Evaluating the Impact of Egyptian Social Fund for Development Programs

Abou-Ali, Hala; El-Azony, Hesham; El-Laithy, Heba; Haughton, Jonathan; Khandker, Shahidur R.

dc.creator	Abou-Ali, Hala
dc.creator	El-Azony, Hesham
dc.creator	El-Laithy, Heba
dc.creator	Haughton, Jonathan
dc.creator	Khandker, Shahidur R.
dc.date	2012-03-19T19:11:26Z
dc.date	2012-03-19T19:11:26Z
dc.date	2009-07-01
dc.date.accessioned	2023-02-17T21:10:44Z
dc.date.available	2023-02-17T21:10:44Z
dc.identifier	http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/main?menuPK=64187510&pagePK=64193027&piPK=64187937&theSitePK=523679&menuPK=64187510&searchMenuPK=64187283&siteName=WDS&entityID=000158349_20090714144602
dc.identifier	http://hdl.handle.net/10986/4184
dc.identifier.uri	http://localhost:8080/xmlui/handle/CUHPOERS/245221
dc.description	The Egyptian Social Fund for Development was established in 1991 with a mandate to reduce poverty. Since its inception, it has disbursed about $2.5 billion, of which nearly two-fifths was devoted to supporting microcredit and financing community development and infrastructure. This paper investigates the size of the impact of the Fund s interventions, whether the benefits have been commensurate with the costs, and whether the programs have been targeted successfully to the poor. The core of the impact evaluation applies propensity-score matching to data from the 2004/2005 national Household Income, Expenditure and Consumption Survey. The authors find that Egypt s Social Fund for Development programs have had clear and measurable effects, in the expected direction, for all of the programs considered: educational interventions have reduced illiteracy, health and potable water programs have lowered household spending on health, sanitation interventions have cut household spending on sanitation and lowered poverty, and road projects have reduced household transportation costs by 20 percent. Microcredit is associated with higher household expenditures in metropolitan areas and urban Upper Egypt, but not elsewhere. The Social Fund for Development s road projects generate benefits that, by some estimates, exceed the costs, as do health and potable water interventions; this is less evident for interventions in education and sanitation. The Fund argues that its mission is primarily social, and so should not be judged using a cost-benefit analysis. The Fund support for microcredit is strongly pro-poor; the other programs analyzed have a more modest pro-poor orientation.
dc.language	English
dc.relation	Impact Evaluation series ; no. IE 31 Policy Research working paper ; no. WPS 4993
dc.rights	CC BY 3.0 IGO
dc.rights	http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/
dc.rights	World Bank
dc.subject	ADULT EDUCATION
dc.subject	AMOUNT OF MONEY
dc.subject	AWARENESS CAMPAIGNS
dc.subject	BANKS
dc.subject	BASIC NEEDS
dc.subject	BENEFICIARIES
dc.subject	BORROWER
dc.subject	CALCULATIONS
dc.subject	CAPACITY BUILDING
dc.subject	CASH TRANSFER
dc.subject	CHILD MORTALITY
dc.subject	CHILD MORTALITY RATE
dc.subject	CLINICS
dc.subject	COMMERCIAL BANKS
dc.subject	COMMUNITIES
dc.subject	COMMUNITY CENTERS
dc.subject	COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
dc.subject	COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS
dc.subject	COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
dc.subject	CONSUMER
dc.subject	COST EFFECTIVENESS
dc.subject	COST RECOVERY
dc.subject	COST-EFFECTIVENESS
dc.subject	COUNTERFACTUAL
dc.subject	DEVELOPMENT BANK
dc.subject	DEVELOPMENT INTERVENTIONS
dc.subject	DISABILITY
dc.subject	DISSEMINATION
dc.subject	DIVERSIFICATION
dc.subject	DRINKING WATER
dc.subject	DURABLE GOODS
dc.subject	DWELLING
dc.subject	ECONOMIC ACTIVITY
dc.subject	ECONOMIC COST
dc.subject	EDUCATION PROGRAM
dc.subject	EMERGENCY FUND
dc.subject	EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES
dc.subject	ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
dc.subject	EQUALITY
dc.subject	ERADICATION OF ILLITERACY
dc.subject	FAMILIES
dc.subject	FARM ACTIVITIES
