In Practice A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor By Jorge Avalos, Sarang Chaudhury, Timothy Clay, and Puja Vasudeva Dutta © 2021 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The find- ings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or currency of the data included in this work and does not assume responsibility for any errors, omissions, or discrep- ancies in the information, or liability with respect to the use of or failure to use the informa- tion, methods, processes, or conclusions set forth. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Nothing herein shall constitute or be construed or considered to be a limitation upon or waiv- er of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissem- ination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommer- cial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. In Practice The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor Contents Acknowledgments i About this new series ii Abbreviations iii Introduction 1 The urban context 1 Organization of this note 3 The urban challenge: Understanding the context 4 Urbanization, labor mobility, and informality 5 COVID-19 and other sources of vulnerability 6 A framework for fostering economic inclusion in urban areas 9 Applying an urban lens to the SEI Report 2021 framework 12 Economic inclusion programming in urban areas 13 Policy drivers 13 The current landscape 14 Examining the case for scaling up urban programs 18 Emerging evidence on impacts 18 Emerging evidence on costs 20 Conclusion 23 Appendixes 25 A. Data sources 26 PEI 2020 Landscape Survey 27 Fiscal 2021 World Bank portfolio review 27 Impact review 28 PEI 2020 Cost Survey 33 Caveats and limitations of the analysis 35 B. Selected urban scope programs 36 Meeting the jobs challenge, especially for the urban poor, urban youth, and women 37 Supporting COVID-19 recovery 42 Promoting inclusive cities 43 Notes 44 References 47 The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor Boxes 3.1 Pathways to economic inclusion at scale: A framework and key definitions 10 4.1 A growing pipeline of World Bank projects supporting urban economic inclusion 16 Figures 2.1 Urbanization and informality 5 2.2 The income of urban households declined significantly in the wake of COVID-19 and they faced food insecurity and lower consumption levels 6 2.3 The pandemic set back women’s economic empowerment 7 B3.1.1 A framework for economic inclusion at scale 10 3.1 Urban-specific barriers to and opportunities for economic inclusion 12 4.1 Percentage of economic inclusion programs operating in rural, peri-urban, and urban contexts 15 4.2 Distribution of economic inclusion programs and beneficiaries operating in urban, rural, and multiple contexts 15 4.3 Distribution of government-led economic inclusion programs, by entry points and locations 16 5.1 Summary of evidence on impact of urban scope programs (overall impact, regardless of location) 19 5.2 Overall price tags of urban scope economic inclusion programs 21 5.3 Program costs of the Sahel Adaptive Social Protection Program 22 Map 2.1 Cities are at risk of natural hazards 8 Table 3.1 Examples of economic inclusion programs 11 The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor Acknowledgements This note was written under the guidance of Colin Andrews, PEI Program Manager. The note draws extensively on the forthcoming paper “Productive Inclusion Programs in Urban Africa,” authored by Jorge Avalos, Thomas Bossuroy, Timothy Clay, and Puja Vasudeva Dutta. It benefited from feedback on the opportunities and challenges for urban economic inclusion from participants in the 2020 PEI Urban Clinic, 2021 PEI Global Learning Event. It also profited from feedback from the Brown Bag Lunch Discussion “A Conversation on Economic Inclusion in Cities” on May 12, 2021, especially Dean Cira, Joanna Mclean Masic, Maddalena Honorati, Michal Rutkowski, Roland White, Sameh Wahba, Somik V. Lall, Thomas Bossuroy (World Bank), Demba Ndiaye (Government of Senegal), Marlowe Popes (BRAC), Karishma Huda (MAHKOTA), Lauren Whitehead (BRAC), Rodolfo Beazley (GIZ), and Yéréfolo Mallé (Trickle Up). The team also benefited from feedback from the PEI team (especially Janet Heisey and Inés Arévalo Sánchez) and the invaluable inputs and resources shared by the following task team leaders at the World Bank: Ayuba Hussein, Benedicte Leroy De La Briere, Claudia Taibo, Federica Ricaldi, Foluso Okunmadewa, Julia Ravelosoa, Kalilou Sylla, Mack Capehart Mulbah, Nadia Salim, Omobowale Ayoola Oni, Rebekka Grun, and Victoria Strokova. The team is also grateful for the comments from peer reviewers Judy Baker, Narae Choi, and Wendy Cunningham. The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor i About the In Practice Series The Partnership for Economic Inclusion introduces the In Practice series featuring accessible, practitioner-focused publications that highlight learning, good practice, and emerging innovations for scaling up economic inclusion programs. This note is one of two designed to serve as a resource for policy makers and practitioners aiming to introduce or scale up economic inclusion programs in urban and peri-urban areas. This first note explores the potential of delivering economic inclusion programs at scale in urban contexts, and the second will describe how to operationalize these programs. In making the case for economic inclusion programs in urban areas, this note highlights the role these programs have in promoting the social and economic inclusion of the urban poor and vulnerable groups. It lays out a framework for such programming based on the current landscape and evidence and points to the central role that economic inclusion programs can play in meeting the urban jobs challenge, facilitating a COVID-19 recovery, and building inclusive cities. Supported by an expanding pipeline of urban programs, this note also points to the growing learning agenda for economic inclusion programming in urban contexts, including the emerging evidence on the impacts and costs of urban programs. The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor ii Abbreviations ACTIVO Life Improvement and Livelihood Enhancement for Condition- al Cash Transfer Program (Honduras) CGAP Consultative Group to Assist the Poor DPF Development Policy Financing (World Bank) ELA Empowerment and Livelihood for Adolescents (Uganda) EPAG Economic Empowerment of Adolescent Girls and Young Wom- en (Liberia) FCV fragility, conflict, and violence FI financial inclusion IDS Institute of Development Studies IF International Futures IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development ILO International Labour Organization IPF Investment Project Financing (World Bank) L&J livelihoods and jobs NGO nongovernmental organization P4R Program-for-Results (World Bank) PAD project appraisal document (World Bank) PEI Partnership for Economic Inclusion PEIMT Partnership for Economic Inclusion Management Team PEJEDEC Projet d’Urgence de Création d’Emploi Jeunes et de Développe- ment des Compétences (Côte d’Ivoire) PID project information document (World Bank) PPP purchasing power parity PRODIJI Youth Inclusion Project (Benin) PWP+ public works–plus RAISE Recovery and Advancement of Informal Sector Employment (Bangladesh) RE Recipient Executed (World Bank) REALISE Recovery of Economic Activity for Liberian Informal Sector Employment Project (Liberia) SASPP Sahel Adaptive Social Protection Program SCE Seguro de Capacitación y Empleo (Argentina) SEI State of Economic Inclusion SSN social safety net SSN+ social safety net–plus TDA Text and Data Analytics (World Bank) TMF Transforming My Future (Colombia) UPSNP Urban Productive Safety Net Project (Ethiopia) UYEP Urban Youth Employment Project (Papua New Guinea) YKK Yook Koom Koom (Senegal) YOP Youth Opportunities Program (Liberia, Uganda) YSDP Youth Employment and Skills Development Project (Burkino Faso) All dollar amounts are US dollars unless otherwise indicated. The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor iii Introduction The Urban A Framework Economic Inclusion Examining the Conclusion Challenge: for Fostering Programming in Case for Scaling Up Understanding Economic Inclusion Urban Areas Urban Programs the Context in Urban Areas Introduction THE URBAN CONTEXT A rapidly urbanizing world presents enormous economic opportunities for the poor and vulnerable but also presents significant barriers to their economic inclusion. About two- thirds of the world’s population is expected to live in urban centers by 2050, with nearly 90 percent of this increase in Asia and Africa.1 Urban areas are engines of economic the productivity of people and businesses growth and attract people in search of jobs. directly and indirectly by, for example, This concentration of people with diverse addressing the spatial mismatch between skills, experiences, ideas, and businesses jobs and homes from an urban planning facilitates innovation and productivity. perspective. In particular, youth from poor However, this potential is often undermined families need to acquire foundational skills, by interconnected, multifaceted urban technical and vocational skills, and business challenges, including limited infrastructure and entrepreneurship skills. Capital to start and services, inefficient land markets or grow a business is also typically harder and a shortage of affordable housing, and for youth to access because they have lower suboptimal city management (mainly as a rates of financial inclusion than adults and factor of human and financial resources). have had less time to accumulate savings or These and other challenges have hampered assets. Relative to young men, young women the productivity of both urban residents and typically attain less formal education on businesses (World Bank 2015).2 average, experience network constraints more acutely, and find it harder to access capital, Because of the spatial, economic, and often especially where social norms or laws limit social inequalities in urban areas, urban women’s asset ownership. Young women also poverty is multifaceted and dynamic (Baker typically face limited occupational choices, and Gadgil 2017; Gentilini et al. 2021). As a often clustered in less productive sectors result, for the urban poor the number and and paying less to women than to men—see, quality of jobs are limited, and women and for example, Chakravarty, Das, and Vaillant youth especially face additional barriers (2017) for Africa. to accessing the jobs that are available. Moreover, the urban poor may be unable Since 2020, the COVID-19 crisis has starkly to benefit from the macro- and meso-level highlighted the vulnerability of urban interventions that improve the overall residents. Globally, urban households, business environment for firms or enhance especially those engaged in the informal The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 1 Introduction The Urban A Framework Economic Inclusion Examining the Conclusion Challenge: for Fostering Programming in Case for Scaling Up Understanding Economic Inclusion Urban Areas Urban Programs the Context in Urban Areas economy, have experienced pronounced Although economic inclusion programs declines in employment, income, and food have traditionally been geared toward rural security, and insufficient access to education areas, they can be adapted to address urban (Chen and Carré 2020). In some countries, poverty and will be critical for facilitating households have experienced recovery in a COVID-19 recovery. The Partnership for income, business revenues, and food security, Economic Inclusion (PEI) 2020 Landscape but the gains have been modest, and they Survey revealed that the ongoing global surge continue to struggle to cope with shocks in a of economic inclusion programs already rapidly changing disease environment. includes several programs operating in urban contexts. Some 118 programs in 63 countries Urban policy makers face the challenge of cover at least some beneficiaries in urban creating jobs, supporting COVID-19 recovery, and peri-urban contexts. A fast-growing and, more broadly, making cities more pipeline suggests this number will likely inclusive for the poor. A common strategy increase rapidly. Since 2020, a new wave of is sectoral support for micro, small, and government-led programs is introducing medium enterprises to promote job creation economic inclusion interventions for the first and address labor informality. Urban local time in response to COVID-19. governments contribute to this strategy by, among other things, addressing gaps in The design of economic inclusion programs infrastructure, improving service delivery, differs considerably across regions and and pursuing land management (World Bank countries, depending on the extent of 2015). By complementing these area- and urbanization, informality, youth under- and sector-based interventions with programs unemployment, and social cohesion. For that promote the income generation potential example, Ethiopia’s Urban Productive Safety of individuals and households, countries can Net Project (UPSNP) provides poor urban bring about spatial, social, and economic households with temporary income support inclusion of the poor and vulnerable in urban (through public works) and facilitates self- contexts. employment (with business capital, training, and other support). This approach has great Economic inclusion programs have potential in contexts with high informality emerged as a promising instrument and limited wage job opportunities, and it has to promote job creation for the urban been adopted by several African countries. By poor, especially for youth and women. contrast, Argentina’s Empleo Jóven” (formerly This note defines an economic inclusion known as “Jóvenes por Más y Mejor Trabajo) program (used interchangeably with the and Papua New Guinea’s Urban Youth term productive inclusion program) as a Employment Project (UYEP) help facilitate bundle of coordinated, multidimensional wage employment of vulnerable urban youth interventions that support poor individuals, through training, employment services, and households, and communities in their wage subsidies to employers. efforts to increase their incomes and assets while working toward the long-term goal of ORGANIZATION OF THIS NOTE economic self-sufficiency. Thus an economic inclusion program provides a package of Section 2 is a brief summary of the urban interventions rather than one or two stand- context and challenges. Section 3 then alone interventions because its design is based describes a framework for fostering urban on the recognition that the poorest and most economic inclusion, and section 4 examines vulnerable people face multiple constraints. the current landscape of economic inclusion The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 2 Introduction The Urban A Framework Economic Inclusion Examining the Conclusion Challenge: for Fostering Programming in Case for Scaling Up Understanding Economic Inclusion Urban Areas Urban Programs the Context in Urban Areas programs, starting with the policy impetus area. Meanwhile, debates continue driving their emergence. Section 5 turns to about the feasibility and sustainability the case for scaling up urban programs by of government-led economic inclusion synthesizing evidence on costs and impacts. programs. The evidence base on urban Section 6 draws conclusions. programs is promising but still nascent. As for the inclusive cities agenda, the shift from This note draws heavily on the framework and traditional interventions focusing largely analysis provided in The State of Economic on infrastructure (such as slum upgrading) Inclusion (SEI) Report 2021: The Potential to more multidimensional approaches is to Scale (Andrews et al. 2021), especially the fairly recent, and urban authorities are PEI 2020 Landscape and Costing Surveys, an grappling with all three dimensions of updated World Bank portfolio (2021) review, inclusion— spatial, social, and economic— and an updated review of impact evaluations at the neighborhood and city levels. This of urban economic inclusion programs (see note on urban economic inclusion (and the appendix A for data sources). one forthcoming) is an attempt to begin answering these questions. The authors acknowledge that economic inclusion in urban contexts is an emerging The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 3 Introduction The Urban A Framework Economic Inclusion Examining the Conclusion Challenge: for Fostering Programming in Case for Scaling Up Understanding Economic Inclusion Urban Areas Urban Programs the Context in Urban Areas The Urban Challenge: Understanding the Context URBANIZATION, LABOR MOBILITY, AND INFORMALITY Cities and urban centers are rapidly becoming the primary habitat of humanity. More than half of the world’s population is already living in urban centers, and this share is expected to rise to two-thirds by 2050, to 6.8 billion urban residents (figure 2.1, panel a). Nearly 90 percent of this increase is concentrated in Asia and Africa.3 Urban areas typically offer a wide range of 40 percent to 29 percent between 2000 and economic opportunities, fueling labor mobility 2018, the number of people living in slums within and across countries. Cities, towns, and has stagnated at around 1.2 billion (figure 2.1, peri-urban areas offer upward mobility, better panel b), leading to congestion and strained jobs, higher incomes, access to markets, and a public utilities. The urban poor tend to live in denser network of services compared with rural informal neighborhoods, often in the periphery, areas. These opportunities spur movement from where they face