## Annex I. Assessing Inclusiveness of Growth: Some Theoretical Considerations

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [Annex I. Assessing Inclusiveness of Growth: Some Theoretical Considerations](https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2013/_wp13215.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2013/_wp13215.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2013/_wp13215.pdf.json)

---

### I. Growth and Poverty Reduction in Senegal
- Historical phases of per capita growth:
  - Before the 1994 devaluation: real GDP per capita declined on average by about 0.8 percent a year and recorded large gyrations associated with periodic droughts, financial crises, oil shocks, and world recession.
  - After the 1994 devaluation: growth in per capita GDP became less volatile and was on average almost 2 percent a year.
- Recent growth context:
  - Even with the onset of the international financial crisis in 2008, Senegal’s growth remained positive in absolute terms, though GDP per capita growth was below trend.
- Poverty level and trends:
  - Poverty (national line) declined from 55.2 percent in 2001 to 46.7 percent in 2011.
  - Poverty gap declined from 17.2 to 14.5 (1994–2011 comparisons).
  - In 1994–2001, GDP growth in Senegal was about 5 percent a year; poverty rate fell from 68 percent in 1994/95 to 55 percent in 2001/02.
  - In 2002–05, GDP growth reached 4.7 percent and the poverty rate declined further to about 48.5 percent.
  - During 2005–06 onward, repeated shocks reduced per capita income growth to little more than the rate of population growth; the 2011 household survey suggests the past five years saw a poverty incidence decline of only 1.8 percentage points to 46.7 percent.
- Regional and spatial comparisons:
  - At the $1.25 a day poverty line (2005 prices), Senegal in 2011 was comparable to Ethiopia and Ghana but behind Gabon, Cameroon, and Côte d’Ivoire.
  - Poverty incidence in 2011 varied by region: poorest regions (Kolda, Fatick, Ziguinchor) had 67–73 percent, Dakar had 26 percent.
- Growth–poverty elasticity:
  - In 2001–2011, the elasticity of the headcount poverty rate with respect to growth in real GDP per capita in Senegal was about -1.3, above that of some other fast-growing WAEMU countries.

### II. Growth Inclusiveness in Senegal — Measures, Data, and Indicators
- Measures of equality and distributional focus:
  - Squared poverty gap (captures severity among the poor).
  - Watts index (distribution-sensitive; accounts for greater impact of income gains to the poor).
  - Gini coefficient (deviation from perfect equality).
  - Mean log deviation (MLD) index (sensitive to changes at lower end).
  - Decile ratio (average consumption of richest 10 percent divided by poorest 10 percent).
  - Growth incidence curves (compare income growth across percentiles/deciles).
- Data requirements and limitations:
  - Analysis requires at least two household surveys with comparable methodology and reliable income/consumption data.
  - Measurement challenges in Senegal: large informal sector, possible outliers (corrected routinely but may affect incidence curves), varying definitions and timing across surveys (household size, sociodemographic variables, rural/urban coverage) that can affect comparability.

### II.B Inequality Indicators in Senegal (time-series levels)
- Squared Poverty Gap:
  - 1994 = 9.09; 2001 = 6.18; 2005 = 4.67; 2011 = 3.77.
- Watts Index:
  - 1994 = 0.274; 2001 = 0.194; 2005 = 0.153; 2011 = 0.124.
- Gini Coefficient:
  - 1994 = 41.44; 2001 = 41.25; 2005 = 39.19; 2011 = 40.30.
- MLD Index:
  - 1994 = 0.30; 2001 = 0.29; 2005 = 0.26; 2011 = 0.27.
- Decile ratio (top decile average consumption / bottom decile):
  - 1994 = 12.9; 2001 = 11.8; 2005 = 11.8; 2011 = 12.5.
  - Interpretation: the richest consume on average about 12–13 times more than the poorest.
- Income shares:
  - The richest two deciles consume about half the goods and services in the country, roughly the same amount as the seven bottom deciles.
- Interpretation of indicator dynamics:
  - Squared poverty gap shrank by more than half between 1994 and 2011, indicating reduced severity among the poorest.
  - Watts index dropped substantially, pointing to faster improvement for lowest incomes.
  - Gini and MLD declined in 1994–2005 but rose again in 2005–11, implying no major net change in overall inequality over 1994–2011.

