If the Time magazine has its yearly “100 most influential people” ranking, why not having fun with compiling the most influential social protection papers of the year, from the 100th to the 1st? Enjoy the curated shortlist produced based on my own imperfect judgment about the paper’s relevance, quality, and contribution to our collective knowledge… and why not, pleasure to read.
So here we go:
100 Lavinas et al for discussing the thorny issue of income transfers and debt in Brazil, such as Bolsa beneficiaries signing loans with direct deduction from CCT payments.
99 Yu and Nimeh for investigating the segmentation in the utilization of the Dutch social protection system by natives and migrants.
98 Liepmann and Pignatti for arguing that unemployment insurance for formal sector workers in Mauritius has important effects on employment and earnings among recipients.
97 Sengupta and Sivanu for tracking progress of social protection in tapping climate funds.
96 Pace and Daidone for contrasting how two transfer programs in Lesotho affected farmers’ willingness to take “productive” risks.
95 Premand and Rohner for underscoring that the provision of cash transfers in Niger can be a magnet for attacks by actors from outside recipient villages.
94 Aldaba and Geronimo for reviewing the adaptability of the Philippines’ social protection system over the past decade.
93 Roelen et al for reporting the experience with poverty and government responses among urban dwellers in Bangladesh.
92 Soler-Buades for typologizing guaranteed minimum income programs across 6 EU countries between 2008 to 2022.
91 El-Enbaby et al for exploring the effects of Egypt’s Takaful on levels of perceived economic security and anxiety experienced by recipient mothers.
90 Hu et al for finding that receipt of Dibao cash transfers in China fosters social engagement and participatory governance.
89 Colombarolli and Gabos for evaluating public works in Hungary relative to unemployed and private sector workers.
88 Araujo et al for a narrative review on the effects of social protection and activation programs on youth.
87 Carraro et al for examining factors shaping the probability of leaving the Bolsa Familia programin the Brazilian city of Pelotas.
86 Tindall for assessing the accountability of humanitarian assistance in Somalia … beyond beneficiary “feedback”
85 Birch et al for unbundling the “conflict sensitivity” of social assistance design in Sudan.
84 Tajmazinani for reflecting on lessons from reforms of food subsidies in Iran.
83 James and Watson for conducting an online survey to test people’s propensity to move to Alaska because of its permanent cash transfers dividend.
82 De Wispelaere and Henderson for editing a journal special issue on “emergency basic income”.
81 Balakrishnan et al for studying the effects of a novel two-year unconditional cash transfer program for low income households in California between 2021 and 2023.
80 Okamura et al for comparing the experience with digital and AI-supported cash transfers in DRC, Nigeria, and Togo during the pandemic.
79 Aggarwal et al for evaluating the effects of large, one-off cash transfers in Malawi and Liberia two years after distribution.
78 Bleck et al for asking what do community leaders in Mali think about “anticipatory action”.
77 Wang for codifying the shifting rhetoric accompanying Chinese pension schemes from 1978 to 2008.
76 Costella et al for laying out five channels connecting social protection and climate change.
75 Pukelis et al for exposing three facts about stigma and SNAP participation in the US.
74 Breisinger et al for modeling the general equilibrium effects of reforming food subsidies in Egypt.
73 Dahl and Loken for summarizing the effects of cash transfers on fertility in the OECD.
72 Brydon et al for reviewing findings from 130 studies evaluating the effects of cash assistance on 6 health dimensions in high-income countries.
71 Kim for arguing that in South Korea public support for social protection rose because of unemployment induced by the pandemic, but such support was short-lived.
70 Cirillo et al for their review of non-contributory programs for adolescents in low- and middle-income countries.
69 Pullabhotla for illuminating how India’s MNREGA public works succeeded in improving groundwater storage.
68 de Brauw and Bloem for articulating the trade-offs between anticipatory cash transfers and post-emergency assistancein case of severe weather events in Mozambique.