insecure housing tenure, and rural to urban areas, between urban settlements so they frequently move within and across of various sizes, and from one country to neighborhoods. Because of the deep-rooted another. In the East Asia and Pacific region, for spatial, economic, and often social inequalities example, an estimated 120,000 people migrate in urban areas, urban poverty is complex, to cities every day. At the same time, internal multifaceted, and dynamic (Baker and Gadgil labor mobility is often characterized by circular 2017; Gentilini et al. 2021). and temporary migration, especially in many urban areas of fast-urbanizing Asian and Globally, roughly half of the urban workforce African countries (IOM 2015; UN 2018).4 is engaged in the informal sector, with limited social protection coverage. In South Asia, However, rapid urbanization has resulted this figure is as high as 87 percent (figure 2.1, in congested cities with growing informal panel c). A large informal sector is associated and slum settlements. Such congestion is with low productivity, poverty, and income inevitable because economic activity and jobs inequality, as well as lack of access to social tend to be concentrated in a relatively small protection. In addition, the majority of social number of urban growth centers. Even though assistance programs target rural areas—37 globally the share of urban population living percent in rural areas versus 27 percent in urban in slums or informal settlements fell from areas.5 The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 4 Introduction The Urban A Framework Economic Inclusion Examining the Conclusion Challenge: for Fostering Programming in Case for Scaling Up Understanding Economic Inclusion Urban Areas Urban Programs the Context in Urban Areas Figure 2.1 Urbanization and informality 2.1a Globally, the urban population has 2.1b More than a third of the urban steadily increased population lives in slums 45 124000 8 100 Urban Population as Share of Total Population (%) 40 7 90 122000 80 35 No. of people living in slums (millions) Share of population living in slums (%) 6 70 120000 Urban population (billions) 30 5 60 25 118000 4 50 3 40 20 116000 30 2 15 20 114000 1 10 10 112000 0 0 5 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 0 110000 2000 2005 2010 2014 2018 Urban population (billions) Urban population as a share of total population (%) Share of population living in slums (%) No. of people living in slums (millions) 2.1c Urban informality is staggeringly high, 2.1d Youth unemployment in urban areas especially in South Asia remains a global challenge 40 100 Share of urban workforce working in informal sector (%) Unemployed as a share of working-age population (%) 35 90 80 30 70 25 60 20 50 40 15 30 10 20 5 10 0 0 ECA EAP LAC SSA MENA SA Global SA EAP LAC SSA ECA MENA Global SA EAP LAC SSA ECA MENA Global ECA EAP LAC SSA MENA SA Global Sources: Panels a and b: World Bank, World Development Indicators (database), https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators; panels c and d: World Bank, Global Jobs Indicators Database, https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/search/dataset/0037526. Note: The Global Jobs Indicators Database is compiled from national surveys and subnational microdata and is harmonized across countries. Indicators are disaggregated by urban/rural. However, they are presented only for urban areas. The definition and classification of informality are highly context-specific. EAP = East Asia and Pacific; ECA = Europe and Central Asia; LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean; MENA = Middle East and North Africa; SA = South Asia; SSA = Sub-Saharan Africa. Characterized by high under- and is a pressing economic and social issue in unemployment, young women and men face developing economies because sustained the brunt of low productivity in urban areas. unemployment can make youth vulnerable to Globally, youth unemployment in urban areas is social exclusion. Youth unemployment is also extremely high at 23 percent, with rates in Sub- significantly associated with a greater risk of Saharan Africa mirroring this global average political instability, violence, and social unrest (figure 2.1, panel d). Youth unemployment (Azeng and Thierry 2015). The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 5 Introduction The Urban A Framework Economic Inclusion Examining the Conclusion Challenge: for Fostering Programming in Case for Scaling Up Understanding Economic Inclusion Urban Areas Urban Programs the Context in Urban Areas COVID-19 AND OTHER SOURCES youth, with youth employment falling by 8.7 OF VULNERABILITY percent in 2020, compared with 3.7 percent for adults (ILO Monitor 2021). Overall, more than COVID-19 is having catastrophic effects on half of the surveyed urban households reported poverty, especially in urban centers. It is now a drop in total income, and 43 percent of urban expected that worldwide the pandemic will push households reported a decline in wage income an additional 119–124 million people into extreme (figure 2.2) after the onset of the pandemic. These poverty (Lakner et al. 2020). These “new poor” are households also reported a drop in household projected to be more likely to live in urban areas consumption and a rise in food insecurity (figure (World Bank 2020). 2.2). Nearly two-thirds of urban households in Sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia and the Pacific In line with job losses, income has declined reported an increase in food insecurity following substantially in urban areas due to COVID-19, the pandemic.6 particularly for informal workers and youth. The International Labour Organization (ILO) Women were especially adversely affected in estimates that in the first month of the pandemic, terms of exposure to risk and loss of livelihood. A informal workers experienced a decline in disproportionately high number of women work earnings of up to 60 percent globally (ILO as frontline health workers and are employed in Monitor 2021). The crisis also severely affected sectors highly affected by the pandemic such Figure 2.2 The income of urban households declined significantly in the wake of COVID-19 and they faced food insecurity and lower consumption levels 2.2a Urban households see decreases in total 2.2b Urban households see decreases in income and wage income consumption and food security 80 70 70 60 60 50 50 Urban households (%) Urban households (%) 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 Europe and Central Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa East Asia and the Global Average Europe and Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa East Asia and the Global Average Asia the Caribbean Pacifi c Central Asia the Caribbean Pacifi c % of urban households that experienced a decrease in total income % of urban households that experienced a decrease in consumption % of urban households experienced a decrease in wage income % of urban households that faced food insecurity Source: World Bank, COVID-19 Household Monitoring Dashboard, https://www.worldbank.org/en/data/interactive/2020/11/11/covid-19-high-frequency-monitor- ing-dashboard. Note: Panels a and b show the average percentage of households across 36 countries. Data are harmonized across countries using multiple waves of high frequency phone surveys conducted in the regions shown. Income data are not available for any country in South Asia. Food insecurity is estimated using the following indicator: In the last 30 days, your household ran out of food because of a lack of money or other resources? The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 6 Introduction The Urban A Framework Economic Inclusion Examining the Conclusion Challenge: for Fostering Programming in Case for Scaling Up Understanding Economic Inclusion Urban Areas Urban Programs the Context in Urban Areas as leisure, travel, hospitality, and retail sales suggests that cities are increasingly vulnerable (figure 2.3, panel a). As a result, the pandemic to natural hazards such as floods and tropical is expected to widen gender inequalities. One storms. A global study revealed that, in most estimate suggests that, by 2021 about 435 million countries, the urban poor are more exposed women and girls will be living on less than $1.90 than nonpoor urban households to floods a day, including 47 million pushed into poverty (map 2.1). Furthermore, because land is by COVID-19 impacts (figure 2.3, panel b)—see scarcer in urban areas relative to rural areas, UN Women (2020). Furthermore, the frequency the informal settlements where the poor and severity of violence against women and live tend to be higher-risk areas (Hallegatte violence against children may increase as families et al. 2017). In the absence of inclusive and cope with stressors of economic insecurity, climate-informed development, an additional quarantines, and isolation (Peterman et al. 2020). 100 million people are expected to fall into extreme poverty by 2030 (Hallegatte et Even as COVID-19 revealed the vulnerability al. 2016). With increasing urbanization, a of urban residents to health and economic majority of the affected will be the urban shocks, many cities continue to face high poor. disaster risks, and climate change is expected to push urban residents into poverty. Evidence Figure 2.3 Globally, the pandemic set back women’s economic empowerment 2.3a High proportion of women work in 2.3b More women are projected to fall into frontline and worst-affected sectors extreme poverty Females and males below poverty line (millions) Food Processing 440 420 Sales Workers 400 Food Preparation Assistants 380 Health Professionals 360 Cleaners and Helpers 340 Health Associate Professionals 320 Personal Care Workers 300 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Female Male Share of workers in global workforce (%) Females (pre-COVID-19) Females (COVID-19 forecast) Males (pre-COVID-19) Males (COVID-19 forecast) Source: World Bank, COVID-19 Household Monitoring Dashboard, https://www.worldbank.org/en/data/interactive/2020/11/11/covid-19-high-frequency-monitor- ing-dashboard. Note: Panels a and b show the average percentage of households across 36 countries. Data are harmonized across countries using multiple waves of high frequency phone surveys conducted in the regions shown. Income data are not available for any country in South Asia. Food insecurity is estimated using the following indicator: In the last 30 days, your household ran out of food because of a lack of money or other resources? The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 7 Introduction The Urban A Framework Economic Inclusion Examining the Conclusion Challenge: for Fostering Programming in Case for Scaling Up Understanding Economic Inclusion Urban Areas Urban Programs the Context in Urban Areas Map 2.1 Cities are at risk of natural hazards High poverty exposure to floods in urban areas Sources: Panel a: Hallegatte et al. 2017; panel b: Winsemius et al. 2015. Note: UNHCR population of concern includes refugees, asylum seekers, internally displaced persons, and other groups to whom UNHCR has extended its protection or assistance services based on humanitarian or other special grounds. The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 8 Introduction The Urban A Framework Economic Inclusion Examining the Conclusion Challenge: for Fostering Programming in Case for Scaling Up Understanding Economic Inclusion Urban Areas Urban Programs the Context in Urban Areas A Framework for Fostering Economic Inclusion in Urban Areas As noted earlier, economic inclusion programs (used interchangeably with the term productive inclusion programs) is defined here as a bundle of coordinated, multidimensional interventions that support poor individuals, households, and communities in increasing their incomes and assets. Economic inclusion programs therefore aim to help meet the dual goals of strengthening both the resilience of and the opportunities for the poor. This note adopts the framework laid out in The midlevel links for households and communities, State of Economic Inclusion Report 2021: The including to the business environment, health Potential to Scale (hereafter SEI Report 2021), and sanitation services, and environmental which recognizes that poor and vulnerable restoration and management. households face a range of constraints in integrating into the economy (box 3.1).7 This This framework is anchored by the entry target group requires a support package that points through which governments can will address multiple constraints simultaneously. customize existing antipoverty programs Under the SEI framework, two core elements are and the adaptations to scale. Economic thus common to economic inclusion programs: inclusion programs are generally built on a (1) they focus on the poor, often just the extreme foundational intervention that engages the poor, or other vulnerable groups; and (2) they target population and acts as the primary entry provide a coordinated set of interventions that point. Governments typically add economic address the multiple constraints these groups inclusion efforts at the three primary entry face, with the aim of sustainably increasing points: (1) social safety net (SSN) interventions income generation potential. Economic such as cash transfers and public works inclusion programs commonly include the programs; (2) single (or limited) intervention following components: skills training, coaching/ livelihoods and jobs (L&J) programs such mentoring, cash transfers and business grants, as training or labor intermediation services; wage employment facilitation services, market and (3) financial inclusion programs such linkages, financial services facilitation, and as microsaving schemes or financial literacy natural resource management. Ideally, these programs. Complementary measures addressing programs would also create appropriate other constraints program participants face that The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 9 Introduction The Urban A Framework Economic Inclusion Examining the Conclusion Challenge: for Fostering Programming in Case for Scaling Up Understanding Economic Inclusion Urban Areas Urban Programs the Context in Urban Areas may limit the success of these foundational differs considerably, reflecting customization interventions are subsequently layered on top. of the package of support for different Leveraging existing programs and delivery contexts and groups. Programs that build systems is an important aspect of scaling up, on existing social safety nets—such as cash which goes well beyond simply increasing transfers or public works programs—may add coverage. Adaptations to scaling up involve training, coaching, and business grants to help the programmatic and institutional means by beneficiaries transition to self-employment which programs evolve and grow. (examples are Ethiopia’s UPSNP and The design of economic inclusion programs Burkina Faso’s Youth Employment and Skills Box 3.1 Pathways to economic inclusion at scale: A framework and key definitions Following is a simplified framework to consider the pathways for scaling up economic inclusion programs that strengthen the resilience and opportunities of the extreme poor and vulnerable. The framework illustrates an overall context and response diagnostic linked to a desired set of outcomes at the household and community level and in government systems. Economic (or productive) inclusion is the gradual integration of individuals and households into broader economic and community development processes. Economic (or productive) inclusion programs are a bundle of coordinated, multidimensional interventions that support individuals, households, and communities to increase their incomes and assets. Economic inclusion programs therefore aim to facilitate the dual goals of strengthening both the resilience of and the opportunities for poor individuals and households. Scaling up is the process by which a program shown to be effective on a small scale or under controlled conditions or both is expanded, replicated, and adapted into broader policy and programming. Urban scope programs are those operating in urban or peri-urban areas, either exclusively or, more commonly, in multiple locations (including urban and rural areas, peri-urban and rural areas, or all three locations). Inclusive cities are those providing opportunities and better living conditions for all, involving a complex web of multiple factors—spatial (affordable land, housing, and services for all), social (improving local governance and reaching marginalized groups), and economic (job opportunities for all and building resilience). Sources: Andrews et al. 2021; World Bank 2015. The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 10 Introduction The Urban A Framework Economic Inclusion Examining the Conclusion Challenge: for Fostering Programming in Case for Scaling Up Understanding Economic Inclusion Urban Areas Urban Programs the Context in Urban Areas Development Project, YSDP) or job placement Youth Opportunities Program (YOP) and support to facilitate wage employment (such Argentina’s Empleo Jóven (formerly known as as Papua New Guinea’s UYEP). Programs with Jóvenes por Más y Mejor Trabajo) program for an L&J entry point typically complement youth. narrow work-related interventions—such as technical training or labor intermediation Table 3.1 is a brief description of selected services—with some combination of a business economic inclusion programs (see appendix grant, soft skills training, coaching, access to B for a detailed description). Although financial services, employment services, or