Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

The Iraqi Public Distribution System is the largest universal, in-kind subsidy system in the world. In 2012, the Public Distribution System transfers accounted for as much as 30 percent of incomes of the poorest 10 percent of the Iraqi population and provided 70 percent of the calories of the poorest 40 percent. In effect, the Public Distribution System remains the only safety net program that covers all the poor and vulnerable in the country. Yet, it is a very inefficient and expensive means to deliver transfers to the poor and creates distortions in the economy as well as an unsustainable fiscal burden. The fiscal crisis since mid-2014 has put reform of the Public Distribution System back on the agenda. This paper employs a mixed demand approach to analyze the consumption patterns of Iraqi households and quantify the welfare impact of a potential reform of the Public Distribution System in urban areas. The results show that household consumption of Public Distribution System items is relatively inelastic to changes in price. Consumption is more inelastic for the poorest quintiles and, for much of the population, these goods are not inferior, but rather normal goods. Cross-sectional comparisons suggest that with improvements in welfare levels, and with well-functioning markets, some segments of the population are substituting away from the Public Distribution System and increasing their consumption of market substitutes. The removal of all subsidies will require compensating poor households by 74.4 percent of their expenditures compared with nearly 40 percent for the richest households in urban areas.

Demand Analysis --- Food Subsidy --- Mixed Demand Approach --- Public Distribution System --- Quota

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

The longstanding "cash versus food" debate has received renewed attention in both research and practice. This paper reviews key issues shaping the debate and presents new evidence from randomized and quasi-experimental evaluations that deliberately compare cash and in-kind food transfers in ten developing counties. Findings show that relative effectiveness cannot be generalized: although some differences emerge in terms of food consumption and dietary diversity, average impacts tend to depend on context, specific objectives, and their measurement. Costs for cash transfers and vouchers tend to be significantly lower relative to in-kind food. Yet the consistency and robustness of methods for efficiency analyses varies greatly.

Administrative Costs. --- Agricultural Activities. --- Agricultural Economics. --- Agriculture. --- Assistance Programs. --- Bars. --- Beneficiary. --- Bread. --- Cash Assistance. --- Cash Interventions. --- Cash Payments. --- Cash Transfer Programs. --- Cash Transfer. --- Cassava. --- Cereals. --- Child Growth. --- Child Health. --- Child Nutrition. --- Chocolate. --- Conditional Cash. --- Conditional Transfer. --- Corn. --- Dairy. --- Distribution Program. --- Distribution System. --- Dried Fish. --- Drought. --- Economic Growth. --- Education Programs. --- Eggs. --- Emergency Food. --- Famine. --- Feeding Programs. --- Flour. --- Food Aid. --- Food and Beverage Industry. --- Food Assistance Programs. --- Food Assistance. --- Food Availability. --- Food Commodities. --- Food Consumption. --- Food Distribution. --- Food Expenditures. --- Food Fortification. --- Food Insecurity. --- Food Policy. --- Food Prices. --- Food Producers. --- Food Production. --- Food Programmes. --- Food Programs. --- Food Provision. --- Food Ration. --- Food Rations. --- Food Relief. --- Food Security. --- Food Shortage. --- Food Stamp. --- Food Supply. --- Food Transfer. --- Food Vouchers. --- Food. --- Foods. --- Fruit. --- Global Food Production. --- Grains. --- Health Centers. --- Health Program. --- Health, Nutrition and Population. --- Home Ration. --- Household Consumption. --- Household Food Security. --- Household Income. --- Household Level. --- Household Size. --- Household Surveys. --- Household Welfare. --- Human Resources. --- Humanitarian Response. --- Income Transfer. --- Income. --- Industry. --- International Social Security. --- Labeling. --- Labor Supply. --- Lean Season. --- Legumes. --- Logistics. --- Maintenance Program. --- Maize. --- Malnutrition. --- Market Prices. --- Maternal-Child Health. --- Meal. --- Measures. --- Meat. --- Milk Powder. --- Natural Disasters. --- Nutrition Assistance. --- Nutrition Programs. --- Nutrition Training. --- Nutrition. --- Nutritional Benefits. --- Palm Oil. --- Pasta. --- Peanuts. --- Pensions. --- Political Economy. --- Poor. --- Potatoes. --- Poverty Line. --- Poverty Reduction. --- Poverty. --- Protection Systems. --- Provision of Goods. --- Public Action. --- Public Distribution System. --- Public Works. --- Pulses. --- Purchasing Power. --- Rations. --- Red Beans. --- Refugee Camps. --- Resource Allocation. --- Rice. --- Risk Management. --- Risks. --- Rural Poverty Reduction. --- Safety Net Programs. --- Safety Net Transfers. --- Safety Net. --- Safety Nets and Transfers. --- Savings. --- School Feeding Programs. --- School Feeding. --- School Fees. --- School Meals. --- Share of Transfers. --- Social Contract. --- Social Pensions. --- Social Protection. --- Social Protections and Labor. --- Social Safety Nets. --- Social Security. --- Social Spending. --- Social Transfer. --- Social Transfers. --- Staple Foods. --- Starch. --- Subsidies. --- Sugar. --- Supermarket. --- Targeting. --- Temporary Employment. --- Transaction Costs. --- Transfer Amount. --- Transfer Program. --- Transfers in Cash. --- Transfers. --- Tubers. --- Ultra Poor. --- Vegetables. --- Vouchers. --- Vulnerable Group. --- Welfare. --- Wheat Flour. --- Wheat. --- Works Program. --- World Food Programme.