67 Shawa et al for showing that in Malawi, receipt of social protection allowed sick or injured individuals time for recovery instead of working to repay for health expenditures.
66 Carraro and Ferrone for investigating Lesotho’s Child Grant Program’s positive effects on food security and nutrition of ineligible households living in treated villages.
65 Devereux et al for editing a special journal issue on reimagining social protection.
64 Torm and Oehme for posing the big question of the effects of contributory social protection on formalization of firms and workers.
63 Alderman et al for appraising the empirical base for school meals schemes.
62 Toikko et al for estimating that receipt of social assistance in Finland is significantly associated with lower children’s removal from their families.
61 Arenas de Mesa and Robles for a great edited volume on social pensions in Latin America and the Caribbean.
60 Sharafutdinova for recounting how Russian child benefits have been framed as “presidential” payments.
59 Cattaneo et al for updating cost estimates of five main social protection programs.
58 Sari et al for showing that beneficiaries that exited the Program Keluarga Harapan CCT in Indonesia exhibited lasting effects on consumption but not on education.
57 Rehill and Biddle for finding that “labelled” cash transfers in Morocco present favorable cost-effectiveness performance relative to CCTs.
56 Knox-Vydmanov and Doyle for analyzing how Pacific Island States are financing social assistance.
55 Collyer et al for assessing the perspectives and preferences of displaced populations around social assistance design choices in DRC, Lebanon, and Pakistan.
54 Ground Truth for mapping users’ journey to access cash transfers in Ukraine.
53 Aizer et al for examining marriage, fertility and longevity data among women who participated in the “mothers’ pension” program in the US between 1911 and 1930.
52 Delius and Sterck for finding that digital food vouchers provided to 400,000 refugees in Kenya increased revenues of licensed businesses participating in the scheme.
51 Shi et al for illustrating how 12 cities in China are using an AI platform – the Intelligent Benefit Certification and Analysis – for curbing social security frauds.
50 OECD for modernizing social protection… but with guardrails.
49 Guimaraes et al for showing that among Bolsa beneficiaries the risk of dying from breast cancer was half than similar non-recipients’.
48 ECLAC for releasing an insightful flagship on the present and future of non-contributory transfers in the region.
47 Tahiry for shedding light on how social norms and practices in Ghana affect targeting, enrolment, payment, and virtually the entire cash transfers delivery chain.
46 Light et al for synthesizing the effects of conditional vs unconditional cash transfers in Sub-Saharan Africa based on 27 studies.
45 Coudouel et al for their stress-test of social protection systems in 6 Sahelian countries.
44 van de Meerendonk et al for simulating the fiscal cost of enhanced social protection in South and East Asia.
43 Bloomfield and Cabrera for gauging the long-term impact of the PANES cash transfer program in Uruguay.
42 Bidzha et al for evaluating the impact of South Afriac’s Child Support Grant on child mortality.
41 Bertoluzza et al for revealing what cash transfers represent, like self-identity and emancipation, to recipients in Italy.
40 Callen et al for estimating that the cost of digital humanitarian cash transfers in Afghanistan is $6.7 cents/dollar delivered, or 40% lower than global average ($17 cents).
39 Machado et al for their systematic review on cash transfers and violence based on 48 studies.
38 Molina-Vera and Oosterbeek for pointing out a poverty-empowerment trade-off in the Ecuadorian Bono de Desarrollo Humano program.
37 Daley et al for finding that in “closed” economies like in permafrost-affected Northern Canada, child benefits can lead to higher food prices.
36 Rogers et al for assessing the effects of “cash plus” or bundled interventions for adolescents in Africa to reduce HIV risk.
35 Kassirer et al for testing recipients’ psychological reactions to cash versus in-kind food as provided by different institutions.
34 Jiang for evaluating a CCT in a high-income country, namelythe Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) which covered half million children in England.
33 Abay et al for comparing the effects of a “nutrition-sensitive” food box versus traditional “staple-heavy” commodities.