all economic inclusion programs offer a wage subsidies to employers. These programs package of support, the composition and may target youth or poor individuals, comprehensiveness of the package differ regardless of age, and almost all programs considerably. prioritize women. Examples include Liberia’s Table 3.1 Examples of economic inclusion programs Ethiopia Bangladesh Papua New Colombia Tanzania Senegal Guinea Program Urban Productive Recovery and Urban Youth Em- Transforming My Boosting Inclu- Yook Koom Koom Safety Net Program Advancement of ployment Project Future (TMF)8 sive Growth for (YKK) (UPSNP) Informal Sector (UYEP) Zanzibar: Integrat- Employment ed Development (RAISE) Project Entry Point Social safety net– Livelihoods and Social safety net– Social safety net– Livelihoods and Social safety net– plus jobs plus plus jobs plus9 Location Urban Urban/peri-urban Urban/peri-urban, Urban Urban, rural Urban/peri-urban Rural Target Group Women, displace- Migrants, youth Youth Women Women Women, displace- ment-affected ment-affected Coverage 604,000 500,000 30,500 11,147 318,703 126,150 Components Transfers (PWP)10, Transfers, business Transfers (PWP), Coaching, business Financial services Transfers (CT), coaching, business capital, financial financial services capital, skills facilitation, skills coaching, business capital, financial services facilita- facilitation, skills training, financial training, wage capital, financial services facilitation, tion, skills training, training, wage services facilitation employment services facilita- wage employment coaching employment facil- facilitation, natural tion, skills training, facilitation, skills itation resource man- natural resource training, natural agement and/or management and/ resource man- climate change or climate change agement and/or adaptation adaptation climate change adaptation Note: See appendixes A and B for more details. The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 11 Introduction The Urban A Framework Economic Inclusion Examining the Conclusion Challenge: for Fostering Programming in Case for Scaling Up Understanding Economic Inclusion Urban Areas Urban Programs the Context in Urban Areas APPLYING AN URBAN LENS TO THE rural areas. In general, urban centers are SEI 2020 REPORT FRAMEWORK characterized by greater upward mobility, better services, and a higher quality of Although this framework applies across all life than rural areas (UNDESA 2019). contexts, the urban context shapes the ecosystem However, even though the lure of economic in which the poor live and work and thus offers opportunities attracts many migrants to cities, greater opportunities for, as well as several the number and quality of jobs are limited. challenges to, economic inclusion. Figure 3.1 summarizes these urban-specific barriers (-) • Finally, barriers at the institutional level— and opportunities (+) at the community, local in terms of spatial inequalities and other economy, and institutional levels as follows: factors that constrain access to jobs, markets, and services; limitations imposed by urban • The urban poor face multiple constraints at planning policies; legal and regulatory barriers the community level in terms of congestion for migrants and other groups, etc.—can and strain on public utilities, lack of constrain urban livelihoods. affordable housing, insecure housing tenure, and exposure to crime, health, economic, In this note, this lens is applied to the landscape and climate risks. Urban communities are of economic inclusion programs in urban areas, often characterized by higher anonymity and as well as the policy drivers underpinning their lower social cohesion than that of villages, emergence. The forthcoming second note on with access to resources often mediated by urban economic inclusion will examine how these unofficial local power brokers (especially in constraints have shaped program design, delivery, informal settlements). and institutional arrangements.11 An important aspect, emphasized in both notes, is the critical • Urban local economies offer opportunities role of local urban governments in promoting the for the poor to integrate into markets, and spatial, economic, and social inclusion of the poor they offer more earning opportunities than and vulnerable groups. Figure 3.1 Urban-specific barriers to and opportunities for economic inclusion Community level Local economy level Institutional level • (-) High population density (with high • (+) Access to local markets for inputs, • (+/-) Presence of wide range of number of unregistered migrants/ goods, and services; integration with programs and services, but they may displaced persons) regional and national markets be oversubscribed, expensive, and • (-) Overcrowding, strains on utilities • (+) More options for income generation not tailored to the needs of poor and and basic service provision through self-employment and wage vulnerable • (-) Lack of affordable housing, employment (especially off-farm) • (-) Inadequate social protection coverage • (-) Legal barriers to work or access to insecure housing tenure, and fear of • (+) Greater coverage of ICT and services (migrants, refugees) eviction financial service infrastructure (number • (-) Regulatory barriers (permits, zoning • (-) Lower social cohesion and limited of providers and market penetration) regulations, etc.) for small business community support mechanisms • (+/-) Higher cost of living activities • (-) High levels of social inequality • (-) High commuting costs • (+/-) Labor legislation for decent work • (-) Exposure to crime, health, • (-) High unemployment (especially and provisions for childcare (especially economic, and climate risks among youth) for women) The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 12 Introduction The Urban A Framework Economic Inclusion Examining the Conclusion Challenge: for Fostering Programming in Case for Scaling Up Understanding Economic Inclusion Urban Areas Urban Programs the Context in Urban Areas Economic Inclusion Programming in Urban Areas POLICY DRIVERS Like all social policy, the adoption and scale-up of urban economic inclusion programs hinge on political acceptability and often involve trade-offs in program design and implementation. Although there is typically strong support for economic inclusion across the political spectrum and among policy makers, there are also concerns about the fiscal costs and operational feasibility of such programs in densely populated urban environments. Political debates also often include concerns about urban youth under- and unemployment. The program dependency and the fear of making cities majority of these programs focus on youth, (even) more attractive to rural migrants, which and most also prioritize women. However, would increase the competition for already scarce objectives, target groups, and the packages of jobs and constrained spaces and services. support vary, depending on the context, as follows: Recent political inflection points have begun • Self-employment facilitation to reshape the incentives for governments through entrepreneurship support, to scale up urban economic inclusion applicable in contexts with limited programs. Three main policy drivers provide wage jobs. For example, programs the impetus to pilot, adopt, and scale up in Senegal (YKK) and Honduras economic inclusion programs in urban (Life Improvement and Livelihood contexts (see appendix B for a more in- Enhancement for Conditional Cash depth discussion using various program as Transfer Program, ACTIVO) aimed examples): to bring about meaningful change in the lives and livelihoods of the urban • Addressing the urban jobs challenge, poor by providing a combination of especially among the urban poor, youth, business grants, training, coaching, and women. The majority of urban scope access to finance, and market linkages. programs12 reviewed in this note emerged A number of programs (such as in in response to a policy priority to increase Argentina, Benin, Burkina Faso, income generation opportunities for the Ethiopia, and Liberia) emerged in urban poor and to address the challenge of response to the challenge of urban The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 13 Introduction The Urban A Framework Economic Inclusion Examining the Conclusion Challenge: for Fostering Programming in Case for Scaling Up Understanding Economic Inclusion Urban Areas Urban Programs the Context in Urban Areas youth under- and unemployment, inclusion by embedding economic inclusion providing entrepreneurship support components within an integrated sectoral or often combined with temporary income spatial development approach, often as part support through public works programs, of urban renewal and improvement projects. especially in Africa.13 A common approach is labor-intensive public works for enhancing public spaces, markets, • Self-employment facilitation as a means affordable transport systems, slum upgrading, of promoting social cohesion, applicable solid waste management, and other important in urban areas with high crime rates, urban infrastructure. Examples include in fragile and conflict contexts, or programs in the Democratic Republic of in displaced communities. Examples Congo (Kinshasa Multisector Development include Colombia’s urban Transforming and Urban Resilience Project) and Tanzania My Future (TMF) program, which (Boosting Inclusive Growth for Zanzibar: supports income generation activities Integrated Development Project) that invest for displaced populations and victims of in improvements in access to infrastructure conflict. and services and improve the livelihoods of residents in selected urban and peri-urban • Wage employment facilitation, areas. applicable in contexts with high urbanization, dynamic markets, and THE CURRENT LANDSCAPE wage jobs. For example, Papua New Guinea’s UYEP and Argentina’s Empleo An unprecedented surge in economic inclusion Jóven (formerly known as “Jóvenes por programs is occurring worldwide, with many Más y Mejor Trabajo”) program emerged programs already operating in urban and peri- to address high youth unemployment urban areas. The PEI 2020 Landscape Survey and support integration of youth into provides a global snapshot of economic inclusion the formal labor market. programs. Of the 219 programs under way in 75 countries, over half (118 programs in 63 countries) • Supporting COVID-19 recovery. Since reach urban or peri-urban areas either exclusively 2020, economic inclusion programs have or in addition to rural areas (figure 4.1). This is been introduced to mitigate the impacts likely an underestimate as, since this survey in of COVID-19 on urban informal workers, 2020, several new urban scope programs have especially youth. For example, an economic emerged (see box 4.1). 14 inclusion program in Liberia (Recovery of Economic Activity for Liberian Informal However, most economic inclusion programs Sector Employment Project, REALISE) aims continue to operate either exclusively in rural to support vulnerable workers and informal areas or in multiple locations, with just one in 10 small businesses affected by the crisis, while programs operating exclusively in urban or peri- another in Bangladesh (RAISE) focuses on urban areas. Among the 219 surveyed programs, low-income urban youth and involuntary only 26 programs (12 percent) operate exclusively in returnee migrant workers affected by the urban or peri-urban areas; 92 programs (42 percent) crisis. Both provide these groups with operate across a mix of urban, peri-urban, and entrepreneurship support. rural areas; and 101 programs (46 percent) operate exclusively in rural areas. • Advancing the agenda around inclusive cities. Several cities are attempting to address There is thus considerable scope to scale up barriers to spatial, social, and economic programs operating in urban contexts. Programs The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 14 Introduction The Urban A Framework Economic Inclusion Examining the Conclusion Challenge: for Fostering Programming in Case for Scaling Up Understanding Economic Inclusion Urban Areas Urban Programs the Context in Urban Areas Figure 4.1 Percentage of economic inclusion programs operating in rural, peri-urban, and urban contexts Figure 4.1 Urban 36% Percentage of economic inclusion programs operating in rural, Peri-urban 40% peri-urban, and urban contexts Rural 88% Source: PEI 2020 Landscape Survey. Note: Graph reflects findings for 219 economic inclusion programs. Programs can operate in more 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% than one location. Economic inclusion programs (%) focusing exclusively on urban or peri-urban are government-led, whereas nongovernment contexts are in their nascent stage of scale- organizations operate mainly rural-only programs. up, reaching a small number of beneficiaries, Almost three-fourths (74 percent) of government- either directly or indirectly, relative to rural- led urban scope economic inclusion programs are only programs (1.2 million versus 16.7 million implemented in low- and lower-middle-income beneficiaries). Programs implemented in multiple countries, primarily in Sub-Saharan Africa (44 locations are significantly larger (27.4 million percent), Latin America and the Caribbean (26 beneficiaries) because 90 percent of these programs percent), and South Asia (10 percent). are national in scope or cover several states or regions (figure 4.2). However, it is not possible to The number of government-led urban scope ascertain the population coverage of programs programs is set to increase because several new operating in multiple contexts because the survey programs are in the planning stage or have been did not capture beneficiary data by location.15 introduced since 2020. These include several World Bank–supported urban and peri-urban Figure Governments are leading the scale-up of 4.2 economic Distribution economic inclusionof projects economic inclusion in Sub-Saharan inclusion programs in urban areas. The majority Africa and Asia that are in the pipeline programs and beneficiaries operating (box in (58 percent) of programs with an urban scope 4.1). urban, rural, and multiple contexts Figure 4.2 Programs Distribution of economic inclusion programs and beneficiaries operating in urban, rural, and multiple contexts Benefi ciaries Source: PEI 2020 Landscape Survey. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Urban contexts only Rural contexts only Mix/multiple contexts The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 15 Introduction The Urban A Framework Economic Inclusion Examining the Conclusion Challenge: for Fostering Programming in Case for Scaling Up Understanding Economic Inclusion Urban Areas Urban Programs the Context in Urban Areas Box 4.1 A growing pipeline of World Bank projects supporting urban economic inclusion Since 2020, the number of projects in the pipeline of government-led urban scope programs supported by the World Bank has increased in Africa and Asia. Although the full extent of the pipeline in urban areas is not known, the following are examples of projects in which PEI is providing technical and financial assistance for the design and implementation of urban scope economic inclusion programs. In Africa, the Angola Social Protection Project builds on a large-scale cash transfer program to introduce economic inclusion interventions to empower poor young women in urban and peri-urban areas. The Benin Youth Inclusion Project (PRODIJI) supports gender- responsive innovations to the national economic inclusion program, Azoli. The second Ghana Productive Safety Net Project supports the expansion of economic inclusion activities to urban areas, with a special emphasis on youth and vulnerable women. The Madagascar Social Safety Net Project aims to provide for the first time economic inclusion programming for extremely poor households in urban areas following COVID-19. The Cameroon Adaptive Safety Nets and Economic Inclusion Project aims to roll out an urban economic inclusion component, with innovative adaptations (such as digital savings, new targeting mechanisms, and value chain integration) to respond to the needs and opportunities of young informal sector workers in urban and peri-urban areas in the COVID-19 context. In Asia, the Indonesia GEF Sustainable Cities Impact Project aims to support the integration of economic inclusion strategies into the design and implementation of urban regeneration interventions. In Bangladesh, the RAISE project helps low-income urban youth and involuntary returnee migrant workers affected by COVID-19 improve their earning opportunities and resilience. Figure 4.3 Distribution of government-led economic inclusion programs, by entry points and locations Figure 4.3 Urban only Distribution of government-led economic inclusion Rural only programs, by entry points and locations Urban and Rural Source: PEI 2020 Landscape Survey. Note: Graph reflects findings for 107 govern- ment-led programs: 10 programs operating exclu- 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% sively in urban contexts, 39 programs operating exclusively in rural contexts, and 58 programs Social Safety Nets Liverlihood & Jobs Financial Inclusion operating in mixed/multiple locations. The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 16 Introduction The Urban A Framework Economic Inclusion Examining the Conclusion Challenge: for Fostering Programming in Case for Scaling Up Understanding Economic Inclusion Urban Areas Urban Programs the Context in Urban Areas For government-led programs operating follow a pattern similar to that of programs exclusively in urban areas, the dominant entry