Comparación de poblaciones

In addition to the range of institutions involved directly in social protection management, provision and regulation in the region, there are a number of social policy coordination bodies operating at policy, technical and operational level, which are linked, in various ways, with the coordination of social protection systems and policies.

(a) Policy level

Some of Latin America’s major policy experiences have included social cabinets and coordinating ministries for social issues, identified

as alternative means for performing the functions of a social authority.14

Even though they have not been totally successful to date, mainly because there are still many instances of overlapping functions and sectoral segmentation, they have created a space for communication that

13 _{Countries with similar institutions are Argentina, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, El} Salvador, Mexico, Peru, the Plurinational State of Bolivia and Uruguay. In other cases, such as Honduras, it is the institutions responsible for the pension system themselves —the five specialized institutes— that are responsible for oversight and monitoring, under the supervision of the National Banking and Insurance Commission.

14 _{Franco (2004, 2010) defines five functions for a social authority: to set priorities,} coordinate, allocate resources, monitor and evaluate.

is conducive to furthering coordination. Examples are Uruguay’s Social Cabinet, Paraguay’s Social Cabinet, Colombia’s National Council on Economic and Social Planning (CONPES) and Brazil’s sectoral chambers drawing together groups of ministers. Since 2007, Ecuador has developed a different model, under which coordinating ministries have been founded in various spheres, including the Ministry for the Coordination of Social Development, which has specific responsibility for coordinating the social programmes implemented by various ministries and for administering

the register of beneficiaries.15 _{Although it is too early to assess the results}

of these models, it is evident that they require strong political support and willingness by the various ministries to cooperate in order to create the

desired synergies.16

First ladies have always played a key role at this coordination level, especially with respect to social policies on children and reducing poverty and malnutrition. This is particularly true of Central American countries, such as Honduras, where, until the 2009 political crisis, the first lady was responsible for coordinating certain non-contributory social protection programmes (Repetto, 2010b). In Guatemala, too, the first lady is in charge of coordinating the Social Cohesion Council, which in turn coordinates the CTP Mi Familia Progresa. A major challenge, particularly in the area of social protection, is to deepen the technical component of this coordination model and to combine it, in an appropriate manner, with the policy role that these programmes have acquired.

(b) Technical level

In terms of technical coordination, the region’s experience with safety nets in the 1980s and social investment funds is rather illuminating. A common feature of these ventures is that they were not embedded in a specific ministry but, instead, fairly autonomous management models were adopted. According to Sojo: “When social emergency funds were set up, their operational independence of ministries and the social sectors was presented as one of their virtues and as a guarantee of their flexibility, efficacy and efficiency. […] Rather than ensuring flexibility or efficiency, the fact that they were competing with social sectors merely increased the administrative fragmentation of universal policies, since they increased the number of cases of overlaps or duplication, or else they gave rise to discontinuities with the dynamics of the social sectors.” (Sojo, 2007).

15 _{The Ministries of Finance, Labour and Employment, Public Health, Social and Economic} Inclusion, Education, Housing and Urban Development, Agriculture, Livestock, Aquaculture and Fisheries, the National Secretariat for Planning and Development (SENPLADES) and the National Secretariat for Migrants (SENAMI).

16 _{A further example of a coordinating ministry for social issues is the Ministry of Human} Development, which operated in the Plurinational State of Bolivia between 1993 and 1997 (Araníbar, 2010).

Current experiences of coordination at technical level include the Solidarity Chile system whose Executive Secretariat —which comes under the Ministry of Planning and Cooperation— is responsible for: coordinating the institutions responsible for providing welfare benefits and ensuring networking among them; generating resources targeted at needs not covered by regular provision (expanding existing social programmes and creating new ones); and overseeing information management, while maintaining an integrated support system. It operates on the basis of direct inter-agency agreements, within a legal framework that governs the operation of the entire system and regulates the system of guarantees (MIDEPLAN, 2009b). It is also characterized by the use of budget management as a means for monitoring progress and commitments by the

various agencies involved in the work of the social protection system.17

The Dominican Republic’s Solidarity programme is another example of coordination developed in the context of a CTP. In this case, the mismatch between demand and supply of services led to a search for ways to coordinate non-contributory social protection and sectoral policies, at both central and local level (Gámez, 2010). Since the establishment of the Intersectoral Coordination Committee (CCS), which comprises the ministries of health, education and finance, the National Health Insurance Authority (SeNaSa), the Solidarity programme and the Technical Directorate of the Social Cabinet, common objectives have been established for health, education and nutrition in order to boost sectoral plans via the CTP. The Committee’s work has also led to progress in such areas as: determining coverage gaps at local level; establishing budget allocation mechanisms for securing the long-term funding required to expand provision (capped and earmarked (“locked”) budgets)); redefining the roles of local officials and implementers of sectoral plans in the context of the Solidarity programme; and providing them with training and induction into the programme’s operating rationale (Gámez, 2010).

