|
|
| |
|
|
|
May 2006, No. 40 |
|
|
|
People |
|
|
Latin America
Indigenous Peoples
In December 1994, the United Nations
proclaimed 1995–2004 the International Decade of the World's Indigenous
Peoples. In Latin America—where indigenous peoples comprise some 10 percent of
the population—the ensuing decade coincided with an upsurge of indigenous
movements exercising political influence in new and increasingly powerful
ways. In 1994, the Zapatista Rebellion took place in Chiapas, Mexico. In
Ecuador, indigenous groups took to the streets five times, leading to
negotiations with the government and, ultimately, constitutional change;
similar demonstrations in Bolivia led to the fall of the Sanchez-Lozada
government in 2003. In Guatemala, home to Nobel Prize winner Rigoberta Menchu—an
indigenous Mayan—the country's bitter civil war ended in 1996, with the Peace
Accords that included an Agreement on the Identity and Rights of Indigenous
Peoples. And Peru elected its first indigenous president, Alejandro Toledo, in
2000.
But palpable change on the economic
front has been slower. In 1994, a World Bank report provided the first
regional assessment of living standards among indigenous peoples, finding
systematic evidence of socioeconomic conditions far worse than those of the
population on average. Ten years later, a major World Bank follow-up study
found that while programs have been launched to improve access to health care
and education, indigenous peoples still consistently account for the highest
and "stickiest" poverty rates in the region. This slow progress poses a major
hurdle for many countries trying to reach the UN Millennium Development Goal (MDG)
of halving the 1990 poverty rate by 2015.
Who are the indigenous peoples of Latin
America? While there is great diversity among groups, they share certain
characteristics, such as distinct language (even if many no longer speak it
fluently), culture, and attachment to land—all stemming from the fact that
their ancestry can be traced to the original, pre-Colombian inhabitants of the
region. Estimates for the number of indigenous people vary from 28 million to
43 million. In the five countries that have the largest indigenous
populations—Bolivia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, and Peru—indigenous peoples
represent a significant share of the population (in Bolivia, they are the
majority). There are literally hundreds of different indigenous groups. In
Mexico alone, there are 56 recognized indigenous groups and 62 living
languages.
A Yawning Gap:
The World Bank's 1994
report uncovered striking evidence of low human capital (education and health)
as a driving force behind the high poverty rates, coupled with evidence of
social exclusion via labor market discrimination and limited access to public
education and health services. What does the picture look like now?
Poverty:
For the five countries with the largest indigenous populations, poverty rates
for indigenous peoples remained virtually stagnant over the past decade—or
where rates did fall, they fell less on average than for the rest of the
population. In the three cases where national poverty rates declined (Bolivia,
Guatemala, and Mexico), the rate for indigenous peoples registered a smaller
decline, or none at all. In Ecuador and Peru, overall poverty rates increased,
but for the indigenous, there was little change. This pattern suggests that
indigenous peoples may be less affected by macroeconomic trends, whether
positive or negative—although evidence from Ecuador suggests that even if the
negative impact of a crisis is small for indigenous households, it takes them
longer to recover. The poverty gap (average difference between the incomes of
the poor and the poverty line) among indigenous peoples is also deeper, and
shrank more slowly over the decade, compared to the same indicators among
non-indigenous populations.
Education:
Education is one of the main factors that propel people out of poverty, yet
indigenous peoples continue to have fewer years of education than
non-indigenous ones. In Bolivia, non-indigenous children have 10 years of
schooling versus 6 for indigenous; in Guatemala, the years are 6 versus 3. The
good news is that in all countries the schooling gap shrank over the 1990s,
following trends established in earlier decades. But the bad news is that the
average increase in earnings as a result of each additional year of schooling
(the private rate of return to each year of schooling) is slightly lower for
the indigenous—in Bolivia, it is 9 percent for the non-indigenous and 6
percent for the indigenous. Moreover, the gap is widening at higher schooling
levels. What is behind this failure? The culprit may well be the quality of
education that indigenous people receive. Recent standardized tests in the
region reveal that indigenous students achieve significantly lower scores—from
7 to 27 percent lower—on reading and math tests.
