Esfuerzo de bienestar y pobreza desde el enfoque monetarista y de capacidadesanálisis transnacional en América Latina y el Caribe (1990-2010)

  1. Gibrán Cruz-Martínez 1
  1. 1 Universidad Autónoma de Chile

    Universidad Autónoma de Chile

    Temuco, Chile


Política y sociedad

ISSN: 1130-8001 1988-3129

Year of publication: 2015

Volume: 52

Issue: 3

Pages: 631-659

Type: Article

DOI: 10.5209/REV_POSO.2015.V52.N3.45521 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Política y sociedad


Cited by

  • Dialnet Métricas Cited by: 1 (29-01-2024)
  • Web of Science Cited by: 3 (19-10-2023)
  • Dimensions Cited by: 3 (29-02-2024)

SCImago Journal Rank

  • Year 2015
  • SJR Journal Impact: 0.158
  • Best Quartile: Q3
  • Area: Sociology and Political Science Quartile: Q3 Rank in area: 748/1188

Índice Dialnet de Revistas

  • Year 2015
  • Journal Impact: 0.440
  • Field: CIENCIAS POLÍTICAS Quartile: C1 Rank in field: 3/78
  • Field: SOCIOLOGÍA Quartile: C1 Rank in field: 6/74


  • Social Sciences: B

Scopus CiteScore

  • Year 2015
  • CiteScore of the Journal : 0.2
  • Area: Sociology and Political Science Percentile: 18


(Data updated as of 29-02-2024)
  • Total citations: 3
  • Recent citations (2 years): 1
  • Field Citation Ratio (FCR): 1.24


There is abundant empirical evidence on the negative relationship between welfare effort and poverty. However, poverty indicators traditionally used have been representative of the monetary approach, excluding its multidimensional reality from the analysis. Using three regression techniques for the period 1990-2010 and controlling for demographic and cyclical factors, this paper examines the relationship between social spending per capita —as the indicator of welfare effort— and poverty in up to 21 countries of the region. The proportion of the population with an income below its national basic basket of goods and services (PM1) and the proportion of population with an income below 50% of the median income per capita (PM2) were the two poverty indicators considered from the monetarist approach to measure poverty. From the capability approach the proportion of the population with food inadequacy (PC1) and the proportion of the population without access to improved water sources or sanitation facilities (PC2) were used. The findings confirm that social spending is actually useful to explain changes in poverty (PM1, PC1 and PC2), as there is a high negative and significant correlation between the variables before and after controlling for demographic and cyclical factors. In two regression techniques, social spending per capita did not show a negative relationship with the PM2. Countries with greater welfare effort for the period 1990-2010 were not necessarily those with the lowest level of poverty. Ultimately social spending per capita was more useful to explain changes in poverty from the capability approach.