### II.C Growth Incidence Curves and Distributional Dynamics
- Methodology and interpretation:
  - Growth incidence curves plot growth rates of consumption expenditure by percentile/decile; vertical axis = growth rate, horizontal axis = consumption percentiles.
  - Portions of the curve:
    - Above zero: deciles benefiting from growth.
    - Below zero: deciles losing ground.
    - Above the curve’s mean: deciles benefiting relatively more than average.
    - Negatively sloping curve: poorer deciles growing faster than richer deciles, signaling convergence and an indication of inclusive growth.
  - Improvements in inclusiveness are signaled by the curve’s slope changing from positive to negative and by the curve and its mean moving upward.
- Senegal’s recent incidence observations:
  - 2006–11: growth in consumption was positive but low and almost equal among different deciles; no significant change in inequality because bottom deciles’ consumption growth was only slightly higher than top deciles’.
  - 2001–05: the poorest fifth experienced a decline in consumption, middle deciles registered significant growth, and the richest groups saw an insignificant increase.

### Distributional shifts and growth incidence curves (2001–2011)
- Aggregate signals:
  - Growth incidence curves give somewhat conflicting signals but confirm that growth benefitted most people in the middle of the income distribution.
- 2001–2005:
  - Mean of the growth incidence curve is above zero, driven by the middle of the distribution (from the 3rd to the 8th deciles).
  - The growth incidence curve is positively sloped, suggesting some increase in inequality during this period.
- 2005–2011:
  - Mean of the growth incidence curve is above zero.
  - The curve is broadly flat, suggesting no clear trend in changes in inequality.
- 2001–2011 (overall):
  - A clear increase in mean consumption confirms the decline in poverty, as the middle class improved their relative position.
  - The growth incidence curve has a slightly positive slope, which may point to some worsening of inclusiveness; this trend may not be statistically significant.
  - Overall result masks significant differences between urban and rural areas.

### Urban versus rural patterns of inclusiveness
- Urban areas:
  - 2001–2005: Incidence curve substantially above the mean for the whole distribution other than the top decile; slopes down a little, suggesting somewhat reduced disparity between the rich and the poor.
  - 2005–2011: Incidence curve hovers around zero and is upward sloping, pointing to some worsening of inclusiveness.
  - 2001–2011: No clear trend, although growth of consumption of the middle decile was very strong; incidence curve is above zero but broadly flat, pointing to unchanged inclusiveness.
- Rural areas:
  - 2001–2005: Clear trend of growing inequality; incidence curve is positively sloped and below zero for the first two deciles.
  - 2005–2011: No clear trend in inclusiveness (incidence curve broadly flat) nor in poverty reduction (mean is about zero).
  - 2001–2011: Incidence curve is positively sloped at low deciles but broadly flat in the middle; growth rate in the lower deciles substantially lower than growth in the median and highest deciles, pointing to an increasing gap between the poor and the rich in some rural areas.
- Aggregate implications:
  - Difference between the median growth rates of spending by households in rural areas is closer to the mean growth rate than in urban areas.
  - Overall change in the distribution of households’ consumption is heavily influenced by changes in rural areas and is skewed to the right, because most households are relatively poorer than the mean household in the country.
  - In urban areas the distribution is skewed to the left—most households are relatively richer than the mean household in the country—so changes in consumption of relatively rich households have less impact on overall inclusiveness.

### Summary of statistical conclusions on inclusiveness and poverty
- (i) Poverty in Senegal has fallen in the last two decades, although poverty reduction has slowed in recent years.
- (ii) Although available indicators sometimes give conflicting signals on distributional shifts, growth seems to have benefitted most people in the middle of the distribution.
- (iii) The middle class has benefitted from growth, mainly in urban areas, while both the poorest and the richest have lost ground.
- (iv) Growth in rural areas has been less inclusive than in urban areas.