Health:
Indigenous peoples,
especially women and children, continue to have less access to basic health
services. As a result, major differences in indigenous and non-indigenous
health indicators persist, ranging from maternal mortality to in-hospital
births and vaccination coverage. In all five countries, health insurance
coverage remains relatively low, failing to surpass 50 percent of the
population. In three of the five countries (Bolivia, Guatemala, and Mexico),
coverage of indigenous families lags substantially behind the rest of the
population. An important gap to emerge is that indigenous children continue to
exhibit extremely high malnutrition rates, even in countries that have
otherwise virtually eliminated this problem. In Mexico, just 6 percent of
children nationwide are underweight compared with almost 20 percent of
indigenous children.
Labor:
Evidence that indigenous peoples face significant disadvantages in the labor
market is strong across the region. In late 2004, the portion of the
difference in earnings between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples that is
"unexplained"—perhaps due to discrimination or other unidentified
factors—represented one-quarter to over one-half of the total differential,
with the average at about 42 percent. This means that while about half of the
earnings differential can be influenced by improvements in human capital
(education, skills, and abilities that an indigenous person brings to the
labor market), another half may result from discriminatory labor market
practices or other factors over which the indigenous person has little
control.
Starting to Make
Headway: Over the
past decade, significant political and policy changes have occurred with
potential bearing on poverty and human development outcomes among indigenous
peoples. These changes range from constitutional mandates and greater
political representation to increased social spending and a proliferation of
differentiated programs, such as bilingual education. Yet while some
improvements have occurred in human development outcomes, particularly in
education, these changes have yet to bring about the desperately needed
reductions in indigenous poverty because of poor education quality, poor
health outcomes for children, and limited opportunities once today's children
reach the labor market. And although political representation of indigenous
groups has increased in recent decades, they still cite lack of support from
and a lack of voice in government as a substantive reason for their continued
poverty.
Against that background, what shape
should the future policy agenda take? Our results suggest that it must be
broad enough to embrace issues such as land rights, labor legislation, and
access to credit. On the human development front, we would suggest the
following:
First, more and better education.
Functional bilingual education programs are needed—including schools where
teachers speak the same indigenous language as the students; teachers are
prepared to teach in a bilingual classroom environment; and parents and the
community participate in the design of curricular materials. Well-designed,
well-implemented, and rigorously evaluated programs can produce significant
returns. In Guatemala, indigenous students enrolled in bilingual schools tend
to have higher attendance and promotion rates, and lower repetition and
dropout rates. Bilingual education, despite the higher cost associated with
teacher training and materials, may lead to cost savings through lower grade
repetition and hence lower unit costs and more places generated for new
students. In Guatemala in 1996, the cost savings were estimated at $5 million,
equal to primary education for 100,000 students. Policymakers must also step
up efforts to get all children in school, with incentives such as cash
transfer programs. From 1997–99, Mexico's cash transfer program—Oportunidades
(formerly Progresa)—resulted in higher school attainment among
indigenous peoples and a significant reduction in the skills gap between
indigenous and non-indigenous children.
Second, better health. Efforts need to
be focused on the persistently high levels of malnutrition and associated high
infant mortality rates, vulnerability to disease, and low schooling outcomes.
Policies should promote equal opportunities for indigenous peoples—a sort of
"head start"—including programs for maternal and child health and family
planning. In some cases, it may be necessary to ensure that indigenous health
practices that have proved effective be made available through national health
systems. Ecuador, for example, is experimenting with combined services that
offer a choice between modern and traditional medicine. It may also be
necessary to train skilled providers in indigenous languages and cultural
sensitivity.
Third, better social service delivery.
The substantial progress in certain human capital inputs—such as quantity of
school and health services—for indigenous peoples over the 1990s may not have
led to a significant impact on earnings because of an insufficient voice in
service delivery. Thus, there may be a need to explore strategies to
strengthen the direct influence of beneficiaries on service providers. These
could include enhancing client power or leverage of parents through choice or
voice directly at the school level. Putting recipients at the center of
service provision could also help by enabling them to monitor providers and
amplify their voice in policymaking. Already, Mexico has been putting this
idea into practice: the compensatory education program gives indigenous
peoples a small but significant role in school management. Impact evaluations
have shown this to be effective. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CURRENT ISSUE |
|
|
 |
|
| |
May 2006
No. 40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
