Cash transfers save lives! Morais et al quantified the effects of Bolsa conditional cash transfers on HIV outcomes in Brazil. By tracking all 5,507 Brazilian municipalities for 15 years (2004-2018) they found that, compared to municipalities with low cash coverage (i.e., ≤ 29% of target pop), areas with high Bolsa coverage (>70% of target pop) reduced AIDS incidence between 4.4%-13.1% (pending on whether municipal AIDS incidence is between 10-30/100k inhabitants); AIDS-related hospitalization declined by 16.5%-22.6%; and AIDS-induced mortality dropped by 12.6%-14.8%. Municipalities with intermediate coverage (from 30% to 69%) also show a reduction of 4.9%, 14.7% and 9.5% on AIDS incidence, hospitalizations, and mortality, respectively. Based on lit review, the paper offers a nice conceptual framework of causal mechanisms (see left figure above), although these were not tested empirically for Brazil.
That’s not all on AIDS: a systematic review (27 papers) by Stoner et al compares the HIV prevention effects of cash transfers, savings, and fee waivers. It finds that “cash transfer [&] programs that incentivize school attendance among adolescent girls & young women show the greatest promise”.
More sobering findings emerge from the Philippines: Pantawid’s conditional cash transfer eligibility rules limit participation (and related monitoring) to up to 3 children per family. An ADB report penned by Raitzer et al explored the intrahousehold effects of capping participation and found that the program led to “greater aspirations, grit, health, education, and less child labor” among eligible kids; yet their siblings’ witnessed declines across those dimensions (see central figure above).
… and back to upbeat findings: what are the poverty impacts of (pre-Covid) cash transfers, social pensions, and other social assistance programs in Latin America? Survey estimates from 15 countries (2014-2017) by Cecchini et al show that poverty was reduced by 11.8% and extreme poverty by 25.9% (see right figure above). Bonus: Stampini et al have a great paper on the region arguing that social protection is adaptive… but not by design!
Let’s stay in LAC: a paper on Jamaica by Beuermann et al examines the relationship between receiving PATH benefits during primary school and subsequent high quality secondary schooling. The analysis shows that boys receiving PATH enter a better-quality high school (due to higher GSAT score), but they benefit significantly less from those schools relative to peers who did not receive PATH benefits (h/t Marco Stampini).
Remember the time when Pakistan didn’t have BISP cash transfers in place (pre-2008)? An article by Haseebab and Vybornyc reviews the effects that BISP yielded relative to previous programs: in essence, BISP reduced political favoritism while its pro-poor targeting increased welfare gains from the program by 15% — and such benefit is 7 times higher than the administrative costs of the reform. Furthermore, public perception of social assistance improved by 40%.
More on South Asia with three new materials: what works best for children’s development, unconditional cash transfers alone or adding Psychological Stimulation measures? In Bangladesh, an evaluation by Hossain et al revealed that UCTs worked, but adding PS increased children’s cognitive/language skills, and mothers’ self-esteem. How to increase health insurance (RSBY) enrollment in India? A multi-arm trial in Karnataka by Malani et al (10k non-poor hhs) found that (i) buying insurance increased uptake to 59.9%; (ii) buy insurance combined with cash transfers (for an amount equal to insurance premium) soared the rate to 72.2%; and (iii) free insurance reached 78.7%! Bonus: an ISST report argues that in Delhi, “… home-based workers, a significant category within India’s most vulnerable informal sector workers, have universally remained invisible even now”.
Moving to MENA, a new study by Salti et al on Lebanon examines the effects of 3 provisions of cash transfers: (a) for <12 months; (b) 12 months; (c) >12 months. Somewhat unsurprisingly, longer-term (c) transfers were most effective in reducing labor and increasing school enrollment among refugees children.
Any news on economic effects of social protection? In the US, Cooper & Olivei use high-frequency transaction data to show that CARES stimulus cash transfers increased expenditures of 15 cents per dollar in the week the payment, rising to 66 cents/dollar after 16 weeks.
More on economics with a quintessential dilemma: cash or jobs? The JDE version of the “sweatshops” paper by Blattman et al is out. The experiment compared the provision of (a) one-off $300 for entrepreneurship and (b) employment at a factory. It found that after one year, (a) increased earnings and self-employment, while (b) improved neither and actually reduced health. After 5 years, participants in both arms display similar employment, earnings, and health.
On another longstanding debate: is it better to give cash or inkind transfers? Two papers examine the question with evidence from Africa’s Horn. In one paper on Ethiopia, a trial by Alderman et al evaluated the effects of “cash vs livestock vs information”: women were given 16 improved-breed chickens and related inputs; cash of same value ($200); or nutrition behavior communication. Only the latter seems to increase children’s egg consumption. The other paper by Rafiei et al explores the “cash vs food” question in the context of major shocks like droughts in Kenya: they argued that “… although cash transfer is more efficient than in-kind transfer, however, the latter is inevitable due to local unavailability of certain commodities”. Hence the longstanding criteria of “it depends on market functionality” still holds!
Since I mentioned drought… here is a trio of climate-related resources: The Risk-informed Early Action Partnership (REAP) partnership has a piece asking whether social protection could be a game changer for early climate action; Desmet and Rossi-Hansberg have a compact piece summarizing the economic impacts of climate change over time and space; and a thought-provoking article by Subramanian argues that “… private climate finance could be the next financial bubble – and the world needs to wake up to the danger”.
Speaking of thought-provoking… Jutel’s paper claims that the use of blockchain in humanitarian action is “… inextricably linked to the politics of the crypto-economy, proprietary platforms, and a class of solutionists championing Silicon Valley’s cultural values”. Bonus: great set of reflections on humanitarian assistance, cash transfers and social protection by Lawson-McDowall et al. Double-bonus: a note by Cuevas Barron on behalf of The Lancet Task Force on Humanitarian Relief, Social Protection and Vulnerable Groups warned that “… [t]he world is at a never more crucial moment, requiring… universal health coverage and social protection”.
And of course, we can’t miss news on politics and financing! On the former, a study on elections in Brazil by Poblete-Cazenave finds that “… incumbents respond to reputation shock by adapting the share of [cash transfers] beneficiaries within the municipalities, but not for the total value of the benefits”. And a new paper on cash transfers and the “resource curse” by Devarajan and Do lays out an intriguing logic: little taxation lies at the heart of the curse; so if then governments redistribute part of mineral revenues as cash, citizens may agree to pay taxes; hence, a high tax/high accountability equilibrium is restored.
To conclude, some nuggets from the media: a piece on the Post argues that “… there is dignity in dollars. And direct cash assistance cannot only help families get by but set them on a path to thrive”; another article on the Hill documents “how work requirements unraveled the threads of our social safety net”; and Italy just introduced a universal child grant: unlike many “quasi-universal” programs, the scheme truly reaches everyone, but with amounts based on income and ranging from €50 to €175 per child/month (transfers are made up to 21 years, and indefinitely for children with disabilities).
Happy and safe 2022 everyone!