### Are public policies supportive of inclusive growth?
- Possible indicators for public policies supportive of inclusive growth include:
  - (i) the overall level of social spending;
  - (ii) measures specifically targeted at raising incomes of people in the bottom deciles relative to the average income;
  - (iii) development of social safety nets for the population in general and programs aimed at its poorest segments (social protection floor);
  - (iv) the design of the tax system.
- Aggregate social spending:
  - The aggregate level of health and education spending in Senegal is comparable to that of WAEMU countries, but the composition is different.
  - Spending on education and health care was higher in Senegal than the WAEMU average.
  - Spending on education and health care should contribute to inclusiveness of growth, especially in urban areas where the concentration of schools is high.
- Regional concentration of public expenditure:
  - Public expenditure, including in the social sectors, is concentrated in Dakar.
  - The World Bank estimated that the capital area, where only about a quarter of the population of Senegal lives, absorbs more than half of public resources.
  - Distribution of Public Health Spending by Region (2009): Dakar 51.0%; Saint Louis 4.3%; Diourbel 7.0%; Tamba 6.1%; Kaolack 5.9%; Matam 4.1%; Ziguinchor 3.9%; Kolda 3.7%; Louga 3.0%; Fatick 2.0%; Ambassade 0.02%.
  - Distribution of Public Education Spending by Region (2009): Dakar 52.3%; Saint Louis 11.1%; Thies 10.1%; Ziguinchor 5.4%; Kaolack 4.4%; Diourbel 4.2%; Fatick 3.8%; Kolda 3.6%; Louga 3.0%; Tamba 1.4%; Matam 0.7%; Ambassade 0.02%.

### Past policy responses to shocks and social protection coverage
- Ad hoc measures during crises:
  - During the 2007–2008 food and fuel crisis, authorities temporarily reduced the VAT and introduced excise tax exemptions and subsidies for butane for all consumers.
  - The fiscal cost of these measures amounted to about 4½ percent of GDP during the two-year period, with about a third stemming from losses in revenue.
  - The 2008 PSIA revealed ad hoc measures were poorly targeted: almost 55 percent of the benefits accrued to households in the top 40 percent of the welfare distribution.
  - February 2011: government froze retail prices for six key food items and temporarily limited price increases for petroleum products by reducing the VAT base; some measures were reversed later in the year.
  - Early 2012 and early 2013: authorities temporarily introduced implicit subsidies for petroleum products through a mechanism of price stabilization, but later phased them out.
- Scope and coverage of social safety nets:
  - Formal social security coverage reaches 13 percent of the population.
    - 6 percent covered by formal pension.
    - 3 percent receiving social security benefits.
    - 3 percent having health insurance.
  - Annual transfers under safety net programs averaged about CFAF 17 billion a year in 2010–12, about 0.27 percent of GDP.
  - Safety net funding remains largely dependent on donor financing with the budget providing not more than one-fourth.
  - Safety net programs provide support to daily existence, nutritional support, and improving access to basic services via monetary transfers (cash grants and loans), food aid, and fee waivers for health services.
  - Programs are spread across several entities and each consists of several projects.