Bibliographic References

  • Alkire, S. (2002): Valuing Freedoms: Sen’s Capability Approach and Poverty Reduction, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  • Alkire, S., y R. Black (1997): “A Practical Reasoning Theory of Development Ethics: Furthering the Capabilities Approach”, Journal of International Development, 9 (2), pp. 263-279.
  • Alkire, S. y J. Foster (2009): “Counting and Multidimensional Poverty Measurement”,
  • OPHI Working Paper 32, Oxford, University of Oxford .
  • Alkire, S. y M.E. Santos (2010): “Acute Multidimensional Poverty: A New Index for
  • Developing Countries”, OPHI Working Paper 38, Oxford, University of Oxford .
  • Amenta, E. (1993): “The State of the Art in Welfare State Research on Social Spending Efforts in Capitalist Democracies since 1960”, American Journal of Sociology, 99 (3), pp. 750-763.
  • Ames, B. (1987): Political Survival; Politicians and Public Policy in Latin America, Berkeley, University of California Press.
  • Bailey, D. y J.N. Katz (2011): “Implementing Panel-Corrected Standard Errors in R: The Pcse Package”, Journal of Statistical Software, 42 (1), pp.1-11.
  • Banco Mundial (1990): World Development Report 1990: Poverty, Washington DC, Banco Mundial.
  • Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (2014): Latin Macro Watch (LMW), Disponible en: (Consulta: 21 de septiembre de 2015).
  • Beck, N. y J.N. Katz (1995): “What to Do (and Not to Do) with Time-Series Cross-Section Data”, The American Political Science Review, 89 (3), pp. 634-647.
  • Bérgolo, M., M. Leites y G. Salas (2010): “Pobreza y Justicia Social: Concepto e Interrelaciones”, Revista Quantum, III (2), pp. 4-25.
  • Brooks, C. y J. Manza (2007): Why Welfare States Persist: The Importance of Public Opinion in Democracies, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
  • Cameron, D.R. (1978): “The Expansion of the Public Economy: A Comparative Analysis”, American Political Science Review, 72, pp. 1243-1261.
  • Caminada, K., K. Goudswaard y F. Koster (2012): “Social Income Transfers and Poverty: A Cross-Country Analysis for OECD Countries”, International Journal of Social Welfare, 21 (2), pp. 115-126.
  • Cantillon, B., I. Marx y K. Van den Bosch (2003): “The Puzzle of Egalitarianism: About the Relationships between Employment, Wage Inequality, Social Expenditures and Poverty”, European Journal of Social Security, 5 (2), pp. 108-127.
  • Cárdenas Rodríguez, O.J. (2009): “Poverty Reduction Approaches in Mexico since 1950: Public Spending for Social Programs and Economic Competitiveness Programs”, Journal of Business Ethics, 88 (2), pp. 269-281.
  • Castles, F. (1985): The Working Class and Welfare, Sydney, Allen and Unwin.
  • CEPAL (s/f): CEPALSTAT. Disponible en: (Consulta: 21 septiembre de 2015).
  • Clark, D.A. (2002): Visions of Development: A Study of Human Values, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.
  • Clark, D.A. (2003): “Concepts and Perceptions of Human Well-Being: Some Evidence from South Africa”, Oxford Development Studies, 31 (2), pp. 173-196.
  • Comisión Europea (2009): Social Protection and Social Inclusion 2008: EU Indicators, Bruselas, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
  • Crewson, P. (2006): Applied Statistics Handbook. Disponible en: (consulta: 21 de septiembre de 2015).
  • Cruz-Martínez, G. (2014): “Welfare State Development in Latin America and the Caribbean (1970s-2000s): Multidimensional Welfare Index, Its Methodology and Results”, Social Indicators Research, 119 (3), pp.1295-1317.
  • Cruz-Martínez, G. (2015): “Balance alternativo de indicadores de pobreza en los ODM para América Latina y el Caribe: ¿Medir el éxito como aceleración del progreso o consecución de las metas?”, Relaciones Internacionales, 28, pp. 11-36.
  • Dafermos, Y. y C. Papatheodorou (2012): “What Drives Inequality and Poverty in the EU? Exploring the Impact of Macroeconomic and Institutional Factors”, International Review of Applied Economics, 27 (1), pp.1-22.
  • Desai, M. (1995): Poverty, Famine and Economic Development, Aldershot, Edward Elgar.
  • Díez Medrano, J. (1992): Métodos de Análisis Causal, Madrid, Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas.
  • Esping-Andersen, G. (1990): The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.
  • Etxeberria, J. (1999): Regresión Multiple, (Cuadernos de Estadística), Salamanca, Editorial La Muralla.
  • FAO (2013): Food Security Indicators. Disponible en: (consulta: 21 de septiembre de 2015)
  • FAO, IFAD, y WFP (2013): The State of Food Insecurity in the World. The Multiple Dimensions of Food Security, Roma, FAO.
  • Feres, J.C. y X. Mancero (2001): “Enfoques para la Medición de la Pobreza. Breve Revisión de la Literatura”, en Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL) (ed.), Serie Estudios Estadísticos y Prospectivos (Vol. 4), Naciones Unidas.
  • Gottschalk, P. y T. Smeeding (2000): “Empirical Evidence on Income Inequality in Industrialized Countries”, en A. Atkinson y F. Bourguignon (eds.), Handbook of Income Distribution, New York, Elsevier-North Holland Publishers. pp. 261-308.
  • Heclo, H. (1974): Modern Social Politics in Britain and Sweden: From Relief to Income Maintenance, New Haven, Yale University Press.
  • Heston, A., R. Summers y B. Aten (2012): Penn World Table Version 7.1, Center for International Comparisons of Production, Income and Prices at the University of Pennsylvania.
  • Hicks, A. (1999): Social Democracy and Welfare Capitalism: A Century of Income Security Politics, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press.
  • Huber, E., T. Mustillo y J. D. Stephens (2008): “Politics and Social Spending in Latin America”, The Journal of Politics, 70 (02), pp. 420-436.