operating exclusively in urban contexts, point is livelihoods and jobs, followed by social whereas entry points appear to even out for safety nets. Among the 10 government-led programs serving multiple locations. A small programs operating exclusively in urban or subset of programs (3 percent for programs peri-urban contexts, the primary entry point operating in rural areas only and 2 percent for in 70 percent is livelihoods and jobs (figure those operating in multiple locations) build 4.3). Urban social safety nets (including public their interventions on financial inclusion works and cash transfer programs) provided platforms. a platform for delivering economic inclusion for 30 percent of these programs. Interestingly, programs operating exclusively in rural areas The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 17 Introduction The Urban A Framework Economic Inclusion Examining the Conclusion Challenge: for Fostering Programming in Case for Scaling Up Understanding Economic Inclusion Urban Areas Urban Programs the Context in Urban Areas Examining the Case for Scaling Up Urban Programs For governments considering economic inclusion programs in urban contexts, a better understanding of the evidence base and fiscal realities will ultimately determine the extent of scale. This section examines the current state of knowledge on the impacts and costs of urban scope programs. This analysis focuses on overall impact and total cost (regardless of location of operation) because disaggregated estimates are not available. EMERGING EVIDENCE ON IMPACTS The evidence suggests that urban scope economic inclusion programs have promising short-term This section reviews 31 impact evaluations impacts on a wide range of outcomes. Figure 5.1 of 31 urban scope economic inclusion presents a summary of impact findings across the programs (including one experimental) in 21 reviewed studies (panel a describes the strength of countries.16 The evidence base consists of both the evidence, and panel b presents the distribution government-led programs (58 percent) and of findings). The evidence indicates that nongovernment-led programs (42 percent) economic inclusion programs help participants that operate either exclusively in urban or increase employment and earnings, invest in peri-urban contexts or in multiple locations. productive assets, and expand savings and overall Of these 28 programs, five operate exclusively consumption. Most programs increase household in urban contexts, whereas the majority report resilience to shocks by diversifying livelihoods and overall impacts across urban, peri-urban, sources of income through the provision of skills and rural locations. Most of the evaluations training and grants, facilitating savings and access report impacts on the primary objectives of to affordable credit, and building social networks. economic inclusion programming: enhancing Although the evidence is limited to fewer studies, income, employment, and savings. Other programs empower women by enhancing commonly reported outcomes relate to assets economic opportunities and social status accumulation, consumption support, and and increase child well-being in participating women’s empowerment. A much smaller households by increasing investments in human number of studies report on psychosocial capital (figure 5.1, panel b). well-being and child outcomes. In general, evaluations of nongovernment-led programs Though promising, evidence on the impact of report on a broader set of outcomes relative to economic inclusion programs specifically on government-led programs (figure 5.1, panel a). urban beneficiaries is limited. The majority of the reviewed impact evaluations do not disaggregate The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 18 Introduction The Urban A Framework Economic Inclusion Examining the Conclusion Challenge: for Fostering Programming in Case for Scaling Up Understanding Economic Inclusion Urban Areas Urban Programs the Context in Urban Areas Figure 5.1 Summary of evidence on impact of urban scope programs (overall impact, regardless of location) 5.1a Sources: Distribution of studies reporting 5.1b Findings: Distribution of studies on specific outcomes, by lead agency reporting impact, by specific outcome Income & Revenue Income & Revenue Employment/income diversification Employment/income diversification Savings Savings Consumption Consumption Assets Assets Asset Women's empowerment Women's empowerment Child education Child education Psycho-social well-being Psycho-social well-being Child health and nutrition Child health and nutrition 0 10 20 30 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Government-led Non-Government-led Positive and significant impact No impact (not significant, with a positive or negative sign) Source: See Appendix A, Table A.1 for summary of the reviewed programs and studies. Note: Within each broad outcome category, the count of evaluations includes those that reported at least one indicator with a positive impact that was significant at the 10 percent level or higher or that reported no impact (that is, none of the indicators in the outcome category was significant even at the 10 percent level, regardless of sign). None of the evaluations reported a significant negative impact for all indicators in the outcome category, although many nonsignificant impacts were negative in sign. Only one evaluation (of the Uganda Youth Livelihood Program) reported a significant negative impact for the employment indicator measuring the number of hours worked per day (Bukenya et al. 2019). If an evaluation reported more than one indicator within the broad outcome, the indicator at the highest level of aggregation was used (such as the total asset index rather than the number of goats or total household consumption rather than household food consumption). impact by location. However, one exception, search training provided in addition to the Uganda’s Empowerment and Livelihood for public works program increased earnings Adolescents (ELA) program, showed promising by 11.6 percent. However, the program results in both urban and rural contexts. ELA’s did not have any effect on employment vocational and life skills intervention increased in terms of the number of hours worked the income-generating activities of adolescent (Bertrand et al. 2017). In Colombia, the TMF girls (mainly driven by self-employment) and program layered entrepreneurship support key women’s empowerment indicators, even four on an existing conditional cash transfer. years post-intervention (Bandiera et al. 2020). The program significantly increased per The review includes seven evaluations of programs capita income of participants by 15 percent operating exclusively in urban contexts across and labor income by 49 percent. The three entry points, and these provide some change in income, however, did not bring promising evidence of impacts specifically on about a significant increase in per capita urban beneficiaries: expenditure (Leon-Jurado and Maldonado 2021). • Two SSN-plus programs operating exclusively in urban contexts significantly • Three L&J programs operating exclusively increased income. In the Projet in urban contexts had a positive impact on d’Urgence de Création d’Emploi Jeunes employment. The Economic Empowerment et de Développement des Compétences of Adolescent Girls and Young Women (PEJEDEC) in Côte d’Ivoire, the (EPAG) program in Liberia provided young complementary basic entrepreneurship/job women and adolescent girls with skills The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 19 Introduction The Urban A Framework Economic Inclusion Examining the Conclusion Challenge: for Fostering Programming in Case for Scaling Up Understanding Economic Inclusion Urban Areas Urban Programs the Context in Urban Areas training and job placement support and was EMERGING EVIDENCE ON COSTS successful at increasing both wage and self- employment, although the effects were The PEI 2020 Cost Survey revealed wide higher for increasing self-employment variation in the overall price tag for economic (Adoho et al. 2014). Another program, inclusion programs operating in urban areas the Seguro de Capacitación y Empleo (see appendix A for details on the survey). The (SCE) in Argentina, provided vocational total program cost of the surveyed urban scope training, employment intermediation, programs ranged from $77 to $1,899 (in 2011 and self-employment facilitation in 31 US$, purchasing power parity (PPP)–adjusted) urban centers. The program had a sizable per beneficiary over the duration (3.7 years impact on wages; program participation on average) of each program. This variance in raised real hourly wages by 3.7 percent. In costs continues when the programs are broken addition, program participation reduced down by typology; SSN-plus programs range the probability of being underemployed from $77 to $1,899 (figure 5 .2, panel a), and by 3.3 percent (Mourelo and Escudero L&J programs range from $157 to $1,292 (figure 2016). Finally, the Targeting Ultra Poor 5.2, panel b). However, the variance is less for (TUP) program implemented exclusively L&J programs. It is important to note that all in urban slums in Bangladesh not only of these programs operate in multiple contexts boosted self-employment for program and that these costs are not disaggregated by participants, but also had a significant location—that is, the costs do not represent the positive impact on household savings overall price tag exclusively in urban contexts. and consumption as well as women’s These program “sticker prices” are based on empowerment (Ara et al. 2016). adequacy and impact. The variations in overall program costs reflect different objectives and • Two urban economic inclusion programs design elements. In practice, costs are likely to with a financial inclusion entry vary across urban and rural areas, depending point successfully boosted financial on decisions surrounding the intervention inclusion. A program in Peru provided dosage or adequacy, sequencing, duration of complementary business training and intervention, targeted beneficiary groups, coaching to female microentrepreneurs adequacy considerations (for asset transfers and who had been beneficiaries of a titling business grants), institutional arrangements (in- program in Metropolitan Lima. The house or outsourced), and transportation and program led to greater use of business remuneration, among other things. However, credits from either formal or informal the sample of urban scope programs is too small sources and an 18 percent or higher to explore these questions across programs. increase in sales (Valdivia 2011). Another program in Honduras provided financial As an illustration, the cost structure of a literacy training, semi-personalized program operating exclusively in urban and coaching, and productive assets to peri-urban contexts, Senegal’s YKK pilot, women from poor households with is disaggregated. The total program cost is infants or children. The intervention led roughly $440 ($407 in 2011 US$, PPP) per capita, to a 15 percent increase in the treated and the cash grant is the largest cost driver, households saving goals as well as an accounting for about 60 percent of the total increase in female empowerment by cost (figure 5.3). Grant size is calculated based changing the intra-household bargaining on international experience and accounts for structure (Matsuda et al. 2019). 70 percent of annual household consumption while also reflecting the higher cost of living The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 20 Introduction The Urban A Framework Economic Inclusion Examining the Conclusion Challenge: for Fostering Programming in Case for Scaling Up Understanding Economic Inclusion Urban Areas Urban Programs the Context in Urban Areas Figure 5.2 Overall price tags of urban scope economic inclusion programs 5.2a Social safety net–plus programs 5.2b Livelihood and jobs programs 1400 2000 1200 1800 1600 1000 1400 800 1200 1000 600 800 400 600 400 200 200 0 0 n n n A R P n P rm io t io io U io SD EA K SN IP P F PG S P -T Vi at at fo at TE SA SI ES ua IS -Y RD EE du du du ns -S -M h M -P -S d CC U s so -D ra -J ra ra ra ra CO de -N n a -A da RC -T Fa G oo -G -G -G tin a la a r- es di a i- an es nd D ng a er n nd en do sh a aw In in in ni in nd Rw m ga Ba de rg ua pp ga rk Be pp Ca al ga U Bu A la Ec U ili M ili U ng Ph Ph Ba L&J (NGO) L&J (Gov) Source: World Bank, PEI Quick Costing Tool 2020. See appendix A for details of the programs surveyed. Note: ACCESS = Support to Communes and Communities for the Expansion of Social Services; DRDIP = Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project ; COMSIP = Community Savings and Investment Promotion Program; JEEViKA = Behar Rural Livelihoods Project; L&J = livelihoods and jobs; MPG = Minimum Package for Graduation; NGO = nongovernmental organization; NUSAF = Northern Uganda Social Action Fund ; PISEAR = Projecto de Inclusión Socio-Económica en Áreas Rurales (Socio-Economic Inclusion in Rural Areas Project); PPP = purchasing power parity; SSN = social safety net; STEP = Eastern Recovery Project; TUP = Targeting Ultra Poor Program ; YSDP = Youth Employment and Skills Development Project. in urban areas. The training components, government systems, matters: per capita including life skills and microentrepreneurship nonintervention costs were higher in rural training, account for about 25 percent of total Mauritania, which established a program costs (Andrews et al. 2021; Archibald, Bossuroy, for about 2,000 household beneficiaries, and Premand 2021). than in urban Senegal, which delivered an intervention to almost 15,000 households Scaling up by leveraging existing government (figure 5.3). In urban Senegal, an already systems can bring down delivery costs. established registry helped reduce the cost of Overall, the delivery and staff costs in identifying beneficiaries. Where community the surveyed urban scope programs were volunteers were trained and supervised considerably lower for SSN-plus programs by local program staff, the savings and and for government-led programs. With coaching components cost fell under $20 their growing coverage and efforts to set per beneficiary. In rural Mauritania, where up delivery systems to serve the poor, qualified workers from nongovernmental SSN systems are a platform for delivering organizations (NGOs) provided those economic inclusion measures efficiently services with a much higher ratio of at scale. This is particularly relevant with beneficiaries to providers, the same savings the expansion of urban SSNs in response and coaching activities cost $180. Similarly, to COVID-19 to reaching the urban poor, the administrative costs, which include including informal workers. Evidence monitoring and evaluation and targeting from the Sahel suggests scale, in terms costs, were lower where existing systems were of beneficiary numbers and leveraging used (Bossuroy 2021, forthcoming). The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 21 Introduction The Urban A Framework Economic Inclusion Examining the Conclusion Challenge: for Fostering Programming in Case for Scaling Up Understanding Economic Inclusion Urban Areas Urban Programs the Context in Urban Areas Figure 5.3 Program costs of the Sahel Adaptive Social Protection Program Figure 5.3 700 600 Program costs of the Sahel Adaptive Social 500 Program cost (2011 US$, PPP) Protection Program 400 300 200 100 0 Burkina Faso Mauritania Niger Senegal Market access facilitation Cash grants Source: Sahel Adaptive Social Protection Program Microentrepreneurship training Life skills training (Bossuroy 2021, forthcoming). Savings groups Community sensitization on aspirations and social norms Note: PPP = purchasing power parity. Coaching Group formation Program administration In summary, the emerging evidence base on increased private sector wages by 20 percent urban scope economic inclusion programs in program neighborhoods and 10 percent in is promising. However, it does not yet go other neighborhoods. Overall welfare gains far enough to address the ongoing debates were estimated to be 10 times larger after on economic inclusion programming. This taking spillover effects into account (Franklin is an inevitable gap as practitioners wait for et al. 2021). As for cost-effectiveness, the the evidence to catch up with their curiosity. limited evidence from urban scope programs is Gaps in knowledge remain about the impacts mixed. For example, although Uganda’s urban and optimal content of economic inclusion scope Youth Opportunities Program showed programs specifically on urban and peri- an average annual return to investment of 30 urban beneficiaries. In addition, evidence on percent and 39 percent after two and four years the impacts and costs of urban development of implementation, respectively (Blattman, programs that include economic inclusion Fiala, and Martinez 2014). A similar start-up components is also limited. grant-and-training program with industrial job placement in urban and peri-urban Ethiopia For both rural and urban programs, open had returns too small to cover the cost of the questions remain about general equilibrium program (Blattman, Dercon, and Franklin effects, cost-effectiveness, and long-term 2019). Because even moderate dissipation of sustainability.17 For general equilibrium effects, impacts can nullify the investment case for such a recent evaluation of Ethiopia’s UPSNP found programs, a more robust understanding of the that across Addis Ababa the urban public relationship between impact and cost is critical works component improved local amenities and to guide policy