Inequality in Latin America: equity, perceptions and opportunities
1. Inequality in Latin America:
equity, perceptions and opportunities
Carlos Eduardo Vélez
ERF 20th Annual Conference
Cairo, March 23 / 2014
2. 2Inequality in LAC
• 1. Income inequality and key determinants
• 2. Perceptions of equity and fairness
• 3. Inequality of opportunity
3. LatAm highest Gini Coefficients
(1995-2005)
Peru Venezuela
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
20 30 40 50 60
Accumulatedfractionofworldpopulation
Gini Coefficient % (income inequality)
Colombia
Note: Includes 108 countries. Data obtained on
1993-1999
Mexico
Uruguay
Brazil
China
India
Ireland
Korea
Source: World Bank Indicators, 2002
5. LatAm Income inequality: trend change
(2002-2010): Cornia (2012) averange LAC Gini
“widespread decline in income inequality over 2002-2010”
Figure 3
Average regional Gini index of the distribution of household income per capita
49.8
48.9
51.0
52.6
53.7
52.2
50.9
50.5
46
48
50
52
54
56
early1980s
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2009
2010
Source: IDLA dataset and SWIID3 for the period early 1980s.
Washington Consensus
and Lost Decade
Augmented WashingtonConsensus New Policy Approac
6. LatAm Income inequality: improving trend
(2002-2010): Cornia (2012) changes LAC Ginis
15 of 18 LAC countries experienced lower inequality
Figure 5
Changes in Gini income by economic structure, 1990–2002 and 2002–09
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
1990 2002 2002 2009
Remittances Recipients
Industrial economies
Commodity Exporters
Notes: The industrial economies include Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and Uruguay; commodity
7. 7
Key reasons behind higher inequality in LAC:
example: Bourguignon, Ferreira& Leite (2007)
Brazil vs US micro-data based comparison (PNAD, 1999)
• Three factors accounted for most of Brazil's
excessive levels of inequality
• Lower and unequally distributed endowments of
education across households (28%)
• Larger earning differentials by skill level
-“skill wage differentials” – (32%)
• Highly regressive public transfers, chiefly
retirement pensions (39%)
8. 8
Key reasons behind higher inequality in LAC:
Distribution of education tilted towards low skills
9. 9
Key reasons behind higher inequality in LAC:
Labor earning differentials too steep
10. 10
Key reasons behind higher inequality in LAC:
Bourguignon&Ferreira (2007)
the incidence of pensions, Brazil vs the U.S.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percentiles of the Distribution of Household Per Capita Income
PercentageofTotalHouseholdIncome
Brazil US
Source: PNAD/IBGE 1999, CPS/ADS 2000 and author's calculation
11. 11
Key reasons behind higher inequality in LAC:
Lopez&Perry (2008): Inequality of educational endowments
igh income inequality, leading to the low intergenerational social mobility shown
ection II.5. It should not come as a surprise, then, that we find a significant correlatio
mong educational and income Gini’s in the region.
Figure 10: Educational Gini in LAC countries vs. others
Panel A. Gini coefficient of years of education
Panel B. Years of education: rich vs. poor
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
LAC Africa Asia Eastern
Europe
Developed
countries
12. 12
Key reasons behind higher inequality in LAC:
Frankema (2008): rising skill premiums in LAC
above the trend line, the far majority ranging between 2.0 to 3.0. This outcome seems to
suggest that educated workers with the ability to carry out administrative work (reading,
writing, algebra), are scarcer in LAC’s than in NWC’s or, from the opposite angle, that blue-
collar workers in the NWC’s manufacturing sector are better educated, trained and therefore
more productive and better paid relative to white-collar employees.
Figure 1: The “white-collar premium” in manufacturing, Latin America versus the
USA, Canada and Australia, 1905-1990
Mexico
Chile
Guatemala
Uruguay
Chile
Venezuela
Bolivia
Chile
Venezuela
Canada
Australia Argentina
Australia
USA
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
1900 1906 1912 1918 1924 1930 1936 1942 1948 1954 1960 1966 1972 1978 1984 1990 1996
Latin America USA, Canada, Australia
Source: see appendix table A.2
13. 13
Key reasons behind higher inequality in LAC:
Lopez&Perry (2008): Higher marital sorting vs OECD countries
against marital sorting coefficients (defined as Pearson correlation coefficients for years
of schooling between husbands and wives). Two basic messages emerge from this figure.