### Box 1 — Social Programs in Senegal (existing programs and recent initiatives)
- Existing social programs:
  - Food Security Commissariat (Commissariat de la Securité Alimentaire—CSA) provides food aid assistance to vulnerable populations either in response to catastrophes or through rice distribution.
  - National Solidarity Fund (Fonds de Solidarité Nationale—FSN) provides immediate responses to emergency situations, including financial, medical, and material support.
  - Community-based Re-adaptation Program (Programme de réadaptation à base communautaire—PRBC) provides social, economic, and cultural integration for disabled persons through financial support and income generating activities.
  - Old Age Support Program (Projet d'appui à la promotion des aînés—PAPA) addresses the vulnerable elderly (over 60 years) by capacity strengthening, grants, and subsidized loans for elderly.
  - National School Lunch Program (Programme d'alimentation scolaire) provides school lunches funded by the national budget.
  - WFP School Lunch Program (WFP Cantines Scolaires) supports the national school lunch program by providing primary school lunches in vulnerable rural areas.
  - Educational Support for Vulnerable Children (Bourses d'étude pour les orphelins et autres enfants vulnérables—OEV) provides schooling or professional training to vulnerable children through a program of the National HIV-AIDS Council.
  - Sesame Plan (Plan Sesame) waives health service fees for all persons over 60 years.
  - Poverty Reduction Program (Programme d'appui à la mise en œuvre de la Stratégie de Réduction de la Pauvreté—PRP) supports grants for income generating activities for vulnerable groups, primarily women, the disabled, and HIV affected people.
  - A pilot Cash Transfers for Child Nutrition Program (Nutrition ciblée sur l'enfant et transferts sociaux—NETS) entails cash grants to mothers of vulnerable children under 5 years old to mitigate the negative impacts of food price increases.
  - WFP Vouchers for Food Pilot Program (WFP Bons d’Achat—WFP CV) addresses food insecurity among vulnerable households driven by high food prices.
- Recently announced projects:
  - Pilot project Bourses de Sécurité Familiale (BSF) to provide annual financial assistance to the poorest families (planned by the government).
  - Introduction of universal medical coverage (Couverture Maladie Universelle, CMU) that would provide basic medical care, particularly the most vulnerable (intended by the government).
- Assessment and policy implications:
  - A more comprehensive social safety net is needed, funded by broadening the tax base and increasing some taxes, along with reallocating existing spending.
  - Experience in the region suggests a minimum social safety net can be provided at low cost:
    - World Bank estimate for Burkina Faso: a basic social safety net could be set up at a cost of around 1.5 percent of GDP.
    - For Senegal, this level of spending is within reach.
  - Well-targeted social safety nets can help reduce inequality and poverty.

*Source: Annex I. Assessing Inclusiveness of Growth: Some Theoretical Considerations (pages excerpted), _wp13215 - Annex I, IMF staff paper content provided.*

### Annex I. Assessing Inclusiveness of Growth: Some Theoretical Considerations ...................22

### Annex I. Assessing Inclusiveness of Growth: Some Theoretical Considerations

### I. Growth and Poverty Reduction in Senegal
- Historical phases of per capita growth:
  - Before the 1994 devaluation: real GDP per capita declined on average by about 0.8 percent a year and recorded large gyrations associated with periodic droughts, financial crises, oil shocks, and world recession.
  - After the 1994 devaluation: growth in per capita GDP became less volatile and was on average almost 2 percent a year.
- Recent growth context:
  - Even with the onset of the international financial crisis in 2008, Senegal’s growth remained positive in absolute terms, though GDP per capita growth was below trend.
- Poverty level and trends:
  - Poverty (national line) declined from 55.2 percent in 2001 to 46.7 percent in 2011.
  - Poverty gap declined from 17.2 to 14.5 (1994–2011 comparisons).
  - In 1994–2001, GDP growth in Senegal was about 5 percent a year; poverty rate fell from 68 percent in 1994/95 to 55 percent in 2001/02.
  - In 2002–05, GDP growth reached 4.7 percent and the poverty rate declined further to about 48.5 percent.
  - During 2005–06 onward, repeated shocks reduced per capita income growth to little more than the rate of population growth; the 2011 household survey suggests the past five years saw a poverty incidence decline of only 1.8 percentage points to 46.7 percent.
- Regional and spatial comparisons:
  - At the $1.25 a day poverty line (2005 prices), Senegal in 2011 was comparable to Ethiopia and Ghana but behind Gabon, Cameroon, and Côte d’Ivoire.
  - Poverty incidence in 2011 varied by region: poorest regions (Kolda, Fatick, Ziguinchor) had 67–73 percent, Dakar had 26 percent.
- Growth–poverty elasticity:
  - In 2001–2011, the elasticity of the headcount poverty rate with respect to growth in real GDP per capita in Senegal was about -1.3, above that of some other fast-growing WAEMU countries.