choices. The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 22 Introduction The Urban A Framework Economic Inclusion Examining the Conclusion Challenge: for Fostering Programming in Case for Scaling Up Understanding Economic Inclusion Urban Areas Urban Programs the Context in Urban Areas Conclusion This note makes the case for economic inclusion programs in urban areas. Urban centers are drivers of economic growth and overall poverty reduction, offering greater earning opportunities than rural areas. However, even in cities in which markets and jobs exist, the urban poor may lack the skills, social networks, access to finance and other resources to start micro and small businesses or to access wage jobs. Programs that offer standalone interventions and simultaneously promote interventions would not necessarily help spatial, social, and economic inclusion of those facing multiple constraints, or they the urban poor. would do so to a lesser extent. The urban poor, and particularly young women This note also points to a growing learning and men, require a package of support agenda around economic inclusion to address these multiple constraints programming in urban contexts. As of simultaneously. The emerging evidence 2019, 118 programs in 63 countries were suggests that economic inclusion programs operating in urban and peri-urban areas. can do so effectively, with positive impacts And this number is likely to increase on income, assets, and consumption. rapidly with the fast-growing number of urban scope government-led programs The growing number of urban scope in the pipeline since 2020. From these economic inclusion programs in the programs, operational teams will gain pipeline is an opportunity to build more useful insights into identifying promising inclusive cities. Meeting the jobs challenge, approaches to designing and delivering especially for the urban poor, youth, and these programs in urban areas. A key women, is the primary driver for most lesson is that urban and rural programs economic inclusion programs introduced in must be designed differently; they cannot urban contexts. Since 2020, many national simply be transplanted. Successful labor and social ministries have introduced programs are designed to address urban- new programs or expanded existing specific opportunities and constraints to programs to urban settings to support economic inclusion. These can range from COVID-19 recovery, while city governments individual- and household-level constraints have expanded urban development projects to community-level and institutional to include income support and training, constraints, such as dysfunctional land among other things. Embedding economic markets, insecure housing tenure, lower inclusion programs in city-level planning social cohesion, lack of community spaces, and policy frameworks provides the exposure to climate risks, and inequitable scope to combine “place” and “people” urban policy frameworks that affect the The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 23 Introduction The Urban A Framework Economic Inclusion Examining the Conclusion Challenge: for Fostering Programming in Case for Scaling Up Understanding Economic Inclusion Urban Areas Urban Programs the Context in Urban Areas livelihoods of the urban poor. Furthermore, programs. As the pipeline continues to fill, delivery systems also need to be adapted to it will be important to collate operational the needs and lifestyles of the urban poor. lessons through systematic evaluations and learning from implementation. In All this raises the critical question of addition, better understanding of cost- how to operationalize economic inclusion effectiveness will help build political programs in urban areas—the subject support to incorporate economic inclusion of the forthcoming second PEI urban programming into government policy economic inclusion note. Drawing on frameworks.18 the growing operational experience, it will systematically gather insights on the program design, delivery systems, and institutional arrangements of urban scope The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 24 Appendixes The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 25 Appendix A Data Sources This appendix describes the various sources of data used by the Partnership for Economic Inclusion (PEI) in this note series. For more information and details, see Andrews et al. (2021). The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 26 PEI 2020 Landscape Survey To map the universe of economic inclusion programs, the survey team conducting the study underlying this note used an online survey tool to gather information from a range of government and technical partners. For World Bank programs, the team, using both manual and text analysis techniques, reviewed approximately 1,200 programs in all geographic regions and falling under six of the World Bank’s Global Practices: Agriculture (AG); Environment and Natural Resources; and Blue Economy (ENB); Finance, Competitiveness and Innovation (FCI); Social Development (SD); Social Protection and Jobs (SPJ); Urban, Resilience and Land (URL). The survey questionnaire was developed through broad consultation and consisted of 44 questions in eight sections: objectives, target beneficiaries, beneficiary coverage, design and implementation features, institutional arrangements, budgets, financing, and research and evaluation. The survey was completed by staff from the lead implementing agency, implementing partner, or other organization providing support to each program. During survey preparation, the survey team identified 166 programs supported by the World Bank Group. After reviewing these programs and discounting for overlaps, closed operations, and pipeline projects, the final survey was conducted of 246 programs. The overall response rate to the survey was 89 percent (219 programs). One major challenge is that the data are self- reported, and information and interpretation may vary across survey respondents. The survey authors factored in time for a thorough quality review of each survey response and followed up with respondents for queries and clarifications. The online survey provided detailed guidance and was translated into French and Spanish to ensure clarity. Fiscal 2021 World Bank portfolio review To map the universe of economic inclusion programs, the PEI management team (PEIMT) reviewed the World Bank financing portfolio. PEI conducted a rigorous two-stage analysis, combining Text and Data Analytics techniques with manual review of the Operations Portal. This review updates the economic inclusion projects identified in the fiscal 2020 portfolio review. In the first stage, to validate each economic inclusion program and to speed up the mapping process, PEIMT worked with the Text and Data Analytics (TDA) team in the Development Economics (DEC) department of the World Bank. Using a predefined set of keywords, the TDA team applied advanced text analytics to program summaries as well as to their Project Appraisal Documents (PADs), Project Information Documents (PIDs), Project Papers (PPs), or Implementation Status and Results Reports (ISRs). They applied this technique to a sample of approximately 900 programs (both active and pipeline) across all geographical regions across seven Global Practices: Agriculture (AG); Education (EDU); Environment and Natural Resources; and Blue Economy (ENB); Finance, Competitiveness and Innovation (FCI); Social Development (SD); Social Protection and Jobs (SPJ); Urban, Resilience and Land (URL) The team then ranked programs based on the number of keywords found, and any program that had at least one keyword was considered an economic inclusion program. PEI restricted projects by lending instrument: Investment Project Financing (IPF), Program-for-Results (P4R), Development Policy Financing (DPF), and Recipient Executed (RE). The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 27 In the second-stage review, the PEI team manually reviewed the TDA-assisted selection of economic inclusion programs. The team assessed the relevance of a program based on program summaries, the types of words identified through the TDA techniques, and the frequency with which keywords came up in the project documents. When a summary did not provide enough information, the PAD was reviewed to make a final decision. In the end, 219 unique active and pipeline programs were identified. PEI reviewed each project document to build a database of relevant program information, including COVID-19 adaptations (additional financing, restructuring, etc.), economic inclusion financing, and beneficiary data. Impact review The PEI team reviewed 31 quantitative impact evaluations of 31 economic inclusion programs with an urban scope in 21 countries. The reviewed programs vary in program typologies, institutional arrangements, and size, and they include experiments as well as small- and large-scale programs. Reviewed programs include single and complementary institutional arrangements. The following criteria were used to identify programs: (1) those that met the definition of economic inclusion used in this note; (2) those operating in Sub-Saharan countries only (low- income countries, lower-middle-income countries, and upper-middle-income countries); and (3) those with at least one quantitative impact evaluation. Programs with an available impact evaluation were identified by reviewing (1) programs in the PEI 2020 Landscape Survey with an impact evaluation (the majority did not yet have an evaluation); (2) programs surveyed in the PEI 2017 Landscape Survey report that had an evaluation or assessment, with a focus on large-scale programs (Arévalo, Kaffenberger, and de Montesquiou 2018); and (3) programs that had evaluations listed in online research databases;19 or had been included in systematic reviews of economic inclusion programming or relevant standalone interventions such as SSN, L&J, and financial inclusion (FI) programs; or had been evaluated as part of institutional research agendas on economic inclusion such as the Consultative Group to Assist the Poor (CGAP), Ford Foundation, International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), BRAC, Institute of Development Studies (IDS), Concern Worldwide, Save the Children, Transfer Project, and the World Bank. The following studies were included in the review: (1) experimental impact evaluations (individual or cluster randomized control trials) and (2) quasi-experimental impact evaluations (using a range of methods such as regression discontinuity design, propensity score matching, and difference-in-difference). Only publicly available papers were included in the review, including published papers in peer-reviewed journals (mostly impact evaluations), working papers, reports, books, and unpublished papers available online. The review drew primarily on studies published between 2009 and 2021. The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 28 Table A.1 Summary of impact evaluations reviewed Outcomes Lead Program of interest Country Program Gov/NGO Entry point agency components Study Total cost analyzed (broadly defined) Afghani- WfWI Nongovern- Livelihoods Women for 1. Consump- Noble et al. __ Income, em- stan 12-Month ment-led and jobs Women Inter- tion support 2. (2019) powerment Social and national Skills training Economic 3. Vocational Empowerment training 4. Sav- Training Pro- ings channel 5. gramme Empowerment groups 6. Health aware- ness Argentina Microempren- Govern- Livelihoods National gov- 1. Grants 2. Almeida and __ Income, em- dimientos ment-led and jobs ernment Skills training Galasso (2010) ployment Productivos 3. Coaching (MEP) Argentina Seguro de Govern- Livelihoods Ministry of 1. Skills train- Mourelo and __ Employment Capacitación y ment-led and jobs Labour, Argen- ing 2. Voca- Escudero Empleo (SCE) tina tional training (2016) 3. Employment intermediation 4. Education support 5. Promotion of self-employ- ment Bangla- Enhancing Re- Nongovern- Livelihoods World Food 1. Consump- Hernandez et __ Income, desh silience (ER+) ment-led and jobs Programme tion support 2. al. (2016) consumption, Grants 3. Skills assets, savings training 4. Group training 5. Women’s empowerment Bangla- Challenging Nongovern- Livelihoods BRAC 1. Asset Ara et al. __ Income, desh the Frontiers of ment-led and jobs Transfer 2. (2016) consumption, Poverty Reduc- Skills Training assets, savings, tion: Targeting 3. Supplemen- empowerment the Ultra Poor tary feeding 4) (CFPR-TUP Coaching Colombia Transforming Govern- Livelihoods National gov- 1. Consump- Leon-Jurado __ Income, My Future ment-led and jobs ernment tion support and Maldona- consump- (TMF) 2 Life skills do (2021) tion, savings, coaching 3. well-being, Entrepreneur- empowerment ship (techni- cal) training 4. Financial education Côte d’Ivo- Projet Nongovern- Livelihoods International 1. Grants 2. Premand and __ Income, sav- ire scio-econo- ment-led and jobs Rescue Com- Savings 3. Marguerie ings, employ- moique pour mittee Credit (2020) ment les populations vulnérables de l’Ouest de Côte d’Ivoire (PRISE) The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 29 Outcomes Lead Program of interest Country Program Gov/NGO Entry point agency components Study Total cost analyzed (broadly defined) Côte d’Ivo- Projet d’Ur- Govern- Social safety FXB 1. Public Bertrand et al. __ Income, ire gence de ment-led net–plus works–plus 2. (2016, 2017) consump- Création d’Em- Skills train- tion, savings, ploi Jeunes et ing 3. Basic well-being de Dévelop- entrepreneur- pement des ship training Compétences 4. Wage skills (PEJEDEC) training Democrat- Women for Nongovern- Livelihoods Women for 1. Skills train- Noble and Han __ Income, ic Republic Women ment-led and jobs Women Inter- ing (vocational, (2019) asset, savings, of Congo International's national business, and well-being, Empowerment financial) 2. empowerment Program Cash transfer 3. Social em- powerment El Salvador Productive Govern- Livelihoods Government 1. Technical Blair et al. __ Income, Development ment-led and jobs assistance and (2012) consumption Project training 2. In- employment kind donations (agri inputs) 3. Investment capital 4. finan- cial support (loans) Ethiopia Industrial and Nongovern- Livelihoods US Agency for 1. Cash grants Blattman, $450 (2011 Income, entrepreneur- ment-led and jobs International 2. Low-wage Dercon, and US$, PPP) employment, ial jobs Development employment 3. Franklin (2019) overall health Skills training Honduras ACTIVO Govern- Financial Government 1. Transfers Matsuda et al. __ Income, sav- project ment-led inclusion 2. Coaching (2019) ings, empow- 3. Business erment capital 4. Skills training 5. Financial services facili- tation India Financial Nongovern- Financial SEWA Bank 1. Financial Field, Jay- __ Income, sav- literacy and ment-led inclusion literacy (self- achandran, ings business skills help group 2. and Pande Business skills (2010) training India SHG program Nongovern- Livelihoods SEWA Bank 1. Self-help Desai, Joshi, __ Income, sav- ment-led and jobs group 2. and Olofsgård ings Microcredit 3. (2016) Training Indonesia Program Kelu- Govern- Social safety Government 1. Conditional Microsave __ Consumption, arga Harapan ment-led net–plus Cash Trans- 2019 child health, (PKH) fer 2. Health overall health Support Liberia Economic Govern- Livelihoods Government 1. Business Adoho et al. __ Income, sav- Empowerment ment-led and jobs training 2. (2014) ings, empow- of Adolescent skills training erment Girls and 3. Coaching/ Young Women support to start (EPAG) business or find employ- ment The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 30 Outcomes Lead Program of interest Country Program Gov/NGO Entry point agency components Study Total cost analyzed (broadly defined) Madagas- FIAVOTA Social safety Government 1. Uncondi- Rakotoma- __ Income, car net–plus tional cash nana, Randri- consump- transfer 2. Nu- anatoandro, tion, assets, trition services and Ravelosoa employment, 3. Livelihood (2018) overall health, recovery child health, education Peru Business train- Social safety Financial FINCA 1. Business Valdivia (2011) __ Income, ing program net–plus inclusion training 2. employment, Technical empowerment assistance Philippines Sustainable Livelihoods Government 1. Capacity Ballesteros et __ Income, Livelihood and jobs building 2. al. (2016) consumption, Program (SLP) Group forma- savings, em- tion 3. Grant ployment assistance Philippines Kabuhayan Government Livelihoods Government 1. Productive Edmonds and __ Income, child Para sa and jobs asset transfer Theoharides health, educa- Magulang 2. Training (2019) tion ng Batang Manggagawa (KASAMA) South Youth Business Livelihoods Government 1. Skills train- Müller, Pape, __ Consump- Sudan Start-Up Grant and jobs ing 2. Grants and Ralston tion, savings, Program (2019) well-being Sri Lanka Start-and- 1. Conditional Livelihoods International 1. Business de Mel, __ Income, em- Improve Your Cash Transfer 2. and jobs Labour Orga- training 2. McKenzie, ployment Business (SIYB) Health Support nization Grants and Woodruff program (2014) Sri Lanka Samurdhi Social safety Government 1. Consump- Himaz (2008) __ Child health net–plus tion support 2. Social insur- ance Tanzania Empower- Microsave 2019 Livelihoods BRAC 1. Adolescent Buehren et al. __ Income, sav- ment and and jobs development (2017) ings Livelihoods centers 2. Life for Adolescent skills training Girls (ELA) 3. Livelihood Programme training 4. Meetings with parents and village elders 5. Microfinance Tanzania Tanzania Pro- Social safety Government 1. Conditional Evans, Holte- __ Assets, ductive Social net–plus cash transfer meyer, and consumption, Safety Net 2. Community Kosec (2019) overall health, (PSSN) awareness 3. employment, Public works 4. well-being, Cash grant education Tanzania Tanzania - Social safety Government 1. Cash grant Rosas et al. __ Consump- Social Action net–plus 2. Public works (2019) tion, savings, Fund (TASAF) 3. Savings employment, programs overall health, education Togo Private Sector Livelihoods Government 1. Personal ini- Campos et al. __ Income Development and jobs tiative training (2017) Support 2. Tradition- Project al business training The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 31 Outcomes Lead Program of interest Country Program Gov/NGO Entry point agency components Study Total cost analyzed (broadly defined) Uganda Empower- Consumption, Livelihoods BRAC 1. “Hard” Bandiera et al. $25 (2011 US$, Income, em- ment and child health, and jobs vocational (2020) PPP) powerment, Livelihoods overall health skills training overall health, for Adolescent 2. ”Soft” life education Girls (ELA) skills training 3. A safe space to meet and socialize with other adoles- cent girls Uganda Youth Op- Livelihoods Government 1. Cash grants Blattman, Fiala, __ Income, assets, portunities and jobs 2. Training and Martinez employment Program (YOP) (2014, 2018) Uganda Youth Liveli- Govern- Livelihoods Government 1. Credit/loan Bukenya et al. __ Income, assets hood Program ment-led and jobs 2. Training (2019) (YLP) Vietnam Gender and Nongovern- Financial Tao Yeu May 1. Gender Vu et al. (2015) __ Income, em- business ment-led inclusion Fund (TYM) and business powerment training training 2. Microfinance Sources: References cited in the table. Note: Outcomes of interest reported in the last column are broad categories to cover a range of indicators and indexes. The review examined all indicators associated with a broad outcome category (as reported in the table) and recorded the effect size and significance levels of specific indica- tors. Selected key indicators within the broad outcome categories include the following in this indicative, not exhaustive, list: (1) income and revenue: monthly total household income, average monthly household income, monthly individual income, per capita annual income, total earnings, log house- hold income, household livestock revenue, agricultural income, monthly cash earnings, sales last month; (2) consumption: consumption per capita, per capita daily food expenditure, monthly expenditure on food, total food consumption, log total consumption per capita, total consumption index; (3) assets: value of livestock, total value of household assets, value of productive asset, asset value index, total land owned, durable assets index, overall asset index, total asset holdings; (4) savings: total household savings, cash savings, proportion of households having cash savings, total saving stock, financial inclusion index, probability of savings, log savings; (5) employment: self-employment in agriculture, daily working hours, wage labor, total minutes spent on productive activities in the last day, livelihood security index, hours worked per week, business ownership, labor supply; (6) psycho- social well-being: psychological well-being index, Kessler score, stress index, self-reported happiness, member has not experienced a period of worry in last year; (7) women empowerment: z-score index measuring women’s decision-making in the household, woman has major say on how to manage household finances, empowerment scale, business decision-making, autonomy in purchases (z score); (8) child health: diarrhea rate in oldest under-five child last two weeks, weight for height (whz), height for age, wasting, child dietary diversity score, child well-being index, child immunization card up to date; (9) overall health: HIV knowledge [0–6 score], physical health index (z-score), member has not missed any days due to illness last month, overall health, self-reported health status, health knowledge and behavior index; and (10) child education: proportion of children enrolled in school, school absenteeism, child schooling index, school attendance reported, currently enrolled in school, primary enrollment rate. NGO = nongovernmental organization; PPP = purchasing power parity. — = not available. The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 32 PEI 2020 Cost Survey For the PEI Quick Costing Tool 2020, PEI gathered and analyzed self-reported cost data from 34 programs globally, ensuring that the programs represented a mix of income, geographic, and sociopolitical contexts as well as implementation modalities. The programs are in 25 countries primarily in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, and a few are in the other regions. Twenty- four of these programs are government-led, and 10 are led by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). In terms of program typologies, 12 are social safety net (SSN-plus) programs, and 22 are livelihoods and jobs (L&J) programs. Eight of these programs are implemented in contexts of fragility, conflict, and violence (FCV), as defined by the World Bank. The cost data reported by program teams are for the full integrated package of layered interventions. This factor naturally brings up the issue of attribution to the economic inclusion program, as costs could be linked to underlying programs that may be included or, depending on the bookkeeping practices in-country, excluded from the reported costs. To the extent possible, the costs have been disaggregated through further consultations with the task team and a review of program documents, as detailed shortly. However, specific cost categories are less amenable than others to this disaggregation approach. These include staff costs (for administrative and intervention delivery), monitoring and evaluation costs, and targeting costs. The analysis of costing data, supplemented by details from program documents, is largely descriptive in nature and uses various robustness checks for quality assurance. A multipronged approach was taken to quality assurance. First, to supplement and rationalize findings from the cost survey data analysis, the PEI team uses project appraisal documents, operations manuals, and information available on program websites. Second, a sensitivity analysis was undertaken on the purchasing power parity (PPP) conversions to clarify whether specific years may be biasing the cost trends across countries. Third, the team undertook multiple detailed discussions with each country team or organization to confirm data and analysis. These discussions were held (1) immediately after the raw data were received from each program; (2) after the initial cross- program draft analysis was undertaken; and (3) after this appendix was drafted. Fourth, findings are included from another independently undertaken costing exercise by the Sahel Adaptive Social Protection Program (SASPP), which was conducted over a longer period and uses a more sophisticated costing tool. Fifth, extensive consultations were undertaken with technical experts at the World Bank and the PEI network to ground truth the findings. Figure A.1 presents the costing structure of the urban scope programs analyzed. The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 33 Figure A.1 Costing structure of urban scope programs a. Government-led programs b. Nongovernment-led programs Source: PEI Quick Costing Tool 2020. Note: STEP = Eastern Recovery Project (Democratic Republic of Congo); SSN = Social Safety Nets (Cameroon); YSDP = Youth Employment and Skills Development Project (Burkina Faso); ACCESS = Support to Communes and Communities for the Expansion of Social Services (Benin); MPG = Minimum Package for Graduation (Rwanda); JEEiKA = Bihar Rural Livelihoods Project (India); Graduation = Graduating to Resilience (Uganda) and Graduation Model Approach (Ecuador); Transform = Transforming the Futures of the Ultra Poor (Philippines). M&E = monitoring and evaluation The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 34 Caveats and limitations of the analysis Because knowledge of urban economic inclusion programs—an emerging area—is still evolving, the following caveats should be noted: • This note examines the urban economic inclusion landscape by grouping programs surveyed in the PEI 2020 Landscape Survey into three categories: (1) programs operating exclusively in rural areas (“rural context–only programs”); (2) programs operating exclusively in urban or in peri-urban (or in both) areas (“urban context–only programs,” included under “urban scope programs”); and (3) programs with coverage in rural and urban contexts or in rural and peri- urban contexts or in all three locations (“mix/multiple location programs”). It is not possible to determine whether programs operating in multiple locations predominantly reach urban, peri-urban, or rural beneficiaries. • This note looks at programs operating in peri-urban and urban areas together. Although many peri-urban areas are typically near an urban center and within proximity of industry and services, there are important distinctions between the two contexts. Many peri-urban areas are “rural-like” in the pervasiveness of agriculture and lack of basic services compared with urban areas. Ideally, it would be best to examine adaptations to design and delivery for programs operating separately in peri-urban and urban areas. However, the small number of programs operating in urban and peri-urban areas (26 programs, of which only 10 are government-led) prevented such analysis. • There are only five evaluations of the overall impacts of programs operating exclusively in urban areas, in peri-urban contexts, or in both. Although this note reviews 31 quantitative evaluations of 31 urban scope economic inclusion programs in 21 countries, most evaluations do not present urban-specific impacts. In addition, the limited evidence on program design features and other aspects, such as bundling of components and heterogeneity of impact, derives from rural-only programs; there is no comparable evidence in urban areas. Furthermore, for both rural and urban programs, there is insufficient knowledge on spillover and general equilibrium effects. The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 35 Appendix B Selected Urban Scope Programs This appendix provides examples of economic inclusion programs operating in urban contexts, organized by the primary policy driver for the program and broad approach adopted. This information is drawn from the PEI 2020 Landscape Survey, the PEI 2021 Portfolio Review update, and World Bank project appraisal documents. For selected programs, the tables provide additional information on status, design (objectives, target groups, components), geographic scope, coverage, and institutional arrangements. The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 36 Meeting the jobs challenge, especially for the urban poor, urban youth, and women The challenge. Although informality and lack of jobs are a concern for all urban poor, youth face additional barriers to economic inclusion. Young people need to acquire foundational skills, technical and vocational skills, and business and entrepreneurship skills. At the same time, access to capital to start or grow a business is harder for youth, who have lower rates of financial inclusion than adults and have had less time to accumulate savings or assets. Relative to young men, young women typically attain less formal education on average, experience network constraints more acutely, and find it harder to access capital, especially where social norms or laws limit women’s asset ownership. Young women also typically face limited occupational choices, often clustered in less productive sectors and paying women less than men. In contrast with rural youth, however, urban youth are likely to have higher education and access to networks—see, for example, Chakravarty, Das, and Vaillant (2017) for Africa. Approach 1. Entrepreneurship support and temporary income support (through public works programs), combined with training, coaching, and other components (particularly important in areas with high informality and low formal wage employment). Almost all these programs (including youth-focused programs) prioritize women. • Primary focus on the poor. Examples of urban safety social net–plus (mainly public work– plus) programs are Ethiopia’s Urban Productive Safety Net Project (UPSNP, see table); Côte d’Ivoire’s Projet d’Urgence de Création d’Emploi Jeunes et de Développement des Compétences (PEJEDEC); the Democratic Republic of Congo’s Eastern Recovery Project (STEP) and Mozambique’s Productive Social Action Program (PSAP). An example of urban L&J programs is Senegal’s Yook Koom Koom project (YKK, see table). Program, Basic details Objective Components Participant Institutional Program country profile arrangements coverage Urban Productive Regions: Ethio- Program develop- • Transfers Targeted poverty Financing: Nation- Direct beneficia- pia, Sub-Saharan ment objective: To • Coaching groups: al/central govern- ries: Safety Net Program Africa improve incomes • Business capital Extreme poor, ment, World Bank 152,482 (UPSNP) , Ethiopia of targeted poor • Financial ser- ultra-poor Entry point: households and vices facilitation Involved in Direct and indirect Social safety net– establish urban • Wage employ- Priority vulnerable implementation: beneficiaries: plus safety net mecha- ment facilitation groups: National/central 604,000 nisms • Skills training Women, government, Locations: Urban, •Natural resource displacement-af- local/municipal Share of female peri-urban Objectives: management and/ fected government, com- beneficiaries: •Self-employment or climate change munity, financial 51–75% Start date: •Income diversifi- adaptation service provider 02/01/2016 cation Geographic cover- •Financial inclu- age: National sion The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 37 Program, Basic details Objective Components Participant Institutional Program country profile arrangements coverage Yook Koom Koom Region: Sub-Saha- Program develop- • Transfers Targeted poverty Financing: Nation- Direct beneficia- ran Africa ment objective: • Coaching groups: al/central govern- ries: (YKK) project, Sen- By supporting • Business capital Extreme poor, ment, World Bank 14,500 egal Entry point: the diversification • Financial ser- ultra-poor Social safety net– of household vices facilitation Involved in Direct and indirect plus livelihoods, the • Market links Priority vulnerable implementation: beneficiaries: program helps • Skills training groups: National/central 126,150 Locations: Urban, families become •Natural resource Women, government, peri-urban less exposed and management and/ displacement-af- local/municipal Share of female vulnerable to cli- or climate change fected government, beneficiaries: Start date: mate shocks such adaptation community, NGO, 75–100% 02/01/2014 as droughts and private sector floods. Geographic cover- age: National Objectives: •Self-employment •Income diversifi- cation •Financial inclu- sion •Resilience Note (applies to all tables in this appendix): Transfers refers to cash or in-kind benefits given to participants to smooth consumption and cope with poverty, destitution, and vul- nerability, such as conditional and unconditional transfers, public works. Business capital refers to financial support for establishing or developing businesses. Wage employment refers to interventions aimed at helping participants gain wage employment. Skills training refers to structured teaching with the aim of transferring specific skills and knowledge. Coaching is defined as the guidance provided to participants in a less structured, more conversational way to enhance their knowledge. Financial services facilitation refers to interventions geared toward facilitating access to financial services, such as savings, loans, and insurance. Providing market links refers to facilitating access to markets, such as establishing value chain linkages, helping to purchase productive inputs or sell farm or off-farm products, or undertaking infrastructure development. Natural resource management and/or climate change adaptation includes activities aimed at promoting the effective use of natural resources, reducing emissions from livelihood activities, such as agriculture, and mitigating climate change. • Primary focus on youth. Burkina Faso’s Youth Employment and Skills Development Project (YSDP) emerged in response to high levels of urban youth unemployment. It provides labor-intensive public works, together with training and other components, for urban youth (see table). Benin’s Youth Inclusion Project offers packages of start-up grants, training, entrepreneurship services, coaching, internships, financial inclusion, and links with Program, Basic details Objective Components Participant Institutional Program country profile arrangements coverage Youth Employment Region: Sub-Saha- Program develop- • Transfers Targeted poverty Financing: World Direct beneficia- ran Africa ment objective: • Coaching group: Poor Bank ries: and Skills Develop- Increase access • Business capital 53,835 ment Project, Burki- Entry point: to temporary • Financial ser- Priority vulnerable Involved in na Faso Livelihoods and employment and vices facilitation groups: implementation: Direct and indirect jobs skills development • Market links Women, youth National/central beneficiaries: opportunities for • Skills training government, 318,703 Locations: Urban, out-of- school • Wage employ- financial service rural youth ment facilitation provider, NGO, Share of female •Natural resource private sector beneficiaries: Start date: Objectives: management and/ 50–75% 03/01/2014 •Self-employment or climate change •Income