This report is not very convincing to me, despite its reasonable concern about how to spend revenues wisely and about the reliability of the revenue over time.
Look at Figure 2. Although it addresses individuals' poverty, the data is collected by households. Also overall, the differences are not that great, maybe 50% up to 73%. That's a lot of poverty, for all ages. But the poor children are probably in households that include poor people of various ages. It's tricky. It's not clear to me from this data that helping old people or helping children or even helping young parents would help Bolivian households the most.
I think the final statement is careless or overly ideological as well.
" Old people have had a lifetime to accumulate assets, and if they do not have enough for retirement, it is to a large extent due to their own lack of planning and prevision. In contrast, if children are poor, it is in no way their own fault, and they deserve all the help they need to overcome their initial disadvantage.
In conclusion, if the government wants to give away money, I would much rather see them pamper the children than the old. The former will carry Bolivia into the future, whereas the latter represent the past."
Dr. Andersen appears to be an accomplished social scientist. But I would suggest that readers decide for themselves, as always.
Thanks for the reference. I would like to read more soon.
Posted by
John
October 30, 2007 3:41 PM
I agree (esp. about the ideological bias of that particular statement). Here's an interesting critique of Andersen's argument from last week's Tiempo Político: "La renta vitalicia y el desarrollo industrial" by Bernardo Corro Barrientos (economist).
Briefly: He argues that small pensions to Bolivia's elderly poor would put more money into the market, as these individuals would spend it on goods & services in Bolivia, which indirectly contributes to economic growth & development.