### II. Growth Inclusiveness in Senegal
#### A. Measures of Equality and Data Issues
- Statistical metrics used to assess inclusiveness (distributional focus):
  - Squared poverty gap (captures severity among the poor).
  - Watts index (distribution-sensitive; accounts for greater impact of income gains to the poor).
  - Gini coefficient (deviation from perfect equality).
  - Mean log deviation (MLD) index (sensitive to changes at lower end).
  - Decile ratio (average consumption of richest 10 percent divided by poorest 10 percent).
  - Growth incidence curves (compare income growth across percentiles/deciles).
- Data requirements and limitations:
  - Analysis requires at least two household surveys with comparable methodology and reliable income/consumption data.
  - Measurement challenges in Senegal: large informal sector, possible outliers (corrected routinely but may affect incidence curves), varying definitions and timing across surveys (household size, sociodemographic variables, rural/urban coverage) that can affect comparability.

#### B. Inequality Indicators in Senegal
- Time-series levels (PovCalNet, World Bank, 2013; PPP-based calculations):
  - Squared Poverty Gap: 1994 = 9.09; 2001 = 6.18; 2005 = 4.67; 2011 = 3.77.
  - Watts Index: 1994 = 0.274; 2001 = 0.194; 2005 = 0.153; 2011 = 0.124.
  - Gini Coefficient: 1994 = 41.44; 2001 = 41.25; 2005 = 39.19; 2011 = 40.30.
  - MLD Index: 1994 = 0.30; 2001 = 0.29; 2005 = 0.26; 2011 = 0.27.
- Key inequality patterns and interpretation:
  - Squared poverty gap shrank by more than half between 1994 and 2011, indicating reduced severity among the poorest.
  - Watts index dropped substantially, pointing to faster improvement for lowest incomes.
  - Gini and MLD declined in 1994–2005 but rose again in 2005–11, implying no major net change in overall inequality over 1994–2011.
  - Decile ratio (top decile average consumption / bottom decile):
    - 1994 = 12.9; 2001 = 11.8; 2005 = 11.8; 2011 = 12.5.
    - Interpretation: the richest consume on average about 12–13 times more than the poorest.
  - Income shares:
    - The richest two deciles consume about half the goods and services in the country, roughly the same amount as the seven bottom deciles.

#### C. Growth Incidence Curves and Distributional Dynamics
- Methodology and interpretation:
  - Growth incidence curves plot growth rates of consumption expenditure by percentile/decile; vertical axis = growth rate, horizontal axis = consumption percentiles.
  - Portions of the curve:
    - Above zero: deciles benefiting from growth.
    - Below zero: deciles losing ground.
    - Above the curve’s mean: deciles benefiting relatively more than average.
    - Negatively sloping curve: poorer deciles growing faster than richer deciles, signaling convergence and an indication of inclusive growth.
  - Improvements in inclusiveness are signaled by the curve’s slope changing from positive to negative and by the curve and its mean moving upward.
- Senegal’s recent incidence observations:
  - 2006–11: growth in consumption was positive but low and almost equal among different deciles; no significant change in inequality because bottom deciles’ consumption growth was only slightly higher than top deciles’.
  - 2001–05: the poorest fifth experienced a decline in consumption, middle deciles registered significant growth, and the richest groups saw an insignificant increase.

*Source: Annex I. Assessing Inclusiveness of Growth: Some Theoretical Considerations (pages excerpted), _wp13215 - Annex I, IMF staff paper content provided.*

### Annex I for a suggested formal treatment).

### Annex I for a suggested formal treatment)

### Distributional shifts and growth incidence curves (2001–2011)
- Growth incidence curves for Senegal give somewhat conflicting signals but confirm that growth benefitted most people in the middle of the income distribution.
- 2001–2005:
  - Mean of the growth incidence curve is above zero, driven by the middle of the distribution (from the 3rd to the 8th deciles).
  - The growth incidence curve is positively sloped, suggesting some increase in inequality during this period.
- 2005–2011:
  - Mean of the growth incidence curve is above zero.
  - The curve is broadly flat, suggesting no clear trend in changes in inequality.
- 2001–2011 (overall):
  - A clear increase in mean consumption confirms the decline in poverty, as the middle class improved their relative position.
  - The growth incidence curve has a slightly positive slope, which may point to some worsening of inclusiveness; this trend may not be statistically significant.
  - Overall result masks significant differences between urban and rural areas.

