Description:
The financial crisis threatens the
welfare of about 160 million people in the Europe and
Central Asia (ECA) region who are poor or are just above the
poverty line. Using pre-crisis household data along with
aggregate macroeconomic outturns to simulate the impact of
the crisis on households, transmitted via credit market
shocks, price shocks, and income shocks, this report finds
that adverse effects are widespread and that poor and
non-poor households alike are vulnerable. By 2010, for the
region as a whole, some 11 million more people will likely
be in poverty and over 23 million more people will find
themselves just above the poverty line because of the
crisis. The aggregate results mask the heterogeneity of
impact within countries, including the concentration of the
poverty impact in selected economic sectors. Meanwhile,
stress tests on household indebtedness in selected countries
suggest that ongoing macroeconomic shocks will expand the
pool of households unable to service their debt, many of
them from among the ranks of relatively richer households.
In fact, already there are rising household loan delinquency
rates. Finally, there is evidence that the food and fuel
crisis is not over and a new round of price increases, via
currency adjustments, will have substantial effects on net
consumers. Lessons from last year's food crisis suggest
that the poor are the worst hit, as many of the poor in
Albania, Kyrgyz Republic, and Tajikistan, for example, are
net food consumers, with limited access to agricultural
assets and inputs. The resilience of households to
macroeconomic shocks ultimately depends upon the
economy's institutional readiness, the flexibility of
the economic policy regime, and the ability of the
population to adjust. However, compared with previous
crises, the scope for households to engage in their
traditional coping strategies may be more limited. Fiscal
policy responses in the short-term are also constrained by
rapidly falling revenues. Governments in ECA have to make
difficult choices over what spending items to protect and
what items to cut, social protection programs to reform and
scale-up, and new interventions to mitigate the impact of
the crisis.