(c) Operational level

At operational level, too, there have been useful experiences of coordination arising from the use of service management instruments, such as the “one-stop shop” for centralizing a range of administrative

17 _{Even though the Executive Secretariat has no specific political or monetary resources} to encourage these agencies to comply with their contribution to the operation of the overall system, the fact that it is able to retain the sectoral allocations for each ministry and service involved has become a key strategy to consolidating progress in this area. At the same time, the transformation of the Executive Secretariat into a key partner in negotiations with the Ministry of Finance to maintain and increase certain resources for the line agencies has become a powerful catalyst for collaboration and coordination (interview with Verónica Silva, Executive Secretary of the Solidarity Chile social protection system, 14 December 2009).

formalities and providing information and access to various local social services via a single public service office or desk (or for “family support”, in the case of Solidarity Chile), and systems for identifying and registering beneficiaries, which have had the positive externality of promoting sectoral coordination and the planning of new interventions (Mesquita, 2009) (see section IV.F). Beneficiary identification and registration systems established as part of pension funds and, in particular, of CTPs, include: Colombia’s System for the Identification of Potential Social Programme Beneficiaries (SISBEN); Chile’s Social Protection Record and its Integrated Social Information System (SIIS); El Salvador’s Single Register of Beneficiaries (RUB); the Target Population Identification System (SIPO) of Costa Rica’s Joint Institute for Social Aid (IMAS); Mexico’s Single Socio- Economic Data Questionnaire (CUIS) and the Integrated Government- Programme Registration System (SIIPP-G) (see box II.1); the Single System for the Identification of Beneficiaries (SIUBEN) in the Dominican Republic’s CTP Solidarity; and Brazil’s single register for social programmes, known as CadÚnico. Similar efforts have also been made by countries with a less developed institutional framework, such as Honduras, which has established the Beneficiaries Registration System of Honduras (SIRBHO), a register of beneficiaries for unifying information in the national Family Allowance Programme (PRAF) and PRAF  III as part of the Honduran Government’s Solidarity Network social protection scheme (Cecchini and others, 2009).

Box II.1

MEXICO’S INTEGRATED GOVERNMENT-PROGRAMME REGISTRATION SYSTEM

The main objective of the Integrated Government-Programme Registration System (SIIPP-G) is to improve the quality of information and seek out overlaps in services to programme beneficiaries (Diario Oficial, 2005). SIIPP-G is part of the Public Social Security System (SISSP), which comprises the Oportunidades programme, the Social Insurance scheme and the Public Housing Programme.a _{SIIPPP-G is a means for registering and} identifying beneficiaries by unifying the various registers. Unification began in March 2006 (Fernández, 2006). Based on this pooled register, identity cards are issued to the families and individuals participating in any of the three programmes.

The identity cards, which have both a contact chip and a radio chip, are useful because they provide a direct interface with each beneficiary’s electronic file. The identity card includes biometric information on the beneficiary and is used in a unified manner for all formalities to be carried out in federal government agencies attached to the scheme. The code common to all programmes is the Single Population Registration Code (CURP) issued by the National Population and Personal Identification Register (RENAPO).

Apart from enhancing the system’s transparency and operational oversight, identity cards provide beneficiaries with more flexibility, as they can be attended to by any federal entity simply by presenting their identity card. Cards also act as a facilitation tool for Mexico’s federal states, district and municipalities, as well as for any entities involved in managing programmes.

SIIPP-G is administered by the federal executive branch through Mexico’s Ministry of Public Administration. Despite its potential advantages in terms of transparency and inter-agency coordination, the assessment of its performance by the Supreme Federal Audit Service (ASF) in 2007 was not positive. Among other things, the audit stated that no goals, targets or progress indicators had been set against which to assess SIIPP-G implementation. The difficulty in measuring the progress of federal programmes stems from a general lack of mechanisms for evaluating other aspects, such as efficiency, effectiveness and transparency. In addition, the registers of only 45 of the Government’s 117 programmes had been unified (38.5%), while half of the 133  million records lacked the CURP code for identifying beneficiaries. Some quality problems further compounded the problems in integrating the registers into the SIIPP-G, with the result that only 11 of the 45 registers could be included. Neither was a computer system available to analyse programme information (ASF, 2007). All this shows how difficult it is to implement such initiatives, something that should be taken into account when considering future applications of this nature.

Source: Supreme Federal Audit (ASF) “Auditoría 501. Sistema integral de información de padrones de programas gubernamentales (SIIPP-G). Cuenta pública 2007” [online] http://www.asf.gob.mx/Pags/AED/PG_DGADDS2007/501SIIPPG.PDF, 2007; Diario

oficial, “Decreto por el que se crea el sistema integral de información de padrones

de programas gubernamentales”, 12 December 2005 [online] http://www.contraloria. df.gob.mx/prontuario/ vigente/1182.htm; J.A. Fernández, “Sistema Integral de Información de Padrones de Programas Gubernamentales. Antecedentes – Prospectiva (SIIPP-G)” [online] www.normateca.gob.mx/.../4_Antecedentes_Prospectiva_Comision_ Nacional_de_Proteccion_Social.ppt, 2006.

a _{The SISSP was set up in 2006, under the presidency of Vicente Fox , in order to}

extend social security coverage to self-employed workers excluded from the other social security institutes: the Mexican Social Security Institute (IMSS) and the Social Security and Social Services Institute for State Workers (ISSSTE). The SISSP addresses three areas not previously considered in relation to self-employed workers: access to health, housing and a decent retirement. [online] See http://fox. presidencia.gob.mx/actividades/?contenido=23661.