### Urban versus rural patterns of inclusiveness
- Urban areas:
  - 2001–2005: Growth incidence curve for urban areas is substantially above the mean for the whole distribution other than the top decile; it slopes down a little, suggesting somewhat reduced disparity between the rich and the poor.
  - 2005–2011: Incidence curve hovers around zero and is upward sloping, pointing to some worsening of inclusiveness.
  - 2001–2011: No clear trend, although growth of consumption of the middle decile was very strong; incidence curve is above zero but broadly flat, pointing to unchanged inclusiveness.
- Rural areas:
  - 2001–2005: Clear trend of growing inequality; incidence curve is positively sloped and below zero for the first two deciles.
  - 2005–2011: No clear trend in inclusiveness (incidence curve broadly flat) nor in poverty reduction (mean is about zero).
  - 2001–2011: Incidence curve is positively sloped at low deciles but broadly flat in the middle; growth rate in the lower deciles substantially lower than growth in the median and highest deciles, pointing to an increasing gap between the poor and the rich in some rural areas.
- Aggregate implications:
  - Difference between the median growth rates of spending by households in rural areas is closer to the mean growth rate than in urban areas.
  - Overall change in the distribution of households’ consumption is heavily influenced by changes in rural areas and is skewed to the right, because most households are relatively poorer than the mean household in the country.
  - In urban areas the distribution is skewed to the left—most households are relatively richer than the mean household in the country—so changes in consumption of relatively rich households have less impact on overall inclusiveness.

### Summary of statistical conclusions on inclusiveness and poverty
- (i) Poverty in Senegal has fallen in the last two decades, although poverty reduction has slowed in recent years.
- (ii) Although available indicators sometimes give conflicting signals on distributional shifts, growth seems to have benefitted most people in the middle of the distribution.
- (iii) The middle class has benefitted from growth, mainly in urban areas, while both the poorest and the richest have lost ground.
- (iv) Growth in rural areas has been less inclusive than in urban areas.

### Are public policies supportive of inclusive growth?
- Possible indicators for public policies supportive of inclusive growth include:
  - (i) the overall level of social spending;
  - (ii) measures specifically targeted at raising incomes of people in the bottom deciles relative to the average income;
  - (iii) development of social safety nets for the population in general and programs aimed at its poorest segments (social protection floor);
  - (iv) the design of the tax system.
- Aggregate social spending:
  - The aggregate level of health and education spending in Senegal is comparable to that of WAEMU countries, but the composition is different.
  - Spending on education and health care was higher in Senegal than the WAEMU average.
  - Spending on education and health care should contribute to inclusiveness of growth, especially in urban areas where the concentration of schools is high.
- Regional concentration of public expenditure:
  - Public expenditure, including in the social sectors, is concentrated in Dakar.
  - The World Bank estimated that the capital area, where only about a quarter of the population of Senegal lives, absorbs more than half of public resources.
  - Distribution of Public Health Spending by Region (2009): Dakar 51.0%; Saint Louis 4.3%; Diourbel 7.0%; Tamba 6.1%; Kaolack 5.9%; Matam 4.1%; Ziguinchor 3.9%; Kolda 3.7%; Louga 3.0%; Fatick 2.0%; Ambassade 0.02%.
  - Distribution of Public Education Spending by Region (2009): Dakar 52.3%; Saint Louis 11.1%; Thies 10.1%; Ziguinchor 5.4%; Kaolack 4.4%; Diourbel 4.2%; Fatick 3.8%; Kolda 3.6%; Louga 3.0%; Tamba 1.4%; Matam 0.7%; Ambassade 0.02%.

