Andean Peruvian households: What if I need a meter? Using blind policy 
Article published in Peru 21 , Sunday December 27, 2009
For Javier Escobal , GRADE centers Yanacancha villages and Yanacancha Grande High are two towns in the district Encañada in the Cajamarca region. Despite its name, High Yanacancha is not high enough and lacks a meter while the nearby town center, Yanacancha Grande, has too many meters to qualify for tax exemption recently approved by the Government. According to official statistics, Yanacancha High is located at 3.199 meters above sea level and altitude of your neighbor is 3.553 meters.
similar situation is found in the towns of Yauyucan and the Hualtarán, also Cajarmaca, or Sacha Grande in the La Libertad region, with 2.499 meters of height and lack a meter for which exemptions are applied to individuals of the standards. You can also mention the towns of Chongos, nachos and seasoning in the region Liberty Yanahuanca in Pasco, Junin or Chupas Huaripampa in Huancavelica is located at an altitude of 3.199 and they would not have a meter to access the tax exemptions that would be given to companies that locate in high Andean areas.
These towns will wonder why those few feet more than we receive these benefits and not us? Some even occur to them to raise a couple of its main square meters or move to an area a little higher to see if something they can benefit the standard promulgated. And rightly ask 'Did not we equally poor?'.
In fact, studies we have done in Grade combining census information with the National Household Surveys have allowed us to estimate poverty levels at different altitudes. As expected, the rate of poverty of those are located 50 or 100 feet above or below 2.400 meters is not very different. Nor are there significant differences between those who are located 50 or 100 feet above or below 3.200 meters.
is obviously not the altitude does not matter. The elevation is an indicator that may approximate the degree of remoteness from the public goods and services that the state should provide. If there is electricity, telecommunications, water, drainage and a good way to articulate these towns with larger markets, surely there would be more and better opportunities to improve employment conditions of these peoples. Obviously, a tax exemption not give them better roads or better public services. Rather, these are the public services which could attract companies to locate in these Andean highlands.
But, like an ill wind that blows no good, let me suggest that the rule recently adopted by the Executive may have, despite all its flaws, some utility. The decision to leave the mountain arbitrarily among those living below the 2.500 meters and those who live above this altitude, and do the same at an altitude of 3.200 meters, can afford it, once and for all, assess the inefficiency of tax exemptions as a mechanism to promote growth in the absence of a vision and a comprehensive program development for the saw. After their eventual implementation, we can evaluate the differences in economic activity, income and poverty in the areas immediately above and immediately below the established levels of altitude. If, unfortunately, is as expected, no significant differences between population groups with similar socioeconomic characteristics have the same natural resource base, face the same climate vulnerability but that the rule arbitrarily has differentiated, it may prove, without a doubt, the ineffectiveness of this type of proposal.
is true that the demands of development in the mountains are very large and the cost of wait to verify that the policy is to implement is inefficient, not less. However, at least have the consolation of having irrefutable proof that the issue of rural development in the mountains is not resolved with a tax exemption or a magic technology package, but a sustained effort coordinated policies.
