Person:
Fay, Marianne

Latin America and the Caribbean Region, The World Bank
Profile Picture
Author Name Variants
Fields of Specialization
Urban economics, Infrastructure economics, Climate change
Degrees
ORCID
Departments
Latin America and the Caribbean Region, The World Bank
Externally Hosted Work
Contact Information
Last updated: April 12, 2023
Biography
Marianne Fay, an economist specializing in sustainable development, is the World Bank director for Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador and Peru. She has 25 years’ experience in different regions of the world, contributing to knowledge on and the search for development solutions in the areas of infrastructure, urbanization, climate change, green growth and poverty reduction. She has published and edited several books and articles, including the “World Development Report 2010: Development and Climate Change,” and the report “Infrastructure in Latin America and the Caribbean: Recent Developments and Key Challenges.” Marianne is a U.S.-French binational.

Filters

20052
Reset filters

Settings

Statistics
Citations
Start date: 2005 × End date: 2005 ×

Publication Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    The Urban Poor in Latin America
    (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2005) Fay, Marianne; Fay, Marianne
    With three quarters of its population living in cities, Latin America is now essentially an urban region. Higher urbanization is usually associated with a number of positives, such as higher income, greater access to services, and lower poverty incidence, and, Latin America is no exception. Today, urban poverty incidence, at 28 percent, is half that of in rural areas; extreme poverty, at 12 percent, is a third. Despite this relatively low poverty incidence, the absolute number of poor people is high, and most studies agree that about half of Latin America's poor live in urban areas. The Bank's own estimates suggest that 60 percent of the poor (113 million people) and half the extreme poor (46 million individuals) live in urban areas. The report reviews what is specifically urban about poor people living in cities, which reveals a number of facts, critical to understanding the challenges facing the urban poor, and the means to address these challenges. Three preconceived ideas are discussed, that tend to cloud judgment about urban poverty. All three spring from the common misperception that urban statistics are representative of the urban poor. However, the relatively low incidence of poverty in cities, combined with Latin America's high inequality, imply urban statistics are almost never representative of the urban poor. Concerning the differences between urban and rural poor, the need for differentiated strategies to tackle urban as opposed to rural poverty is implied, and, the first and most important differential is the greater integration of the urban poor into the market economy. Second, while urban areas are not systematically unequal than rural areas - it depends on the country, and, within countries, on the city - they are much more heterogeneous socio-economically, or with respect to economic activities and processes. Third, heterogeneity notwithstanding, Latin American cities tend to be highly segregated. As a result, social exclusion coexists with (relative) physical proximity to wealth, services and opportunities. This gives rise to negative externalities, or neighborhood effects that result in a lower ability to access jobs, lower earnings, and lower educational achievements. Fourth, social networks are less stable in urban areas, with relationships based more on the quality of reciprocal links between individuals and friends, than on familial obligations. Fifth, urban living also means much greater exposure to organized crime, drugs and gang violence. This is true for the population as a whole, but it has particularly dismal implications for the poor living in the slums of Latin America's large cities, where drug-traffic is now pervasive. Finally, another important characteristic of urban poverty has to do with overwhelmed, rather than absent services. The underlying hypothesis of this report is that, indeed, the causes of poverty, the nature of deprivation, and the policy levers to fight poverty are, to a large extent, site specific.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Infrastructure in Latin America : Recent Developments and Key Challenges, Volume 1
    (Washington, DC, 2005-08) Morrison, Mary; Fay, Marianne
    In the last decade, most countries in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) have not spent enough on infrastructure. Total investment has fallen as a percentage of GDP, as public infrastructure expenditure has borne the brunt of fiscal adjustment, and private investment has failed to take up the slack. Most infrastructure services have therefore lagged behind East Asian comparators, middle income countries in general and China, in terms of both coverage and quality, despite the generally positive impacts of private sector involvement. This lackluster performance has slowed the LAC region's economic growth and progress in poverty reduction. Countries of the region therefore need to focus on upgrading their infrastructure, as this can yield great dividends in terms of growth, competitiveness and poverty reduction, as well as improving the quality of life of their citizens. Catching up requires significant new investment. But first, measures need to be taken to ensure that infrastructure spending produces higher returns, both economic and social. Both these tasks involve multiple challenges. The first section of the main report reviews progress made in infrastructure coverage and quality and discusses the impacts this has had on growth, competitiveness and the fight against poverty. The second section argues that the main issue has been that there has not been enough improvement in the management of resources, which have been insufficient anyway, and also reviews the region's experiences with private participation in infrastructure. The third section builds on the lessons of the last decade to tackle the key challenges: improving social and economic returns from infrastructure, managing private participation in infrastructure better and raising new finance for infrastructure.