First, there is a strong relationship between the two variables. In fact, the correlation
coefficient between marital sorting and the Gini coefficient is above .6. The second
message is that the marital sorting coefficients in Latin America are unusually high (at
least relative to those in the rest of the world), something that can be taken as a symptom
of a severe social stratification problem that not only further concentrates household
incomes but reinforces the observed low social mobility.
Figure 12. Gini coefficients and marital sorting by educational levels.
Source: De Ferranti et al. (2004).
III.2 Fiscal policy and income inequality
14. 14
Key reasons behind higher inequality in LAC:
… and public expenditure, transfers and taxes? / Cornia (2012)
Public social expenditure increased mostly in LOC countries (left of center)
of health on the approach to its financing), those on tertiary education are as
concentratedasthedistribution of income. In turn, expenditure on social security
(pensions, unemployment insurance) is only slightly less concentrated than that of
private income. These are average regional data and things vary between the three main
country groups in the region (Table 13:Panel B). There are also indications that the
incidence of social expenditure became more progressive over time (CEPAL 2005;
López-Calva and Lustig 2010). Democratization is thus showing its impact not only on
labour policies but also on non-clientelistic redistributive expenditure policies.
Table 12
Average public social expenditure/GDP in LOC versus non-LOC countries
Year
Social public expenditure as percentage of GDP
Total Education Health Social security Housing
1990 9.0 2.8 2.1 3.3 0.7
1996 10.9 3.4 2.4 4.0 1.0
2003 12.8 4.3 2.8 4.6 1.1
2008-9 13.3 4.3 2.9 4.6 1.4
LOC (2008/9–2003) 1.33 0.2 0.38 0.46 0.29
Non LOC (2008/9–2003) 0.48 -0.12 0.06 0.11 0.43
Notes: The data refer to the 18 countries analysed in this study, including Bolivia (on the basis of
national data) that has been omitted in similar studies.
Source: Author’s elaboration on the basis of the ECLAC database Cepalstat and national data for 2009,
Table 13
Incidence of government expenditure by quintile (18 countries, 1997-2004)
15. 15
Key reasons behind higher inequality in LAC:
… and public expenditure, transfers and taxes? / Cornia (2012)
which lower inequality of secondary income + subsidies (in kind)
0.48 -0.12 0.06 0.11 0.43
countries analysed in this study, including Bolivia (on the basis of
n omitted in similar studies.
basis of the ECLAC database Cepalstat and national data for 2009,
Table 13
ment expenditure by quintile (18 countries, 1997-2004)
icients of the public expenditure by three country groups
nditure
ntile
Expenditure
sector
(Panel B)
Concentration coefficients of public
social expenditure
tile
V
Quintile
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
9 5.6 Education -0.067 0.116 -0.138
0 3.7 Health 0.074 -0.073 -0.192
3 16.5 Socialsecurity 0.504 0.568 0.349
3 1.1 Socialassist. -0.089 -0.154 -0.484
4 0.9 Housing 0.206 0.067 -0.026
9 27.8 Total 0.143 0.042 0.044
El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Paraguay,
a, Dominican Republic, Mexico, Panama, and Venezuela;
a, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica and Uruguay.
07).
2008-9 13.3 4.3 2.9 4.6 1.4
LOC (2008/9–2003) 1.33 0.2 0.38 0.46 0.29
Non LOC (2008/9–2003) 0.48 -0.12 0.06 0.11 0.43
Notes: The data refer to the 18 countries analysed in this study, including Bolivia (on the basis of
national data) that has been omitted in similar studies.
