September 1998 Does risk perpetuate poverty in a credit-constrained economy? Income risk appears not to discourage schooling but does inhibit the out-migration of labor. Only a small share of wealth is held in unproductive liquid forms to protect against income risk. Does risk perpetuate poverty in a credit-constrained economy? Jalan and Ravallion study portfolio and other behavioral responses to measured risk using household panel data for rural China. One-quarter of wealth is held in unproductive liquid forms. But only a small share of this appears to be a precaution against income risk. The authors estimate that eliminating income risk would reduce the share of wealth held in liquid form by less than 1 percentage point. Moreover, that effect is confined largely to middle-income groups; high-income households do not, it seems, need to hold unproductive precautionary wealth, and the poor probably cannot afford to do so. The authors find no evidence that income risk discourages schooling, but risk does inhibit the out-migration of labor. Generally, the results provide only limited support for the idea that uninsured risks promote unproductive portfolio behavior in this setting. There is such an effect, but it is small in magnitude and cannot be deemed an important cause of poverty. This paper-a product of Poverty and Human Resources, Development Research Group-is part of a larger effort in the group to better understand the causes of poverty. The study was funded by the Bank's Research Support Budget under the research project Dynamics of Poverty in Rural China (RPO 678-69). The authors may be contacted at [email protected] or [email protected].

Presents a reinvigorated agenda on agricultural and rural development in Asia both for research and policy discussions in the coming decades.

Over the past few years, and certainly since the publication of the "Stern Report", there has been increasing recognition that climate change is not only an environmental crisis, but one with important social and economic dimensions. There is now a growing need for multi-disciplinary research and for the science of climate change to be usefully translated for policy-makers.Until very recently, scientific and policy emphasis on climate change has focused almost exclusively on mitigation efforts: mechanisms and regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The success of such efforts to date is debatable. In fact, the impact of ever more stringent emission control programmes could potentially have enormous social consequences. Little effort has been expended on the exploration of a systematic evaluation of climate stabilization benefits or the costs of adapting to a changed climate, let alone attempting to integrate different approaches. There is an increasing recognition that the key actors in the climate crisis also need to be preparing for change that is unavoidable. This has resulted in a greater consideration of vulnerability and adaptation.The book, based on the research programme "Vulnerability, Adaptation and Mitigation" (VAM) which ran from 2004 to 2010, funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), presents a cluster of case studies of industries, communities and institutions which each show how vulnerability, adaptation and mitigation analyses can be integrated using social behavioural sciences. Each chapter makes specific recommendations for the studied industry sector, community or institution, analyses the latest research developments of the field and identifies priorities for future research. The book argues that the inherent complexity of climate change will ultimately require a much more integrated response both scientifically – to better understand multiple causes and impacts – as well as at the scientific/policy interface, where new forms of engagement between scientists, policy-makers and wider stakeholder groups can make a valuable contribution to more informed climate policy and practice.The book is particularly timely as the scientific research and policy debate is shifting from one of problem-framing to new agendas that are much more concerned with implementation, the improvement of assessment methodologies from a multi-disciplinary perspective, and the reframing of current scientific understanding towards mitigation, adaptation and vulnerability. A critical element in responding to the climate change challenge will be to ensure the translation of these new scientific insights into innovative policy and practice "on the ground". This book provides some fundamental elements to answer this need.The Social and Behavioural Aspects of Climate Change: Linking Vulnerability, Adaptation and Mitigation will be essential reading for social science researchers and policy managers in the area of climate change, as well as for those who want to know what the social and behavioural sciences can contribute toward coping with climate hazards. NGOs, law firms and businesses in the energy sector or other climate related fields will also find the book of great value.

Debunks the view that natural resources lead to terrible outcomes by demonstrating that oil and minerals are actually a blessing.

October 1998 Many governments have faced serious fiscal instabilities as a result of their growing contingent liabilities. But conventional fiscal analysis and institutions fall short in addressing contingent fiscal risks. What approaches in fiscal analysis and standards for public sector management would foster sound fiscal performance? And how can policymakers be made accountable for recognizing the long-term costs of both direct and contingent forms of government activity in their decisions? Governments are increasingly exposed to fiscal risks and uncertainties for three main reasons: * The increasing volume and volatility of international flows of private capital. * The state's transformation from financing services to guaranteeing that the private sector will achieve particular outcomes. * Moral hazards arising in markets because the government is perceived to have residual responsibility for market outcomes. Sources of fiscal risk may be direct or contingent (a liability only if a particular event occurs). Whether direct or contingent, they are either explicit (recognized as a government liability by law or by contract) or implicit (a moral obligation reflecting public expectations and pressure from interest groups). The recent Asian crisis revealed that major moral hazards exist in markets and that sizable hidden fiscal risks may arise from contingent forms of government support. Governments must understand and know how to handle contingent liabilities if they are to avoid the danger of sudden fiscal instability and realize their long-term policy objectives. They can reduce fiscal risks by incorporating contingent liabilities into their analytical, policy, and institutional public finance frameworks. Governments can address fiscal risk through three channels in particular, says Polackova: * By including contingent and implicit financial risks in their fiscal analysis and (to deter moral hazard in the market) by publicly acknowledging the limits of state responsibilities. * By reflecting the cost of contingent liabilities in policy choices, budgeting, financial planning, reporting, and auditing. * By developing institutional capacity to evaluate, regulate, control, and prevent financial risk in both the public and private sectors. Given the increasingly serious implications of contingent government liabilities for the fiscal outlook of countries, Polackova argues that it is time for the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and others to: * Incorporate government contingent fiscal risks in their analysis of a country's fiscal sustainability, policies, and institutions. * Require countries to disclose information regarding their exposure to contingent fiscal risks. * Help countries embrace contingent liabilities in their analytical, policy, and institutional public finance frameworks. This paper-a product of the Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Sector Unit, Europe and Central Asia Region-is part of a larger effort in the region to enhance the Bank's analytical and operational work in public finance. The author may be contacted at [email protected].

Abstract: Given that public spending will have a positive impact on GDP if the benefits exceed the marginal cost of public funds, the present paper deals with measuring costs and benefits of public spending. The paper discusses one cost seldom considered in the literature and in policy debates, namely, the volatility derived from additional public spending. The paper identifies a relationship between public spending volatility and consumption volatility, which implies a direct welfare loss to society. This loss is substantial in developing countries, estimated at 8 percent of consumption. If welfare losses due to volatility are this sizeable, then measuring the benefits of public spending is critical. Gauging benefits based on macro aggregate data requires three caveats: a) considering of the impact of the funding (taxation) required for the additional public spending; b) differentiating between investment and capital formation; c) allowing for heterogeneous response of output to different types of capital and differences in network development. It is essential to go beyond country-specificity to project-level evaluation of the benefits and costs of public projects. From the micro viewpoint, the rate of return of a project must exceed the marginal cost of public funds, determined by tax levels and structure. Credible evaluations require microeconomic evidence and careful specification of counterfactuals. On this, the impact evaluation literature and methods play a critical role. From individual project evaluation, the analyst must contemplate the general equilibrium impacts. In general, the paper advocates for project evaluation as a central piece of any development platform. By increasing the efficiency of public spending, the government can permanently increase the rate of productivity growth and, hence, affect the growth rate of GDP.