65 for the program, has ruled out the use of the stipends in the form of wage subsidies to private employers.

There are indications that the Heads of Household program has played an important role in helping calm social unrest. Data compiled by the Ministry of Justice, Security and Human Rights indicate that the monthly average number of “social protest events” (demonstrations, blocking roads, strikes) fell from about 2,500 in JanuaryFebruary 2002 and 2,300 in March-April to about 1,500 in May and then to a much lower plateau of about 850 in June-December and 640 in January-February 2003 (MECON, 2003a).

Some questions may reasonably be raised about the Heads of Household program. Its fiscal cost amounts to about 4 billion pesos per year (i.e. 2 million x 1,800 pesos), or about 1 percent of GDP. The amount of the stipend is modest, corresponding at recent exchange rates to about $1.60 per day per head of household. Even so, the amorphous work requirement raises potential difficulties. A classic case of a successful social safety net, Chile’s Plan of Minimum Employment carried out in the mid-1980s, not only required work in public works projects, but paid slightly below the minimum wage. This structure meant that the program had a strong built-in incentive for self-selection in, of the truly needy, and self-selection out, for all others. Some reports suggest instead that the Heads of Household program is having the effect of making it difficult for farm areas to recruit seasonal farm labor, for example. There is also the question of whether recipients are really heads of households (and of households with children under the age of 18), as some surveys indicate that fewer than half have this status, and that well over half are females.

Another possible issue concerning the program concerns the apparent role of _piqueteros_ in at least some portion of the program to administer the selection of participants and distribution of funds. The _piquetero_ movement in Argentina in recent years takes its name from the setting up of roadblocks by disaffected groups. The movement began in the provinces and escalated in the main cities by late 2001. Although the recruitment of some of its members to help administer the Heads of Households subsidies no doubt played a role in the cooling off of demonstrations, this process raises the issue of whether the government is becoming beholden to specific groups under an implicit threat to break the peace if the subsidies are not delivered. It also raises the question of political patronage.<sup>66</sup> Going forward, there would seem to be grounds for shifting the Heads of Households to a basis with a much more meaningful work requirement, in which recipients are expected (for example) to show up for, say, 6 hours of work daily on public works projects. It would also seem appropriate to phase out the _piqueteros_ in the

> 66 The perception of the interaction of politics with the _piquetero_ movement is illustrated by the following press account:  “The crisis and resulting unemployment created a violent militance in the streets and highways: the ‘piqueteros,’ which initially were encouraged by the government (especially by Carlos Ruckauf when he was governor of Buenos Aires) and then ‘professionalized’ with activists paid by the Heads of Household, Trabajar [Work], and other programs.” _Ambito Financiero_ , 25 April 2003.