Source: Author’s elaboration on the basis of the ECLAC database Cepalstat and national data for 2009,
Table 13
Incidence of government expenditure by quintile (18 countries, 1997-2004)
and concentration coefficients of the public expenditure by three country groups
(Panel A)
Shares of public social expenditure
by sector and income quintile
Expenditure
sector
(Panel B)
Concentration coefficients of public
social expenditure
I
Quintile
II
Quintile
III
Quintile
IV
Quintile
V
Quintile
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
7.4 6.5 6.3 5.9 5.6 Education -0.067 0.116 -0.138
5.1 4.7 4.2 4.0 3.7 Health 0.074 -0.073 -0.192
2.0 2.8 4.3 6.3 16.5 Socialsecurity 0.504 0.568 0.349
3.3 2.1 1.6 1.3 1.1 Socialassist. -0.089 -0.154 -0.484
0.8 0.9 1.1 1.4 0.9 Housing 0.206 0.067 -0.026
19.6 17.0 17.5 18.9 27.8 Total 0.143 0.042 0.044
Note: Group 1 includes Bolivia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Paraguay,
and Peru;
Group 2 includes: Colombia, Dominican Republic, Mexico, Panama, and Venezuela;
Group 3 includes: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica and Uruguay.
Source: Elaboration on CEPAL (2007).
A key dilemma in this area concerns the expenditure on social security. As shown by
16. 16
Key reasons behind higher inequality in LAC:
… and public expenditure, transfers and taxes? / Lopez&Perry (2008)
LatinAmerica vs Europe: inequality differences in secondary income
All these said, high asset inequality does not have to necessarily translate into high
disposable income inequality unless taxes and transfers do not have significant corrective
effects. In this regard, it may worth looking at the role played by the government in Latin
America and compare it with some countries like the Europeans that are well known for
having inequality as a policy concern.
Figure 13. Disposable and Market income in Latin America and Europe
Market Income
Disposable Income
Panel A. Latin America Panel B. Europe
Panel C. Latin America Panel D. Europe
0.15
0.25
0.35
0.45
0.55
0.65
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
UK
EURO15
0.15
0.25
0.35
0.45
0.55
0.65
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
UK
EURO15
0.15
0.25
0.35
0.45
0.55
0.65
Argentina
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Mexico
Peru
LAC6
0.15
0.25
0.35
0.45
0.55
0.65
Argentina
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Mexico
Peru
LAC6
Source: Goñi, Lopez, and Serven (2008)
In a recent paper, Goñi, Lopez and Serven (2008), elaborating on a topic highlighted in
Perry et al (2006), argued that whereas in Latin America the distribution of market
secondary
primary
17. 17
Key reasons behind higher inequality in LAC:
… and public expenditure, transfers and taxes? / Lopez&Perry (2008)
LatinAmerica vs Europe: impact of taxes vs transfers
between the average Gini coefficients of market and disposable income across European
countries, about two-thirds (10 percentage points) are due to transfers.
Figure 14. The role of taxes and transfers in Europe and Latin
America
Difference between Gini coefficients of gross income and market income
Panel A. Latin America Panel B. Europe
Panel C. Latin America Panel D. Europe
Difference between Gini coefficients of disposable income and gross income
-0.16
-0.12
-0.08
-0.04
0.00
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Luxembour
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
UK
EURO15
-0.16
-0.12
-0.08
-0.04
0.00
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Luxembour
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
UK
EURO15
-0.16
-0.12
-0.08
-0.04
0.00
Argentina
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Mexico
Peru
LAC6
-0.16
-0.12
-0.08
-0.04
0.00
Argentina
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Mexico
Peru
LAC6
Source: Goñi, Lopez, and Serven (2008)
Such low levels of income redistribution through the State may be a reflection of high
levels of State capture, and this in turn a reflection of high inequality levels as discussed
transfers
taxes
18. Still some skepticism about inequality
progress in LA
• Inequality in Latin America: breaking with history - World
Bank Report / 2003
• Inequality in Latin America: Better, But Still Terrible –
WSJ / 2013
• Yes but syndrome (inequality high and contained, but
encouraging middle class growth) - Economist / 2014
• Summary:
Inequality still too high, but progress being made
19. 19
Inequality of opportunity in LAC: Burroni etal (2013),
Lower bound of IOR (hhld per capita income and circumstances)
Figure 3: Inequality of economic opportunity and the level of development
20. 20
Inequality of opportunity in LAC: Burroni etal (2013),
strongly associated with low social mobility
Figure 6: Inequality of opportunity and the intergenerational correlation of education
21. 21
Perceptions of equity and fairness in LAC: Gaviria (2013),
pessimist & optimist: contrast in perceptions of past and future mobility
22. 22
Perceptions of equity and fairness in LAC: Gaviria (2013),
pessimist & optimist: contrast in perceptions of past and future mobility
the Latinobarómetro survey. When respondents were asked whether they face
70 E C O N O M I A , Fall 2007
T A B L E 5 . Perceptions of Social Justice
Percent
Survey year
Survey question 2002 2000 1998 1996
Opportunities to escape poverty
All have equal opportunities . . . 25.9 . . . . . .
