On June 2, President Peña officially stated that the current month “would not be a re-launch but an assessment” of the National Crusade against Hunger, initiated on April 2013. Although eighteen months may seem few to evaluate the program’s effectiveness, its characteristics are part of the familiar tale that is the way in which social policy works in Mexico: grand promises of diminishing poverty and inequality, large quantities of public resources, minimal results in the attainment of the rhetoric target (though politicians do manage to get outstanding electoral results) or, simply put, resounding failures.
Through decades, social policy has been modified at the discretion of the administration in office. However, all have shared a same trait: a short-term, welfare focus that might never – and perhaps doesn’t even intend to – transcend beyond a meager decrease – in the best case scenario – of poverty levels. As a matter of fact, both beneficiaries as well as the government itself have little to no incentives to change the status quo. Those who receive assistance from social program with the so-called purpose of “pulling themselves out of poverty” find that it is more convenient to remain as a beneficiary from a “redistribution policy” rather than overcoming their condition, getting a job – something that is not easy nowadays – and it being poorly paid and unstable. With all of this being said, the “best” scenario is having the opportunity of joining the informal sector, while at the same time remaining as beneficiaries of the social policy. On the other hand, governments perpetuate social programs as ways to exercise governance control and consolidate potential voters. A possible difference between the governments from 1994 to 2012 and the current one is that past administrations at least had the purpose of diminishing poverty while the present-day Presidency explicitly envisions social policy as a tool for cronyism.
On the other hand, the increase on the number of the social program’s beneficiaries, a datum that is usually much-publicized by the in-office administration, is not a right indicator to measure the scheme’s effectiveness. On the contrary, the fact that the number of individuals that receive some sort of government welfare is the most striking illustration of the little (or non-existent) progress made to alleviate poverty. Although the performance of the National Council for Social Policy Evaluation (CONEVAL) has gained prestige and legitimacy on measuring the effects of social programs, there is still a pending issue: using the assessment results as tools to enhance the programs as well as the distribution of budget. Although the recent reform of the 26th Constitutional article provided autonomy to CONEVAL, it does not guarantee a better performance of the entity or a clearer coordination between evaluations and measures to improve it.
Even though the government feels comfortable with broadening the number of beneficiaries, questions to these measures will arise as some sectors of the society continue to evolve; this is not due to the effects of an adequate social policy but due to factors quite different from government welfare. As of now, it seems that the latter will only occur when social policies are enhances with a factor that does not seem to be part of the whole picture: economic growth. At the end of the day and since ancient times, it remains as the only efficient instrument for tackling poverty.
CIDAC
Comments