  • Huber, E. y J.D. Stephens (2012): Democracy and the Left. Social Policy and Inequality in Latin America, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
  • Jensen, C. (2011): “Less Bad Than Its Reputation: Social Spending as a Proxy for Welfare Effort in Cross-National Studies”, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 13 (3), pp. 327-340.
  • Josifidis, K., N. Supic y E.B. Pucar (2010): “Social Spending (in)Efficiency of the European Welfare Regimes in Reducing Poverty”, Transformations in business & Economics, 9 (1), pp. 322-338.
  • Kenworthy, L. (1999): “Do Social Welfare Policies Reduce Poverty? A Cross-National Assessment”, Social Forces, 77 (3), pp. 1119-1139.
  • Kmenta, J. (1986): Elements of Econometrics, New York, Macmillan.
  • Korpi, W. (1983): The Democratic Class Struggle, Londres, Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  • Kuklys, W. e I. Robeyns (2004): Sen’s Capability Approach to Welfare Economics. Disponible en: (Consulta: 21 de septiembre de 2015).
  • Morales, J. (1994): “Sociedad y Bienestar. El Concepto de Bienestar”, Anuario Filosófico, 27 (2), pp. 603.
  • Nolan, B. e I. Marx (2009): “Economic Inequality, Poverty and Social Exclusion”, en Wiemer Salverda, Brian Nolan y Timothy M. Smeeding (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Economic Inequality, New York, Oxford University Press, pp. 315-341.
  • Nussbaum, M. (1990): “Aristotelian Social Democracy”, en Bruce Douglas, Gerald Mara y Henry Richardson (eds.), Liberalism and the Good, New York, Routledge, pp. 203-252.
  • Nussbaum, M. (1995): “Human Capabilities, Female Human Beings”, en Martha C. Nussbaum y Jonathan Glover (eds.), Women, Culture and Development, Oxford, Clarendon Press, pp. 61-104.
  • Nussbaum, M. (2000): Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  • Nussbaum, M. (2003): “Capabilities as Fundamental Entitlement: Sen and Social Justice”, Feminist Economics, 9 (2-3), pp. 33-59.
  • OECD (2008): Growing Unequal? Income Distribution and Poverty in OECD Countries. Disponible en: (Consulta: 21 de septiembre de 2015).
  • Olaskoaga, J., R. Alaez-Aller y P. Díaz-De-Basurto-Uraga (2013): “Beyond Welfare Effort in the Measuring of Welfare States”, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 15 (3), pp. 274-287.
  • Orloff, A.S. (1993): “Gender and the Social Rights to Citizenship: The Comparative Analysis of Gender Relations and Welfare States”, American Sociological Review, 58 (3), pp. 303-328.
  • Pampel, F. y J. Williamson (1989): Age, Class, Politics and the Welfare State, New York, Cambridge University Press.
  • Parks, R.W. (1967): “Efficient Estimation of a System of Regression Equations When Disturbances are Both Serially and Contemporaneously Correlated”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 62 (318), pp. 500-509.
  • Robeyns, I. (2003): “Sen’s Capability Approach and Gender Inequality: Selecting Relevant Capabilities”, Feminist Economics, 9 (2-3), pp. 61-92.
  • Rodrik, D. (1998): “Why Do More Open Economies Have Bigger Governments?”, Journal of Political Economy, 106 (5), pp. 997-1032.
  • Rojo Abuín, J.M. (2007): Regresión Lineal Simple. Instituto de Economía y Geografía. Laboratorio de Estadistica. Disponible en: (Consulta: 25 de septiembre de 2015).
  • Samuelson, P.A. (1974): “Complementary -an Essay on the 40th Anniversary of Hicks - Allen Revolution in Demand Theory”, Journal of Economic Literature, XII (4).
  • Scruggs, L. y J.P. Allan (2006): “The Material Consequences of Welfare States: Benefit Generosity and Absolute Poverty in 16 OECD Countries”, Comparative Political Studies, 39, pp. 880-904.
  • Segura-Ubiergo, A. (2007): The Political Economy of the Welfare State in Latin America: Globalization, Democracy and Development, New York, Cambridge University Press.
  • Sen, A. (1983): “Poor, Relatively Speaking”, Oxford Economic Papers, 35 (2), pp.153-169.
  • Sen, A. (1992): Nuevo Examen de la Desigualdad, Madrid, Alianza Editorial.
  • Sen, A.(1999): Development as Freedom, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  • Skocpol, T. (1988): “The Limits of the New Deal System and the Roots of Contemporary Welfare Dilemmas”, en Margaret Weir, Ann S. Orloff y Theda Skocpol (eds.), The Politics of Social Policy in the United States, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, pp. 293-312.
  • Sloan, J. y K. Tedin (1987): “The Consequences of Regime Type for Public Policy Outcomes”, Comparative Political Studies, 20, pp. 98-124.
  • Smeeding, T. (2005): “Public Policy, Economic Inequality, and Poverty: The United States in Comparative Perspective”, Social Science Quarterly, 86, pp. 955-983.
  • Smeeding, T. (2006): “Poor People in Rich Nations: The United States in Comparative Perspective”, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20 (1), pp. 69-90.
  • Spicker, P. (2009): “Definiciones de Pobreza: Doce Grupos de Significados”, en Paul Spicker, S. Alvarez Leguizamón y D. Gordon (eds.), Pobreza: Un Glosario Internacional, Buenos Aires, CLACSO-CROP.
  • Stephens, J.D. (1979): The Transition from Capitalism to Socialism, Urbana, University of Illinois Press.
  • Weir, M., Ann S. y T. Skocpol (1988): The Politics of Social Policy in the United States, New Jersey, Princeton University Press.
  • Wilensky, H.L. (1975): The Welfare State and Equality: Structural and Ideological Roots of Public Expenditure, Berkeley, University of California Press.
  • World Health Organization (WHO)/ UNICEF (s/f): Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation. Disponible en: (Consulta: 21 de septiembre de 2015).