measure that mainly operates in localities not currently reached by PAM.<sup>3</sup> The Nutritional Pension Program for the Elderly in Mexico City was launched in 2001 to serve adults 70 years of age or older by providing $600 pesos per month (approximately 22% of the current per capita income of that year). The benefit consists of a monthly stipend, and access to prescription medicines free of charge. In its first year of operation, the program’s coverage was 250,000 people that represented 45% of the population 65 years old or older of Mexico City and its budget was $1.21 billion pesos that represented 0.27% of Mexico City Government’s total expenditure (IAAMDF, 2015). Since 2001, the beneficiaries have been increasing and the amount given has been annually adjusted. In 2008, the eligibility criteria were modified to include in the program people of 68 years of age or older, down from the original eligibility age of 70. In 2016 the program benefited 520,000 people, 62.5% of Mexico City’s population aged 65 years old or older (IAAMDF, 2016).<sup>4</sup> These beneficiaries received a stipend of $1,075 pesos per month equivalent to 20% of Mexico City’s average per capita income of 2014 (IAAMDF, 2016).

Since 2010, other state governments have implemented non-contributory pension programs to secure the well-being of their elderly population. Appendix A summarizes the main state-level programs and their characteristics.

# 2. Literature Review on Social Pension Programs

Previous research has shown that non-contributory pension programs have positive effects on consumption and result in poverty reduction. Using information from a survey collected by Mexico’s National Institute of Public Health to evaluate PAM (previously known as _70 y mas_ ), Galiani, Gertler and Bando (2016), and Galiani and Gertler (2009) find that the _70 y mas_ program had a positive effect on consumption. These studies also find that _70 y mas_ had a positive effect on mental health of rural adults between 70 and 74 years of age.

Barrientos (2006) points out that “subtracting pension income of old age social pension programs from beneficiary households would raise indigence levels roughly by one sixth in Argentina, seven times in Chile, and by one third in Brazil.” Bertranou, Ginneken, and Solorio (2002) argues that non-contributory pensions in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, and Uruguay have largely been an effective tool in poverty and indigence reduction. Barrientos (2006), and Bertranou, Ginneken, and Solorio (2002) state that non-contributory pension programs generally have a positive impact diminishing poverty. Other studies such as Asher (2009) and Kidd and Whitehouse (2009) affirm that social pension programs have been effective in reducing poverty among the elderly.

> 3PAM and PROSPERA request a proof of life as many programs targeted to the elderly population usually do. One of the main differences between these two programs though, is the way that the proof of life is certified. The proof of life for PAM beneficiaries is obtained through attendance to a designated place by the program and certified by program staff, while for PROSPERA the proof of life is certified by health professionals when the elderly attend their regular health check-ups (once per semester), which are a requirement to receive the PROSPERA elderly component benefit. This difference raises questions with relevant public policy implications such as whether checking the proof of life at a health clinic by nurses or doctors could have a significant positive effect on health outcomes vis-à-vis checking the proof of life in a place different than a health clinic and by program staff without health professional credentials. While it is undeniably worth looking for answers to such questions, these questions cannot be answered with the publicly available data and are not within the scope of this study.

> 4The number of beneficiaries correspond to April 2016.

7