% of Articles Mentioning Exit Doors w ith Specif ic Examples

33

Preliminary Results – Micro Aspects:Focus on Assistencialismo (1)


Frequency and Tone of Articles Mentioning "Assistencialismo" (full sample)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006



34


Assistentialist or Not? • Not all articles that use the term assert that the

CCT is assistentialist

Assistencialismo: Accuse or Reject the Hypothesis?(% of articles mentioning Assistencialismo, Sub-Sample, NOBS=88, Full Period)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Yes-Accuse Assistencialismo No-Reject Assistencialismo% o

f Arti

cles

Men

tioni

ng Is

sue

and

eith

er a

sser

ting

it (y

es a

ssis

tenc

ialis

ta)

or re

ject

ing

it (n

o, n

ot a

ssis

tenc

ialis

ta)

35


Informants: Who Accuses and Refutes?

Who Accuses?The PressPoliticians

Who Refutes?Politicians

Others

Who Accuses CCTs of Being Assistencialist? Source of Accusations(Sub-Sample, NOBS = 69)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

The Press

Politicians

Brazilian Researchers

Program Managers

% of Articles Concluding that CCTs ARE Assistencialista

Who Refutes Notion of CCTs as Assistencialist? Source of Rebuttals (Sub-Sample NOBS = 14)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Politicians

Program Managers

The Press

International Org. Staff

Beneficiaries

Brazilian Researchers

% of Articles Concluding that CCTs ARE NOT Assistencialista

36


Why Assistentialist?Dependency

Lack of ConditionalitiesClientelism

Why NOT Assistentialist?CCT = Citizen Right

Conditionalities

Why Assistentialist or Not? Why are CCTs Accused of Being Assistencialist?

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Generate Dependency

Clientelism (vote-buying)

Lack monitoring of conditionalities

Inevitable feature of CTs

Fail to erradicate poverty

CCTs replace employment policy

Value of transfer

% of Articles Accusing CCTs of being AssistentialistWhy are CCTs defended as NOT Assistentialist?

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

CCTs = Citizens' Rights

Conditionalities prevent Assistencialismo

CCTs = Educational Programs

CCTs = new social policy model

CCTs inject income to local economies

Electronic payments prevent vote buying

% of Articles Defending CCTs as NOT Assistentialist

37


Proposed Actions Suggested in Press Articles to Reduce “Assistencialist” potential of CCTs:

How to Reduce Assistentialism Potential?

Frequency of Proposed Solutions to Reduce Potential of Assistencialismo in CCTs (Sub-Sample NOBS = 49)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Tools to exitpoverty / exit

doors

Invest ineducationsystem

Monitorconditionalities

Employment Integrate w ithother programs%

of a

rticl

es p

ropo

sing

sol

utio

ns (S

ub-

Sam

ple

NO

BS =

49)

38

Summary, Main Messages

• Important role of the media in promoting debate• Extensive coverage and visibility• Overall favorable tone towards concept of CCTs• More ambiguity about implementation• Small share of articles critical of both the

concept and implementation• Elections bring increasing scrutiny and criticism

regardless of program or administration

Macro Perceptions of Conditional Cash Transfers in the Press:

39


• Media: Reporting on Challenges and Improvements– Extensive reporting on challenges in 2004, more critical tone that

year– More favorable tone of press articles in 2005-06 as government

made improvements to the program and its systems• Targeting:

– Press attention to errors of INCLUSION > attention to errors of EXCLUSION

• Fraud & Fraud Control:– Both government and the press played an important role in

reporting on allegations of fraud and systems for controllingfraud in these programs

Press Treatment of Design and Implementation Issues (1):

40


• Conditionalities:– The debate in the press highlighted the importance of

the existence and monitoring of conditionalities for two reasons:

• Their structural role in reducing poverty in the long-term• Their political role in reducing perceptions of assistencialismo

– The tone of articles was more favorable as monitoringof conditionalities improved


41


• “Welfare Dependency:”– Small but increasing share of articles covering theme– Emphasis on graduation from poverty not the

program– The main examples of exit doors cited in press articles

include: youth/adult education/literacy, job training and micro credit


42


• Perceptions of “Assisstencialismo”:– Small but increasing share of articles covering theme

• The main reasons offered for accusing CCTs of being“assistencialista” include:– perceptions that they create grant dependency– perceptions of lack of monitoring of conditionalities– perceptions of clientelism

• The main reasons offered for defending CCTs as notbeing assistencialista include:– that they represent the rights of citizens– that the existence of conditionalities reduces assistencialismo


bolsa família in the headlines - world...

Documents