While urban poor have greater access to public services, quality and
overcrowding remain a problem. Another notable difference from the situation of rural
poor is the urban poor’s greater access to infrastructure and other public services. But
here again there are some worrisome caveats. First, despite much higher access to
infrastructure and health services in urban areas, infectious diseases such as diarrhea
and acute respiratory infections are equally common among urban and rural poor
children. This suggests that water and sanitation systems are of remarkably poor
quality. While much attention is being paid to expanding coverage, quality is not
keeping up, making the improved access only nominal. It also implies that using access
to services as a targeting instrument may lead to misleading conclusions about well‐
being in urban areas. Second, school enrollment rates are equally low among urban and
rural poor. This may reflect the positive impact of Oportunidades in rural areas, but it
does also show the urgent need for assessing the educational situation of urban areas.