All do not have equal opportunities . . . 74.1 . . . . . .
Causes of poverty
Lack of effort 36.5
External circumstances 63.6
Success depends on connections
Yes 68.62 71.5 71.3 76.4
No 31.38 28.5 28.7 23.6
Hard work does not guarantee success
Yes 58.11 53.8 54.9 55.6
No 41.89 46.2 45.1 44.4
Source: Latinobarómetro (various years).
. . . Not applicable.
23. 23
Perceptions of equity and fairness in LAC: Gaviria (2013),
pessimist & optimist: : contrast in perceptions of past and future mobility
74 E C O N O M I A , Fall 2007
T A B L E 7 . International Perceptions of Social Justice, 1994–99
Percent
Latin Eastern OECD United
Survey question America Europe countries Asia States Africa Total
Opportunities to escape poverty
People have opportunities 41.7 25.7 44.7 49.9 27.3 40.0 38.2
People have very few opportunities 58.3 74.3 55.3 50.1 72.7 60.0 61.8
Causes of poverty
Lack of effort 31.2 21.7 33.7 34.8 60.0 28.1 34.9
External circumstances 66.8 78.3 66.3 64.7 40.0 71.3 64.6
Success depends on connections
Yes 61.5 65.0 65.2 73.2 80.5 82.1 71.2
No 38.5 35.0 34.8 26.8 19.5 17.9 28.8
Hard work does not guarantee success
Yes
No
989-02_Gaviria.qxd 2/27/08 11:18 AM Page 74
74 E C O N O M I A , Fall 2007
T A B L E 7 . International Perceptions of Social Justice, 1994–99
Percent
Latin Eastern OECD United
Survey question America Europe countries Asia States Africa Total
Opportunities to escape poverty
People have opportunities 41.7 25.7 44.7 49.9 27.3 40.0 38.2
People have very few opportunities 58.3 74.3 55.3 50.1 72.7 60.0 61.8
Causes of poverty
Lack of effort 31.2 21.7 33.7 34.8 60.0 28.1 34.9
External circumstances 66.8 78.3 66.3 64.7 40.0 71.3 64.6
Success depends on connections
Yes 61.5 65.0 65.2 73.2 80.5 82.1 71.2
No 38.5 35.0 34.8 26.8 19.5 17.9 28.8
Hard work does not guarantee success
Yes
No
Source: World Values Survey, various years.
OECD = Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
24. 24
Perceptions of equity and fairness in LAC: Gaviria (2013),
pessimist & optimist: : contrast in perceptions of past and future mobility
Preferences for redistribution, support for the market economy and
optimism about future mobility:
• Respondent believes that reducing the differences between the rich and the
poor is one of the main responsibilities of the state?
• 73 percent answered “of course it is,” 17 percent said “maybe yes,” 6
percent responded “maybe not,” and 4 percent answered “of course not.”
• Respondent considers the market economy to be the most convenient for
their country?
• 17 percent declared themselves to be very much in agreement, 40
percent in agreement, 29 percent in dis- agreement, and 14 percent
very much in disagreement.
• Expectations of future mobility are quite optimistic: 55 percent of individuals
surveyed expect their children to have a higher socioeconomic status
than themselves, while only 9 percent expect a lower level for their children.