diversifi- Adaptation Geographic cation coverage: Several •Financial inclu- states/regions sion •Resilience The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 38 microcredit institutions to youth in urban, peri-urban, and rural contexts. Liberia’s Youth Opportunities Program (YOP) emerged in response to a policy priority to increase income generation opportunities for urban, peri-urban, and rural youth as a means of reducing vulnerability and poverty after years of civil war. Uganda’s Youth Opportunities Program (YOP) promoted youth entrepreneurship through business capital, training, and coaching, relying on business competition plans for screening high-ability applicants. • Primary focus on women. Examples include Honduras’s Life Improvement and Livelihood Enhancement for Conditional Cash Transfer Program (ACTIVO), which offers a package of entrepreneurship support for urban (and rural) women, including facilitating access to financial services and the market as well as training in productive and commercial activities. Similarly, BRAC has a decade-long urban Ultra-Poor Graduation program in Bangladesh that focuses on facilitating urban livelihoods. And the Arab Republic of Egypt’s FORSA program operates in both urban and rural contexts, focusing on self- and wage employment facilitation. See table for all programs. Program, Basic details Objective Components Participant Institutional Program country profile arrangements coverage Project on Life Region: Latin Program develop- • Transfers Targeted poverty Financing: Direct beneficia- America and the ment objective: • Coaching group: Poor National/central ries: Improvement and Caribbean To reduce the pov- • Business capital government, 9,000 Livelihood Enhance- erty of conditional • Skills training Priority vulnerable Japan Internation- ment for Conditional Entry point: cash transfer–par- • Financial ser- groups: al Cooperation Direct and indirect Cash Transfer Ben- Social safety net– ticipating vices facilitation Youth, women Agency beneficiaries: plus households 39,600 eficiaries through through applica- Involved in imple- Financial Inclusion Locations: Urban, tion of the ACTIVO mentation: Local/ Share of female (ACTIVO), Honduras rural model municipal gov- beneficiaries: ernment, NGO, 50–75% Start date: Objectives: private sector 02/01/2015 •Self-employment Geographic •Financial inclu- coverage: Several sion states/regions •Income diversifi- cation •Resilience Ultra-poor Gradua- Region: South Program develop- • Transfers Targeted poverty Financing: NGO Direct beneficia- Asia ment objective: By • Business capital group: Poor ries: tion, Bangladesh restoring access to • Financial ser- Involved in 5,000 Entry point: livelihood oppor- vices facilitation Priority vulnerable implementation: Livelihoods and tunities and build- • Skills training groups: Women, Regional/district Direct and indirect jobs ing resilience to • Coaching youth government, beneficiaries: economic shocks, NGO, private 20,000 Locations: Urban, place households sector peri-urban on a sustainable Share of female upward trajectory beneficiaries: Start date: from extreme 50–75% 03/01/2010 poverty. Geographic Objectives: coverage: Several •Self-employment states/regions •Financial inclu- sion •Income diversifi- cation •Resilience •Social inclusion The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 39 Program, Basic details Objective Components Participant Institutional Program country profile arrangements coverage FORSA – Egypt Region: Middle Program develop- • Transfers Targeted poverty Financing: Nation- Direct beneficia- East and North ment objective: • Business capital group: Poor al/central govern- ries: Africa To support cash • Financial ser- ment, World Bank 50,000 transfer beneficia- vices facilitation Priority vulnerable Entry point: ries and • Skills training groups: Involved in Imple- Direct and indirect Social safety net– individuals with • Coaching Youth, women mentation: Local/ beneficiaries: plus low income in municipal gov- 205,000 moving from ernment, NGO, Location: Urban, poverty to pros- private sector Share of female Rural perity, enabling beneficiaries: integration of the 25–50% Start date: largest number 02/01/2020 into successful Geographic economic activ- coverage: Several ities states/regions Objectives: •Self-employment •Wage-employ- ment •Financial inclu- sion •Income diversifi- cation Approach 2. Wage employment facilitation (with a focus on formal employment), combined with training, coaching, and other components (particularly important in contexts with low informality and high urbanization). • Primary focus on urban youth. In East Asia and the Pacific, Papua New Guinea’s two Urban Youth Employment Projects (UYEPs) emerged to address high youth unemployment (about 60 percent) in the country’s two largest urban centers by providing young women and men with income, skills training, and temporary employment opportunities. A UYEP combines public works with training and job placement services. In Latin America, Argentina’s Empleo Jóven (formerly known as “Jóvenes por Más y Mejor Trabajo) program was introduced to address high youth unemployment by integrating youth into the formal labor market through training, employment services, and wage subsidies to employers. See table for both programs. Program, Basic details Objective Components Participant Institutional Program country profile arrangements coverage Empleo Jóven Region: Latin Program develop- •Transfers Targeted poverty Financing: Nation- Direct beneficia- America and the ment objective: •Coaching group: Poor al/central govern- ries: (formerly known as Caribbean To improve access •Business capital ment, World Bank 80,000 Jóvenes por Más y of vulnerable •Wage employ- Priority vulnerable Mejor Trabajo) (Youth Entry point: youth population ment facilitation group: Involved in imple- Direct and indirect Employment Support Livelihoods and to labor markets •Skills training Youth mentation: Local/ beneficiaries: jobs and increase their municipal gov- 288,000 Project), Argentina employability ernment, NGO, Location: Urban private sector Share of female Objectives: beneficiaries: Start date: •Self-employment 51–75% 09/01/2008 •Wage-employ- ment Geographic cover- •Social inclusion age: National The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 40 Program, Basic details Objective Components Participant Institutional Program country profile arrangements coverage Urban Youth Region: East Asia Program develop- •Transfers Targeted poverty Financing: World Direct beneficia- and the Pacific ment objective: •Financial services group: Bank, national/ ries: Employment Project To improve the facilitation Extreme poor central govern- 6,100 (UYEP) 2,Papua New Entry point: capacity of young •Skills training ment Guinea Social safety net– men and women •Wage employ- Priority vulnerable Direct and indirect plus in project areas to ment facilitation group: Youth Involved in beneficiaries: engage in produc- implementation: 30, 500 Locations: Urban, tive income-gen- National/central peri-urban, rural erating activities government, Share of female regional/district beneficiaries: Start date: Objectives: government 50–75% 01/01/2012 •Wage employ- ment Geographic •Financial inclu- coverage: Several sion states/regions •Resilience Approach 3. Support for income generation activities as a means of promoting social cohesion (particularly important in post conflict contexts). • Primary focus on ex-combatants or victims of conflict. Colombia’s urban Transforming My Future (TMF) emerged as part of a government commitment to help victims of conflict effectively utilize reparation resources by providing financial training, entrepreneurship and technical training, coaching, and consumption support. In Turkey, the government launched the Employment Support Project for Syrians Under Temporary Protection and Turkish Citizens to improve the employability of Syrians under Temporary Protection (SuTP) as well as Turkish citizens residing in selected localities. Program, Basic details Objective Components Participant Institutional Program country profile arrangements coverage Transforming My Region: Latin Program develop- •Transfers Targeted poverty Financing: Nation- Direct beneficia- America and the ment objective: •Coaching group: Poor al/central govern- ries: Future, Colombia Caribbean To test effective •Business capital ment, NGO 3,185 alternatives for •Skills training Priority vulnerable Entry point: Social providing compre- •Financial services group: Women Involved in imple- Direct and indirect safety nets hensive guidance facilitation mentation: Local/ beneficiaries: to victims inter- municipal gov- 11,147 Locations: Urban, ested in investing ernment, NGO, their compensa- private sector Share of female Start date: tion in starting or beneficiaries: 02/01/2015 improving their 50–75% business Geographic Objectives: coverage: Several •Self-employment states/regions •Financial inclu- sion •Income diversifi- cation •Resilience The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 41 Program, Basic details Objective Components Participant Institutional Program country profile arrangements coverage Employment Support Region: Europe Program develop- •Coaching Targeted poverty Financing: Region- Direct beneficia- and Central Asia ment objective: •Wage employ- groups: Poor, oth- al/district govern- ries: Project For Syrians To improve the ment facilitation er vulnerable ment, World Bank 15,060 Under Temporary Entry point: employability of •Skills training Protection And Turk- Livelihoods and Syrians under Priority vulnerable Involved in Direct and indirect ish Citizens, Turkey jobs Temporary Protec- groups: Women, implementation: beneficiaries: Locations: Urban, tion (SuTP) as well youth, displace- Multilateral orga- 94,030 peri-urban as Turkish citizens ment-affected nization residing in Share of female Start date: selected localities beneficiaries: 03/01/2018 1–25% Objectives: •Wage employ- Geographic ment coverage: Several •Productivity states/regions •Social inclusion Supporting COVID-19 recovery The challenge. The pandemic and related containment measures have affected urban informal sector enterprises and workers, especially youth and women, particularly hard. Approach. Introduction of new programs or adaptations to existing programs to mitigate impacts of COVID-19 with respect to rising food insecurity, job losses, and drops in income. Primary focus on the urban poor and vulnerable informal workers affected by COVID-19. Liberia’s Recovery of Economic Activity for Liberian Informal Sector Employment Project (REALISE) builds on its Youth Opportunities Program to provide business capital, along with business skills training, for existing and new informal small businesses affected by the crisis. It also provides temporary employment for vulnerable workers struggling to find gainful employment during and after the crisis through community-based public works. Bangladesh’s Recovery and Advancement of Informal Sector Employment (RAISE) project focuses on low-income urban youth and involuntary returnee migrant workers affected by COVID-19 to improve their earning opportunities and resilience. It aims to help this group access services such as life skills training, apprenticeship programs, counseling, microfinance, and self-employment support (see table). Program, Basic details Objective Components Participant Institutional Program country profile arrangements coverage Recovery and Ad- Region: South Program develop- •Transfers Targeted poverty Financing: World Direct beneficia- Asia ment objective: To •Business capital group: Poor Bank, national/ ries: vancement of In- provide services •Financial services central govern- 125,000 formal Sector Em- Entry point: that can enhance facilitation Priority vulnerable ment ployment (RAISE), Livelihoods and earning opportu- •Skills training groups: Migrants, Direct and indirect Bangladesh jobs nities for low-in- •Coaching youth Involved in beneficiaries: come urban youth, implementation: 500,000 Locations: Urban, urban youth National/central peri-urban affected by government, Share of female COVID-19, and regional/district beneficiaries: Start date: returning migrants government 25–50% 03/01/2021 Objectives: Geographic •Self-employment coverage: Several •Financial inclu- states/regions sion •Resilience The Partnership for Economic Inclusion 42 In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor Promoting inclusive cities The challenge. Despite the critical role of cities in job creation, many challenges exist in terms of weak city planning, dysfunctional land markets, fragmented product markets, limited finance, and inequitable policies that drive congestion and lack of employment opportunities. As described in section 2, the urban poor face additional barriers to spatial, social, and economic inclusion. Approach. Economic inclusion components sit within an integrated sectoral or spatial development approach, often as part of urban renewal and improvement projects. There is a strong focus on infrastructure development (such as roads and irrigation systems), mostly to facilitate access to markets, but also social services (such as education and health). Infrastructure development is often linked to the provision of temporary employment opportunities for targeted groups. Primary focus on urban infrastructure and services. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Kinshasa Multisector Development and Urban Resilience Project improves access to infrastructure and services, strengthens the state’s capacity for urban management, and improves the skills and socioeconomic opportunities of residents of selected neighborhoods of Kinshasa. In Tanzania, the Boosting Inclusive Growth for Zanzibar: Integrated Development Project finances investments in infrastructure, basic services, and enhanced institutional capacities, with the goal of improving the livelihoods of local residents in the urban core, fast- growing urban areas, and emerging towns and villages (see table). Program, Basic details Objective Components Participant Institutional Program country profile arrangements coverage Boosting Inclusive Region: Sub-Saha- Program develop- • Financial ser- Targeted poverty Financing: World Direct beneficia- ran Africa ment objective: To vices facilitation group: Poor Bank ries: Growth for Zanzibar: increase access to • Skills training 53,835 Integrated Entry point: improved living • Wage employ- Priority vulnerable Involved in Development Livelihoods and conditions and ment facilitation group: Implementation: Direct and indirect Project , Tanzania jobs service delivery in •Natural resource Women National/central beneficiaries: targeted areas in management and/ government, 318,703 Locations: Urban, Zanzibar or climate change NGO, private (project in pipeline) rural and to enhance adaptation sector Share of female the institutional beneficiaries: Start date: capacity of the 50–75% 03/01/2014 government Geographic cover- age: Regional Objectives: •Wage employ- ment •Income diversifi- cation •Resilience The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 43 Notes The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 44 Notes 1. World Bank, World Development Indicators (database), https://databank.worldbank.org/ source/world-development-indicators. 2. See the World Bank’s reviews of urbanization challenges and public policy implications at the regional level (Baker and Gadgil 2017; Ellis and Roberts 2016; Ferreyra and Roberts 2018; Lall, Henderson, and Venables 2017) as well as in several countries. 3. World Bank, World Development Indicators (database), https://databank.worldbank.org/ source/world-development-indicators. 4. Urban centers are also increasingly housing displaced populations. Roughly 50 percent of internally displaced persons and refugees now live in cities (World Bank 2017), with even higher shares in middle-income countries in South Asia and Latin America and the Caribbe- an. 5. World Bank, ASPIRE: The Atlas of Social Protection Indicators of Resilience and Equity (database), https://www.worldbank.org/en/data/datatopics/aspire. 6. World Bank, World Development Indicators (database), https://databank.worldbank.org/ source/world-development-indicators. 7. For example, common constraints to setting up a microenterprise include inadequate busi- ness knowledge or skills, lack of finance, imperfect insurance, and limited social networks. Although stand-alone interventions can also affect incomes, assets, and resilience, a single intervention—a cash transfer, an asset transfer, or a business grant; skills training; or access to finance—would not necessarily help those facing multiple constraints, or it would do so to a lesser extent. For example, cash grants ease capital constraints, while training and group for- mation address human capital and network constraints, especially among the poorest house- holds. Similarly, although cash transfers ease consumption constraints and enable risk-taking, layering on livelihood interventions and financial services addresses production constraints, including technical knowledge and access to inputs, credit, and markets. 8. TMF’s package of interventions does not include consumption support or asset transfers. Instead, most participants receive cash transfers for consumption support from the Familias en Accion conditional cash transfer program and are entitled to reparations (including finan- cial compensation) which can be used as business capital if desired. 9. The Yook Koom Koom (YKK) program builds on an existing cash transfer. 10. PWP: Public Works Program, CT: Cash Transfer 11. See also BRAC-UPGI (2020), Concern Worldwide (2018) and Moqueet et al (2020) for applying an urban lens to program design and delivery. 