When times are tough, how should governments in poor countries ensure their citizens remain fed? In the past, most of them used subsidies (现金补助) to keep food prices low for all their citizens. But these policies have become ineffective: the cost of maintaining Egypt's food subsidies, for instance, nearly doubled between 2009 and 2013. And much of the money goes to the wrong people. In Egypt and the Philippines less than 20% of spending on food subsidies goes to poor households. In the Middle East and North Africa only 35% of subsidies reach 40% of the poorest, the IMF notes.
Motivated by a desire to control growing budget deficits (赤字) , many countries are replacing broad subsidies with policies aimed more directly at the needy. But what form should the targeted aid take? Earlier this month Iran introduced free handouts of food to replace its subsidy method. Other countries, such as Indonesia and Malaysia, have chosen instead to provide extra cash benefits to the poor. So far, food vouchers (代金券) have been the least popular option. Proposals to introduce food vouchers in such countries as Malaysia have been rejected on the basis that they were too American and un-Asian.
However, the researchers at the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) thought that might have been a mistake and analyzed the results of an experiment conducted by the World Food Programme in Ecuador, a South American country, in 2011, which compared handouts of food, cash and vouchers in the experiment. The study found that direct handouts— Iran's new policy—were the least effective option. They cost three times as much as vouchers to promote calorie intake by 15%, and were four times as costly as a way of increasing dietary diversity and quality. Distribution costs were high, and wastage was also a problem. Only 63% of the food given away was actually eaten, while 83% of the cash was spent on food and 99% of the vouchers were exchanged as intended. Food handouts have also been the costliest option in similar projects in some African countries, according to John Hoddinott at IFPRI.
In Ecuador there was little difference in cost between handing out cash and food vouchers, the other two options. But food vouchers were better at encouraging people to buy healthier foods because of restrictions on what items could be exchanged for them. It was 25% cheaper to promote the quality of household nutrition using food vouchers than it was by handing out cash.
A switch from universal subsidies to vouchers could be the most efficient way of promoting health as well as relieving poverty. This is very necessary in many developing countries, according to Lynn Brown, a consultant for the World Bank.
|
Topic |
Feeding expectations: Why food vouchers are a policy consideration in developing countries? |
|
Aim of universal subsidies |
To for the citizens in poor countries. |
|
Analyses of three policies |
Cash ●It keeps food prices low for all citizens. ●It is not in the long term: ＊The cost keeps increasing. ＊Much of the money doesn't reach those really in . |
|
Handouts of food ●The food can reach the needy . ●They cost twice more than vouchers to promote calorie intake. ●A lot of the food handed out is wasted, thus a matter of wastage. |
|
|
Food vouchers ●They work better when it to encouraging people to buy healthier foods. ● with handing out cash, using food vouchers costs much less. ●They are too American and un-Asian. |
|
|
Conclusion |
It's a to use vouchers in many developing countries because it not only helps to poverty but also promotes health most efficiently. |