25. 25
Perceptions of equity and fairness in LAC: Gaviria (2013),
pessimist & optimist: : contrast in perceptions of past and future mobility
group 1. Additionally, individuals in group 1 are more optimistic about the
6 8 E C O N O M I A , Fall 2007
B. Future mobility
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Percent
-9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A. Past mobility
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
-9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Percent
Source: Latinobarómetro (2000).
F I G U R E 5 . Perceptions of Past and Future Mobility
26. 26
Inequality of opportunity for children:
HOI indicators provide some reason for optimism
• Human Opportunity Index -HOI- developed by the World Bank (2005) is
based on the principle of equality of opportunities (Romer) and
measures whether children have equitable access to human
development opportunities (7, education, basic housing, etc),
independently of exogenous circumstances (ethnicity, parents education,
gender, location, hh income)
• HOI is basically a coverage rate C penalized by inequality of opportunity
D
IOH = C – P = C (1-D)
• Hence, HOI rewards human development that reduces the most
undesirable inequities –inequality due to unfavorable circumstances-
27. 27Inequality of opportunity for children:
HOI indicators provide some reason for optimism
Molinas et al (2010), wide range of HOI values
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Honduras
Nicaragua
El Salvador
Guatemala
Peru
Panama
Paraguay
Dominican Republic
Brazil
Colombia
Ecuador
Jamaica
Argentina
Venezuel
Costa
a
Rica
Mexico
Uruguay
Chile
HOI 2010
Figure 2.1: The 2010 Human Opportunity Index for LAC.
Source: Author’s calculations based on household surveys
28. 28Inequality of opportunity for children:
HOI indicators provide some reason for optimism
Molinas et al (2010), HOI growth 1995-2010 : 1% per year,
scale effect twice the importance of equalization
Growth Rates by Indicators, Dimensions, and Overall Human Opportunity Index
Country
Sixth grade on
time
School
Attendance Education Water Electricity Sanitation Housing
Overall
HOI
Argentina -0.17 -0.02 -0.10 0.32 0.10 1.21 0.54 0.22
Brazil 1.53 0.81 1.17 2.02 1.24 1.86 1.70 1.44
Chile 0.81 0.11 0.46 1.07 0.70 2.01 1.26 0.86
Colombia 1.82 0.61 1.21 0.24 0.63 1.83 0.90 1.06
Costa Rica 0.61 0.75 0.68 0.24 0.51 1.59 0.78 0.73
Dominican Republic 1.87 -0.06 0.91 0.97 1.59 1.41 1.32 1.11
Ecuador 1.35 0.62 0.98 3.98 0.91 0.84 1.91 1.45
El Salvador 1.60 0.92 1.26 0.02 1.92 0.23 0.73 0.99
Guatemala 1.31 1.11 1.21 1.35 1.62 1.55 1.51 1.36
Honduras 1.73 1.30 1.52 0.81 0.57 -0.93 0.15 0.83
Jamaica 0.52 0.10 0.31 -0.86 1.75 -0.09 0.27 0.29
Mexico 1.66 0.60 1.13 4.08 0.74 2.24 2.35 1.74
Nicaragua 1.48 1.24 1.36 0.42 0.73 4.46 1.87 1.61
Panama 0.48 0.32 0.40 0.62 0.79 0.32 0.58 0.49
Paraguay 1.21 0.12 0.67 2.25 1.24 1.13 1.56 1.11
Peru 2.24 0.30 1.27 0.50 1.67 2.36 1.51 1.39
Uruguay 1.40 -0.43 0.48 2.15 0.35 0.33 0.94 0.71
Venezuela 1.13 0.25 0.69 0.07 0.05 0.52 0.21 0.45
LAC Average 1.25 0.5 0.87 1.12 0.95 1.27 1.12 0.99
Source: Author's calculations based on household surveys
29. 29Inequality of opportunity for children:
HOI indicators: identifying unequalizing characteristics
Velez & Torres (2014), ex. Colombia Shapley decomposition
30. 30
Inequality of opportunity for children:
HOI indicators provide some reason for optimism
Molinas et al (2010), Benchmarking LAC vs Europe
Figure 3.1: HOI Sanitation
3
8
8
12
13
14
14
16
19
20
28
29
36
37
38
47
74
81
2
5
8
19
21
44
45
58
69
70
92
0 20 40 60 80 100
Paraguay
Nicaragua