dc.subject	FARM INCOME
dc.subject	FARM OUTPUT
dc.subject	FEMALE
dc.subject	FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS
dc.subject	FEMALES
dc.subject	FINANCES
dc.subject	FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
dc.subject	FINANCIAL INTERMEDIARIES
dc.subject	FOOD CONSUMPTION
dc.subject	FOOD EXPENDITURE
dc.subject	FOOD POLICY
dc.subject	HEALTH CENTERS
dc.subject	HEALTH INTERVENTIONS
dc.subject	HEALTH OUTCOMES
dc.subject	HEALTH PROGRAMS
dc.subject	HEALTH SPENDING
dc.subject	HOUSE CONNECTIONS
dc.subject	HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE
dc.subject	HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURES
dc.subject	HOUSEHOLD HEAD
dc.subject	HOUSEHOLD INCOME
dc.subject	HOUSEHOLD SIZE
dc.subject	HOUSEHOLD SPENDING
dc.subject	HOUSES
dc.subject	HUMAN CAPITAL
dc.subject	HUMAN RIGHTS
dc.subject	ILLITERACY
dc.subject	ILLITERACY RATE
dc.subject	ILLNESS
dc.subject	ILLNESSES
dc.subject	IMMUNIZATION
dc.subject	IMPACT ON POVERTY
dc.subject	INCIDENCE OF DISEASE
dc.subject	INCIDENCE OF POVERTY
dc.subject	INCOME DISTRIBUTION
dc.subject	INCOME POVERTY
dc.subject	INCOMES
dc.subject	INDIVIDUAL HOUSEHOLDS
dc.subject	INFANT
dc.subject	INFANT MORTALITY
dc.subject	INFLATION
dc.subject	INTEREST RATES
dc.subject	INTERMEDIARIES
dc.subject	INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
dc.subject	INTERVENTION
dc.subject	JOB CREATION
dc.subject	LABOR MARKET
dc.subject	LAWS
dc.subject	LENDERS
dc.subject	LEVEL OF POVERTY
dc.subject	LIFE EXPECTANCY
dc.subject	LITERACY PROGRAMS
dc.subject	LITERACY RATES
dc.subject	LIVING STANDARDS
dc.subject	LOAN
dc.subject	LOCAL ECONOMY
dc.subject	LOCALITIES
dc.subject	LOW-INCOME
dc.subject	MALARIA
dc.subject	MEDICINES
dc.subject	MEDIUM ENTERPRISES
dc.subject	METAANALYSIS
dc.subject	MICROCREDIT PROGRAMS
dc.subject	MINIMUM WAGE
dc.subject	MINISTRY OF HEALTH
dc.subject	MORBIDITY
dc.subject	MORTALITY
dc.subject	NATIONAL POVERTY
dc.subject	NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
dc.subject	NUTRITION
dc.subject	POLICY ANALYSIS
dc.subject	POLICY RESEARCH
dc.subject	POLICY RESEARCH WORKING PAPER
dc.subject	POOR
dc.subject	POOR AREAS
dc.subject	POOR HEALTH
dc.subject	POOR HOUSEHOLDS
dc.subject	POOR PEOPLE
dc.subject	POOR PERSON
dc.subject	POPULATION INFORMATION
dc.subject	POPULATION SIZE
dc.subject	POVERTY GAP
dc.subject	POVERTY LINE
dc.subject	POVERTY MEASUREMENT
dc.subject	POVERTY RATE
dc.subject	POVERTY RATES
dc.subject	PRE-NATAL CARE
dc.subject	PRIMARY HEALTH CARE
dc.subject	PRIMARY SCHOOL
dc.subject	PRIMARY SCHOOLS
dc.subject	PROBABILITY
dc.subject	PRODUCTIVITY
dc.subject	PROGRESS
dc.subject	PUBLIC BUILDINGS
dc.subject	PUBLIC POLICY
dc.subject	PUBLIC SPENDING
dc.subject	PUBLIC WORKS
dc.subject	QUESTIONNAIRE
dc.subject	RISK FACTORS
dc.subject	RURAL
dc.subject	RURAL AREAS
dc.subject	RURAL DEVELOPMENT
dc.subject	RURAL ROADS
dc.subject	SAFETY
dc.subject	SAFETY NET
dc.subject	SAFETY NET PROGRAMS
dc.subject	SANITATION
dc.subject	SANITATION FACILITIES
dc.subject	SAVINGS
dc.subject	SCHOOL ENROLMENT
dc.subject	SELF-HELP
dc.subject	SHELTER
dc.subject	SMALL ENTERPRISES
dc.subject	SOCIAL DIMENSION
dc.subject	SOCIAL EQUITY
dc.subject	SOCIAL FUND
dc.subject	SOCIAL FUNDS
dc.subject	SOCIAL PROTECTION
dc.subject	SOCIOECONOMIC DATA
dc.subject	STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT
dc.subject	TARGETING
dc.subject	TOTAL COST
dc.subject	TRAINING PROGRAMS
dc.subject	TRANSPORTATION
dc.subject	UNEMPLOYMENT
dc.subject	UNEMPLOYMENT RATES
dc.subject	URBAN AREAS
dc.subject	URBAN DEVELOPMENT
dc.subject	VALUATION
dc.subject	VILLAGE LEVEL
dc.subject	VILLAGES
dc.subject	VULNERABLE GROUPS
dc.subject	WAGE
dc.subject	WAGES
dc.subject	WASTE
dc.subject	WATER PROJECT
dc.subject	WORKING CAPITAL
dc.subject	WORLD POPULATION
dc.subject	WORTH
dc.subject	YOUTH
dc.subject	YOUTH CENTERS
dc.title	Evaluating the Impact of Egyptian Social Fund for Development Programs
dc.type	Publications & Research :: Policy Research Working Paper
dc.coverage	Middle East and North Africa
dc.coverage	Egypt, Arab Republic of