12. Urban scope programs are those that operate in urban or peri-urban areas either exclu- sively or in addition to rural areas. The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 45 13. In addition to the UPSNP in Ethiopia, similar public works–plus (PWP+) programs have emerged in Côte d’Ivoire (Projet d’Urgence de Création d’Emploi Jeunes et de Développement des Compétences, PEJEDEC), the Democratic Republic of Congo (Eastern Recovery Project, STEP), and Mozambique (Productive Social Action Program, PSAP). City governments are typically supportive of such initiatives because these urban PWP+ programs usually consist of projects such as cleaning and maintaining street and drainage and sanitation networks and rehabilitating and maintaining public gardens and green spaces or local markets. 14. Based on the PEI 2020 Landscape Survey, the surveyed programs are grouped into three categories: (1) programs operating exclusively in rural areas (“rural context–only programs”); (2) programs operating exclusively in urban or in peri-urban areas, or both (“urban context– only programs,” included under “urban scope programs”); and (3) programs with coverage in rural and urban contexts or in rural and peri-urban contexts, or in all three locations (“mix/ multiple location programs”). It is not possible to determine whether programs operating in multiple locations predominantly reach urban, peri-urban, or rural areas. See appendix A for details. 15. The next round of the PEI Landscape Survey aims to capture this information. Please go to PEI data portal to submit this information about your programs. 16. These programs were identified using a variety of sources, including the PEI Landscape Surveys of 2018 and 2020, evaluations listed in online research databases, and systematic re- views of economic inclusion programs. All programs included a quantitative evaluation, either experimental (randomized controlled trial) or quasi-experimental. 17. For both rural and urban programs, the relationship between cost and the magnitude of impact is still largely unclear (Sulaiman 2018). Moreover, the rate of return on economic inclusion programs is quite varied, even for the same intervention implemented in different contexts (Banerjee et al. 2015) and sensitive to assumptions about impact dissipation rates (Kidd and Bailey-Athias 2017). Evidence of spillover and general equilibrium impacts on non- participants and the local economy is also very limited. 18. Questions, comments, and suggestions on this subject are welcome (PEIMT@worldbank. org 19. Examples are 3ie Evidence Hub, https://developmentevidence.3ieimpact.org/; Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA), https://www.poverty-action.org/research; UNICEF evaluation data- base, https://www.unicef.org/evaldatabase/; Campbell Library, https://campbellcollaboration. org/better-evidence; and Africa Agriculture for Impact, https://ag4impact.org/sid/socio-eco- nomic-intensification/building-human-capital/agricultural-extension/. The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 46 References The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 47 References Adoho, Franck, Shubha Chakravarty, Jr. Dala T. Korkoyah, Mattias Lundberg, and Afia Tasneem. 2014. “The Impact of an Adolescent Girls Employment Program: The EPAG Project in Liberia.” Policy Research Working Paper 6832, World Bank, Washington, DC. Almeida, Rita K., and Emanuela Galasso. 2010. “Jump-starting Self-employment? Evidence for Welfare Participants in Argentina.” World Development 38 (5):742–55. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2009.11.018. Andrews, Colin, Aude de Montesquiou, Inés Arévalo Sánchez, Puja Vasudeva Dutta, Boban Varghese Paul, Sadna Samaranayake, Janet Heisey, et al. 2021. The State of Economic Inclusion Report 2021: The Potential to Scale. Washington DC: World Bank. Ara, Jinnat, Nusrat Zaitun Hossain, Narayan Chandra Das, and Abdul Bayes. 2016. “Ultra Poor and Asset Transfer in Urban Setting: Evidence from Slums in Bangladesh.” Jour nal of International Development 28 (8):1235-1250. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ jid.3241. Arévalo, I., M. Kaffenberger, and A. de Montesquiou. 2018. 2018 State of the Sector Synthesis Report. Washington, DC: World Bank. Archibald, Edward, Thomas Bossuroy, and Patrick Premand. 2021. The State of Economic Inclusion Report 2021: The Potential to Scale. Case Study 1: Productive Inclusion Mea sures and Adaptive Social Protection in the Sahel. Washington, DC: World Bank. Avalos, Jorge, Thomas Bossuroy, Timothy Clay, and Puja Vasudeva Dutta. 2021. Productive Inclusion Programs in Urban Africa (forthcoming). Social Protection and Jobs Discus sion Paper. World Bank, Washington, DC. © World Bank. Azeng, T. F., and U. G. Thierry. 2015. “Youth Unemployment, Education and Political Instability: Evidence from Selected Developing Countries 1991–2009.” Working Paper 200, Households in Conflict Network (HiCN). Baker, Judy L., and Gauri Uday Gadgil. 2017. East Asia and Pacific Cities: Expanding Opportunities for the Urban Poor. Urban Development Series. Washington, DC: World Bank. Ballesteros, Marife, Tatum Ramos, Jasmine Magtibay, Aniceto Orbeta, Gerald Daval-Santos, Ann Jillian Adona, and Kathrina Gonzales. 2016. “Assessment of the Sustainable Live lihood Program: Employment Facilitation Process.” PIDS Discussion Paper Series No. 2016-13, Philippine Institute for Development Studies. Bandiera, Oriana, Niklas Buehren, Robin Burgess, Markus Goldstein, Selim Gulesci, Imran Rasul, and Munshi Sulaiman. 2020. “Women’s Empowerment in Action: Evidence from a Randomized Control Trial in Africa.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 12 (1): 210–59. Banerjee, Abhijit, Esther Duflo, Nathaneal Goldberg, Dean Karlan, Robert Osei, William Parienté, Jeremy Shapiro, et al. 2015. “A Multifaceted Program Causes Lasting Progress for the Very Poor: Evidence from Six Countries.” Science 348 (6236): 1260799. Bertrand, Marianne, Bruno Crépon, Alicia Marguerie, and Patrick Premand. 2016. Impacts à Court et Moyen Terme sur les Jeunes des Travaux à Haute Intensité de Main d’œu vre (THIMO): Résultats de l’évaluation d’impact de la composante THIMO du Pro jet Emploi Jeunes et Développement des compétence (PEJEDEC) en Côte d’Ivoire (French). Washington, DC: World Bank. Bertrand, Marianne, Bruno Crépon, Alicia Marguerie, and Patrick Premand. 2017. “Contem- poraneous and Post-Program Impacts of a Public Works Program.” World Bank and J-PAL, Washington, DC. https://www.povertyactionlab.org/evaluation/youth-employ ment-and-skills-development-cote-divoire. The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 48 Blair, Randall, Larissa Campuzano, Lorenzo Moreno, and Seth Morgan. 2012. “Impact Evaluation Findings after One Year of the Productive and Business Services Activity of the Productive Development Project.” El Salvador: Mathematica Policy Research. Blattman, Christopher, Stefan Dercon, and Simon Franklin. 2019. “Impacts of Industrial and Entrepreneurial Jobs on Youth: 5-year Experimental Evidence on Factory Job Offers and Cash Grants in Ethiopia.” Working Paper No. 2019-65, University of Chicago. Blattman, Christopher, Nathan Fiala, and Sebastian Martinez. 2014. “Generating Skilled Self-Employment in Developing Countries: Experimental Evidence from Uganda.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 129: 697–752. doi: 10.1093/qje/qjt057. Blattman, Christopher, Nathan Fiala, and Sebastian Martinez. 2018. “The Long Term Impacts of Grants on Poverty: 9-Year Evidence from Uganda’s Youth Opportunities Program.” NBER Working Paper No. 24999, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. Bossuroy, Thomas. 2021. Cost Effectiveness Analysis – Sahel Adaptive Social Protection Pro- gram (ASPP) (forthcoming), World Bank 2021. BRAC-UPGI. 2020. “Graduation in Urban Contexts.” Policy Brief, BRAC-UPGI, Hague, The Netherlands. Buehren, Niklas, Markus Goldstein, Selim Gulesci, Munshi Sulaiman, and Venus Yam. 2017. “Evaluation of an Adolescent Development Program for Girls in Tanzania.” Policy Research Working Paper 7961, World Bank, Washington, DC. Bukenya, Badru, Saint Kizito Omala, Rogers Kasirye, and Jeanne Miranda. 2019. Do Re- volving Funds Generate Self-Employment and Increase Incomes for the Poor? Exper- imental Evidence from Uganda’s Youth Livelihood Programme. 3ie Grantee Final Re- port. New Delhi: International Initiative for Impact Evaluation. Campos, Francisco, M. Frese, M. Goldstein, L. Iacovone, H. Johnson, D. McKenzie, M. Mensmann. 2017. Teaching personal initiative beats traditional training in boosting small business in West Africa. Science 357, 1287–1290. Chakravarty, Shubha, Smita Das, and Julia Vaillant. 2017. “Gender and Youth Employment in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Review of Constraints and Effective Interventions.” Policy Research Working Paper 8245, World Bank, Washington, DC. Chen, Marty, and Françoise Carré, eds. 2020. The Informal Economy Revisited: Examining the Past, Envisioning the Future. WIEGO, Manchester, UK. Concern Worldwide. 2018. Adapting the Graduation Approach to Urban Contexts: Theory and Practice. Dublin, Ireland: Concern Worldwide. de Mel, S., D. McKenzie, and C. Woodruff. 2014. “Business Training and Female Enterprise Start-up, Growth, and Dynamics: Experimental Evidence from Sri Lanka.” Journal of Development Economics 106 (C): 199–210. Desai, Raj M., Shareen Joshi, and Anders Olofsgård. 2016. “Can the Poor Be Mobilized? Co- operation and Public Goods in Rural India.” SITE Working Paper Series 40, Stockholm Institute of Transition Economics, Stockholm School of Economics. Edmonds, Eric, and Caroline Theoharides. 2019. “The Short Term Impact of a Productive Asset Transfer in Families with Child Labor: Experimental Evidence from the Philip- pines.” NBER Working Paper No. 26190, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. Ellis, Peter, and Mark Roberts. 2016. Leveraging Urbanization in South Asia: Managing Spa- tial Transformation for Prosperity and Livability. Washington, DC: World Bank. Evans, David K., Brian Holtemeyer, and Katrin Kosec. 2019. “Cash Transfers and Health: Evi- dence from Tanzania.” World Bank Economic Review 33 (2): 394–412. The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 49 Ferreyra, Maria Marta, and Mark Roberts. 2018. Raising the Bar for Productive Cities in Latin America and the Caribbean. Washington, DC: World Bank. Field, Erica, Seema Jayachandran, and Rohini Pande. 2010. “Do Traditional Institutions Con- strain Female Entrepreneurship? A Field Experiment on Business Training in India.” American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 100 (2): 125–29. Franklin, Simon, Clement Imbert, Girum Abebe, and Carolina Mejia-Mantilla. 2021. “Urban Public Works in Spatial Equilibrium: Experimental Evidence from Ethiopia.” Prelim- inary draft, World Bank, Washington, DC. Gentilini, Ugo, Saksham Khosla, Mohamed Almenfi, with Tinahy Aristide, Paul Bance, Joachim Boko, Ioana Botea, et al. 2021. “Cash in the City: Emerging Lessons from Implementing Cash Transfers in Urban Africa.” Social Protection and Jobs Discussion Paper No. 2101, World Bank, Washington, DC. Hallegatte, Stephane, Mook Bangalore, Laura Bonzanigo, Marianne Fay, Tamaro Kane, Ulf Narloch, Julie Rozenberg, et al. 2016. Shock Waves: Managing the Impacts of Climate Change on Poverty. Washington, DC: World Bank. Hallegatte, Stephane, Adrien Vogt-Schilb, Mook Bangalore, and Julie Rozenberg. 2017. Unbreakable: Building the Resilience of the Poor in the Face of Natural Disasters, Cli- mate Change and Development. Washington, DC: World Bank. Hernandez, Ricardo, Akhter U. Ahmed, Arifeen Akter, Nusrat Zaitun Hossain, Samira Choudhury, and Mehrab Malek. 2016. An Evaluation of the Program on Enhancing Resilience to Natural Disasters and the Effects of Climate Change in Bangladesh. Dhaka: International Food Policy Research Institute. Himaz, R. 2008. “Welfare Grants and Their Impact on Child Health: The Case of Sri Lanka.” World Development 36 (10): 1843–57. ILO Monitor. 2021. COVID-19 and the World of Work. Seventh edition. Updated Estimates and Analysis. Geneva: International Labour Organization. IOM (International Organization for Migration). 2015. World Migration Report 2015. Mi- grants and Cities: New Partnerships to Manage Mobility. Geneva: IOM. Kidd, Stephen, and Diloá Bailey-Athias. 2017. “The Effectiveness of the Graduation Approach: What Does the Evidence Tell Us?” Policy in Focus 14 (2): 22–28. Lakner, Christoph, Daniel Gerszon Mahler, Mario Rossignoli Negre, and Espen Beer Prydz. 2020. “How Much Does Reducing Inequality Matter for Global Poverty?” World Bank Group Global Poverty Monitoring Technical Note No. 13 (June). Lall, Somik Vinay, J. Vernon Henderson, and Anthony J. Venables. 2017. Africa’s Cities: Open- ing Doors to the World. Washington, DC: World Bank. Leon-Jurado, Viviana, and Jorge H. Maldonado. 2021. “The Graduation Program Effects on Armed-Conflict Victims: Results Evaluation from Colombia.” Documento CEDE No. 23. Matsuda, Ayako, Keitaro Aoyagi, Takako Mochizuki, and Miki Uematsud. 2019. Financial Inclusion and Female Empowerment: Evidence from Honduras. MWC Research Paper 1901 Moqueet, Nazia, Jo Zaremba, and Isabel Whisson. 2020. Ultra-Poor Graduation Handbook. BRAC and World Vision. Mourelo, Elva López, and Verónica Escudero. 2016. “Effectiveness of Active Labour Market Tools in Conditional Cash Transfers Programmes: Evidence for Argentina.” Working Paper No. 11, International Labour Office Research Department, New York. Müller, Angelika, Utz Pape, and Laura Ralston. 2019. “Broken Promises: Evaluating an Incom plete Cash Transfer Program.” World Bank Poverty and Equity Global Practice Work- ing Paper No. 223, Washington, DC. The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 50 Noble, E., J. Corboz, A. Gibbs, C. Mann, A. Mecagni, and R. Jewkes. 2019. Impact Evaluation of Women for Women International’s Economic and Social Empowerment Programme in Afghanistan: An Evidence Brief. Women for Women International, Afghanistan. Noble, Eva, and Hanna Han. 2019. “Impact Evaluation of Holistic Women’s Empowerment Program on Women’s Agency, Decision-Making and Economic Empowerment: Base- line Research Brief.” Women for Women International, South Kivu, Democratic Re public of Congo. Peterman, A. , Potts, A. , O’Donnell, M. et al. 2020. Pandemics and Violence Against Women and Children. Center for Global Development Working Paper 528 Washington, DC: Centre for Global Development; https://https//www.cgdev.org/publication/pandemics- and-violence-against-women-and-children Premand, Patrick, and Alicia Marguerie. 2020. Résultats de l’Evaluation d’Impact du Projet d’Insertion Socio-Economique pour les populations vulnérables de l’Ouest de Côte d’Ivoire (PRISE). Abidjan: World Bank. Rakotomanana, Faly, Zo Tahiana Randrianatoandro, and Julia Rachel Ravelosoa. 2018. “Mid- term Evaluation Results: The Fiavota Program. Main Report.” UNICEF and World Bank, Washington, DC. Rosas, Nina, Samantha Zaldivar, Maria Julia Granata, Gaew Lertsuridej, Nicholas Wilson, Albina Chuwa, Rainer Kiama, et al. 2019. “Evaluating Tanzania’s Productive Social Safety Net: Findings from the Midline Survey.” World Bank, Washington, DC. Sulaiman, Munshi. 2018. “Livelihood, Cash Transfer, and Graduation Approaches: How Do They Compare in Terms of Cost, Impact, and Targeting?” In Boosting Growth to End Hunger by 2025: The Role Of Social Protection, edited by Fleur Stephanie Wouterse and Alemayehu Seyoum Taffesse, 102–20. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. United Nations. 2018. Sustainable Cities, Human Mobility and International Migration: Report of the Secretary-General, United Nations. New York: United Nations. UN Women. 2020. From Insights to Action: Gender Equality in the Wake of COVID-19. New York: UN Women. UNDESA. 2019. World Population Prospects 2018. New York: Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, United Nations. Valdivia, Martín. 2011. “Training or Technical Assistance? A Field Experiment to Learn What Works to Increase Managerial Capital for Female Microentrepeneurs.” Grupo de Análisis para el Desarrollo, Lima. Vu, Nhung Thi Hong, Rosine van Velzen, Robert Lensink, and Erwin Bulte. 2015. The Impact of Gender and Business Training for Female Microfinance Clients in Vietnam. 3ie Grantee Final Report. New Delhi: International Initiative for Impact Evaluation. Winsemius, H., B. Jongman, T. Veldkamp, S. Hallegatte, M. Bangalore, and P. J. Ward. 2015. “Disaster Risk, Climate Change, and Poverty: Assessing the Global Exposure of Poor People to Floods and Droughts.” Policy Research Working Paper 7480, World Bank, Washington, DC. World Bank. 2015. Competitive Cities for Jobs and Growth. Washington DC: World Bank. World Bank. 2017. Forcibly Displaced: Toward a Development Approach Supporting Refugees, the Internally Displaced, and Their Hosts. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. 2020. Poverty and Shared Prosperity 2020: Reversals of Fortune. Washington, DC: World Bank. The Partnership for Economic Inclusion In Practice / A Path to Jobs for the Urban Poor 51 The Partnership for Economic Inclusion (PEI) is a global partnership with a mission to support the adoption of national economic inclusion programs that increase the earnings and assets of extremely poor and vulnerable households. PEI brings together global stakeholders to catalyze country-level innovation, advance innovation and learning and share global knowledge. PEI is hosted by the Social Protection and Jobs Global Practice (SPJ) of the World Bank. In Practice