Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Public Finance Review
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Younger, S. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The Relative Progressivity of Social Services in Ecuador

Stephen D. Younger

Cornell University

This article examines the incidence of public subsidies to health and education services in Ecuador. In Ecuador, health and education services are the only public expenditures that consciously attempt to redistribute welfare to the poor. The methods combine demand estimates from the willingness-to-pay literature with welfare dominance tests, allowing a comparison of the standard benefit incidence analysis with the more sophisticated demand estimates. The results give a clear progressivity ordering for the public services examined: primary school subsidies are the most progressive, followed by health consultations for children, health consultations for adults and secondary education (which are statistically indistinguishable), and subsidies for tertiary education. Of these, only the first two have a significant impact on the distribution of per capita expenditure, inclusive of benefits. These results are remarkably consistent across the methods used.

Public Finance Review, Vol. 27, No. 3, 310-352 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/109114219902700304


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?