Latin American cities reflect a spectrum of living conditions as diverse as their landscape. The contrast in living conditions often overlays stark socio-economic differences that have put numerous groups, including Indigenous people, Afro-descendants, people with disabilities, and the low-income working-class, at a disadvantage. This makes it incumbent on policymakers to consider local realities in the rollout of projects and policies.
Diverse groups can benefit from policies, services, and infrastructure. But we often fail to consider that a household’s conditions, such as financial hardship, time constraints, and lack of access to information, create access barriers that should be considered in policy design. Entrenched gender, racial, and other biases can worsen the situation, resulting in well-considered policies having heterogeneous impacts when applied universally.
An example can be seen in our work (Castels Quintana et al, 2022), examining how individuals in Bogotá adhered to COVID-19 lockdown mandates, the city’s main policy tool to prevent contagion during the pandemic. Using geolocated signals from mobile devices, with information at high levels of granularity, we determined people’s residential locations. We then used the mobile signals to observe altered daily mobility patterns during lockdowns. By cross-referencing the data with census statistics, we also established a correlation between mobility patterns and socio-economic characteristics.
Our results showed that lockdowns reduced mobility by 41 percentage points throughout the city. But hidden beneath this statistic were pronounced inequalities. For people in low-income neighborhoods, mobility dipped by only 21%. In sharp contrast, movement in upscale areas plummeted by 80%, making compliance similar to that in highly developed cities like London.
These differences in compliance underscored a bitter truth. Many residents of lower-income neighborhoods are enmeshed in an informal economic web. Devoid of the privilege of being able to work online or stockpile essentials, they were forced during the pandemic to leave their homes to earn a living and survive. Conversely, in prosperous areas, substantial financial safety nets and proximity to basic amenities enabled residents to better adhere to the mobility restrictions.
A rise in average income was associated with a decrease in movement. Similarly, greater poverty as measured in the multidimensional poverty index and employment informality were correlated with lower adherence to lockdown guidelines. So were lower educational levels, crowded homes, and even lower levels of internet access! The underlying inequality not only meant that vulnerable households disproportionately bore the cost of the lockdowns, but also that the lockdowns’ seemingly universal design was not equally effective at restricting movement to reduce contact for everybody.
The challenge is truly comprehending how these socio-economic factors put people at risk: to perceive different communities unique challenges and ensure that interventions, while impactful, do not exacerbate existing inequalities. Understanding the socio-spatial divide is not just an academic exercise; it is key to designing policies that are both effective and equitable.
Tailoring policy design and complementing with additional support for vulnerable households is one place to start. The government of Bogotá distributed cash subsidies to low-income households simultaneously with the implementation of the lockdowns to help them cope with the decline in income. Although our study found no effect of these subsidies, as estimation suggests the amounts were too small to make a difference, this was a step in the right direction.
The key message—that additional support may be necessary for the same program to effectively reach different populations—is crucial for informing multiple operations and policies. A compelling example is the IDB’s sewerage networks project in Uruguay (UR-L1183). This project aimed to improve living conditions in the Department of Montevideo by enhancing access to quality sanitation services, storm drainage, and water risk protection.
One component of the project involved expanding the sanitation network. However, household connection rates to the network have been observed to be low, even when the infrastructure is available. This issue is not unique to this project but has arisen in similar initiatives. Recognizing that financial and informational barriers to connectivity can vary among populations, the program identified the need for targeted efforts to increase connection rates among low-income households. To address this, the program included a connectivity plan with additional subsidies and guidance to help households link their homes to the extended street network.
The success of such initiatives lies in understanding communities’ socio-economic conditions and the specific obstacles they face in accessing resources. These considerations have shaped the design of many IDB programs and should remain a central focus moving forward.1
Ensuring that all people can improve their well-being, achieve their potential, and fully participate in the social, political, and economic aspects of their societies is as much a moral as an economic imperative. But first policymakers must understand local contexts: the unique social and economic conditions of distinct communities. It is that understanding that allows them to tailor interventions so that rather than exacerbating inequalities, they boost inclusion and achieve the desired impact.
- Chapter 5 of 2024’s DEO considers the importance of taking into account local conditions in the design of programs as one of its main lessons and provides examples of multiple programs in which differential costs for vulnerable groups in adoption and compliance presented a challenge that required special attention in project design. ↩︎
Leave a Reply