### Past policy responses to shocks and social protection coverage
- Ad hoc measures during crises:
  - During the 2007–2008 food and fuel crisis, authorities temporarily reduced the VAT and introduced excise tax exemptions and subsidies for butane for all consumers.
  - The fiscal cost of these measures amounted to about 4½ percent of GDP during the two-year period, with about a third stemming from losses in revenue.
  - The 2008 PSIA revealed ad hoc measures were poorly targeted: almost 55 percent of the benefits accrued to households in the top 40 percent of the welfare distribution.
  - February 2011: government froze retail prices for six key food items and temporarily limited price increases for petroleum products by reducing the VAT base; some measures were reversed later in the year.
  - Early 2012 and early 2013: authorities temporarily introduced implicit subsidies for petroleum products through a mechanism of price stabilization, but later phased them out.
- Scope and coverage of social safety nets:
  - Formal social security coverage reaches 13 percent of the population.
    - 6 percent covered by formal pension.
    - 3 percent receiving social security benefits.
    - 3 percent having health insurance.
  - Annual transfers under safety net programs averaged about CFAF 17 billion a year in 2010–12, about 0.27 percent of GDP.
  - Safety net funding remains largely dependent on donor financing with the budget providing not more than one-fourth.
  - Safety net programs provide support to daily existence, nutritional support, and improving access to basic services via monetary transfers (cash grants and loans), food aid, and fee waivers for health services.
  - Programs are spread across several entities and each consists of several projects.

*Source: _wp13215 - Annex I for a suggested formal treatment).*

### Box 1. Social Programs in Senegal

### Box 1. Social Programs in Senegal

### Existing social programs (enumerated)
- Food Security Commissariat (Commissariat de la Securité Alimentaire—CSA) provides food aid  assistance  to  vulnerable  populations  either  in  response  to  catastrophes  or  through  rice distribution;
- National Solidarity Fund (Fonds de Solidarité Nationale—FSN) is responsible for providing immediate responses to emergency situations, including financial, medical, and material support;
- Community-based Re-adaptation Program (Programme de réadaptation à base communautaire—PRBC) provides social, economic, and cultural integration for disabled persons through financial support and income generating activities;
- Old Age Support Program (Projet d'appui à la promotion des aînés—PAPA) addresses the vulnerable elderly (over 60 years) by capacity strengthening, grants, and subsidized loans for elderly;
- National School Lunch Program (Programme d'alimentation scolaire) provides school lunches funded by the national budget;
- WFP School Lunch Program (WFP Cantines Scolaires) supports the national school lunch program by providing primary school lunches in vulnerable rural areas;
- Educational Support for Vulnerable Children (Bourses d'étude pour les orphelins et autres enfants vulnérables—OEV) provides schooling or professional training to vulnerable children through a program of the National HIV-AIDS Council;
- Sesame Plan (Plan Sesame) waives health service fees for all persons over 60 years;
- Poverty Reduction Program (Programme d'appui à la mise en œuvre de la Stratégie de Réduction de la Pauvreté—PRP) supports grants for income generating activities for vulnerable groups, primarily women, the disabled, and HIV affected people;
- A pilot Cash Transfers for Child Nutrition Program (Nutrition ciblée sur l'enfant et transferts sociaux—NETS) entails cash grants to mothers of vulnerable children under 5 years old to mitigate the negative impacts of food price increases; and
- WFP Vouchers for Food Pilot Program (WFP Bons d’Achat—WFP CV) addresses food insecurity among vulnerable households driven by high food prices.

### Recently announced projects
- Pilot project Bourses de Sécurité Familiale (BSF) to provide annual financial assistance to the poorest families (planned by the government).
- Introduction of universal medical coverage (Couverture Maladie Universelle, CMU) that would provide basic medical care, particularly the most vulnerable (intended by the government).

### Assessment and policy implications
- A more comprehensive social safety net is needed, funded by broadening the tax base and increasing some taxes, along with reallocating existing spending.
- Experience in the region suggests a minimum social safety net can be provided at low cost:
  - World Bank estimate for Burkina Faso: a basic social safety net could be set up at a cost of around 1.5 percent of GDP.
  - For Senegal, this level of spending is within reach.
- Well-targeted social safety nets can help reduce inequality and poverty.

*Source: World Bank, 2013.*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2013/_wp13215.pdf_