Jamaica
Honduras
Dominican Republic
Costa Rica
Panama
Guatemala
El Salvador
Bolivia
Ecuador
Peru
Brazil
Mexico
Uruguay
Argentina
Chile
Venezuela
Kenya
Vietnam
Kyrgyz Republic
South Africa
Romania
Hungary
Portugal
Greece
France**
USA*
Spain
HOI (%)
LACNON-LAC
Access to Sanitation
(Public connection only)
Sources: LAC: CEDLAS Data, Non-LAC: IPUMS Census Data
LAC EUROPE
31. 31Inequality of opportunity for children:
HOI indicators provide some reason for optimism
Burroni et al (2013), Benchmarking LAC vs Africa
Figure 7: The Human Opportunity Index in Africa and Latin America
32. 32Inequality in LAC
Conclusion
• Still very high income inequality, but improving in the last
decade.
• Inequality of opportunity (income) is also the highest across
world regions.
• Latinamericans consider unfair the current income
distribution and favor redistributive policies, BUT support for
the market economy and are optimists about future social
mobility.
• The steady improvement of the HOI for children, provides
some reason for optimism. Nevertheless LAC is still very
much behind OECD countries.
33. 33Inequality in LAC
Conclusion
Advantages of the Human Opportunity Index HOI
• Identifies most unfair opportunity gaps by cohorts (early childhood,
children, adolescent)
• Identifies crucial circumstances to be compensated to improve access to
human development opportunities of the most disadvantaged (Sector
specific).
• Provide timely feedback to policy makers by sector. The indicator is
sensitive to contemporaneous government programs for early childhood,
children and adolescent.
• Help political concensus building: allow political coalitions to
concentrate on the most undesirable determinants of inequality of
opportunities, to fullfill the optimistic views of Latin Americans about
future social mobility
35. 35Inequality in LAC
References
Bourguignon, Ferreira and Leite. 2007. Beyond Oaxaca–Blinder: Accounting for differences in
household income distributions, Journal of Income Inequality
Burroni, Ferreira and Peragine. 2013. Inequality of opportunity and economic mobility: Some
international comparisons. IZA Working paper.
Barros, R., F. Ferreira, J. Molinas and J. Saavedra. 2008. Measuring Inequality of Opportunities in
Latin America and the Caribbean. Washington D.C.: The World Bank.
Cornia. 2012. Inequality trends and their determinants: Latin America 1990-2010. UNU-WIDER
Working Paper 2012/09.
Di Ferranti et al. 2004. Inequality in Latin America: breaking with history. World Bank.
Ferreira and Melendez. 2012. Desigualdad de Resultados y Oportunidades en Colombia,
1997-2010. CEDE Working Paper.
Frankema. 2008. Wage inequality in twentieth century Latin America: a comparative perspective.
Groningen Growth and Development Centre.
Gaviria. 2013. Social Mobility and Preferences for Redistribution in Latin America. Economia
Gasparini Cruces and Tornarolli, 2011. "Recent Trends In Income Inequality In Latin America,"
Journal of LACEA Economia.
Lopez and Perry. 2008. Inequality in Latin America: determinants and consequences. Policy
Research Working Paper 4504. World Bank.
Molinas et al. 2010. Do our children have a chance? 2010 Human Opportunity report on LAC.
World Bank.
Velez Azevedo and Posso. 2010. Oportunidades para los niños colombianos: tendencias y
diferencias regionales. 1997-2008.
Velez and Torres. 2014. Desigualdad de oportunidades entre los niños colombianos: avances y
retos del desarrollo humano en la última década. Working Paper. Escuela de Gobierno.
Universidad de los Andes.
World Bank. 2006. World Development Report: Equity and Development.