32 Cabot Venton for calculating that assistance delivered through local actors is between 13.6-18.9% cheaper than via international agencies.
31 Jinkins et al for illustrating the deleterious societal effects of reducing cash transfers among vulnerable populations in Denmark.
30 Pasha et for presenting an “evidence gap map” of cash transfers and cash-plus programsbased on 709 impact evaluations and 33 systematic reviews.
29 Domina et al for detecting a 10-22% decline in student school suspensions when giving free meals in high-poverty neighborhoods universally.
28 Sibun and Seglah for compiling data from 52 low and middle income countries on three types of categorical benefits, namely social pensions, disability and child benefits.
27 Qi et al for estimating that a $1 decline in cash and in-kind transfers to refugees in Uganda leads to losses between $2.88-$2.97.
26 Deininger and Ali for evaluating Ukraine’s Producer Support Grant implemented via the digital State Agrarian Register in the war frontlines.
25 ILO for reviewing what 41 studies on social protection, jobs and microfinance programs tell us about effectiveness in reducing child and forced labor.
24 Hyee et al for laying out that minimum income guarantee programs reach on average less than one third of working-age poor people.
23 Considine et al for discussing risks and opportunities in “digitizing welfare” in Australia.
22 Bitler and Figinski for tracing SNAP participation among children born between 1955 and 1980 and estimating that at age 32 theirearnings rose by approximately 15.6% or $3,966.
21 OECD for showing that transitions to formality are “extremely infrequent” for lower-tier workers and do not necessarily translate into higher income.
20 Collante Zárate et al for evaluating Colombia’s school meals program (PAE) on educational outcomes.
19 Fassarella et al for tacking the relationship between program exit and labor market participation among Brazil’s Bolsa beneficiaries over 14 years.
18 Gentilini et al for conducting a seminal stocktaking of anti-inflation indexation practices among 232 cash transfer programs globally.
17 Costella et al for gauging the level of integration between climate change and social protection across 98 programs.
16 Thota et al for their robust and visually-awesome summary of evidence on “cash plus” interventions.
15 Ecker et al for assessing how Yemen’s national cash transfer program helped mitigate conflict-induced malnutrition.
14 Bhorat and Köhler for their analysis on South Africa’s Social Relief of Distress grant impact on labor markets.
13 Corona and Velez-Grajales for reviewing the evidence on the relationship between social protection and informality from 27 studies.
12 Grisolia for mapping out the multisectoral effectiveness of cash transfers, including based on 38 studies across 7 dimensions and 20 indicators.
11 Schnitzer and Stoeffler for comparing the performance of targeting methods using 9 datasets from 6 countries in the Sahel.
10 Gromadzki et al for pointing out that a Polish party championing the Family 500+ cash transfer program achieved significant political gains in the following election.
9 Reinhart’s for his powerful narrative emphasizing the societal benefits of cash transfers beyond impacts on beneficiaries.
8 Banerjee et al for their structured discussion of social protection evidence in low and middle income countries.
7 Peterman et al for a splendid, go-to systematic review of social assistance and gender.
6 Mendes et al for quantifying the growth and job-generation effects of cash transfers in Brazil.
5 Marquez-Padilla et al for showing the fate of beneficiaries after the Mexican PROGRESA program was discontinued.
4 Leight et al for offering a superb systematic review of cash transfers and “cash-plus” programs’ effects (and their persistence) on income, consumption and labor force participation based on 104 studies.
3 Pignatti et al for a stellar analysis of 106 countries over 30 years showing that not only social protection is the most countercyclical government fiscal policy, but that recent global progress was largely driven by the performance of low and middle income countries.
2 Brollo et al for a brilliant discussion and quantification of trade-off between targeting methods, expanding coverage, poverty impact, and fiscal costs.
1 Ananat and Garfinkel for shedding light and quantifying the direct and indirect costs and benefits of large-scale cash transfers, with a case study on child benefits in the US revealing that benefits are 10 times higher than their cost.
Enjoy the festivities, with links being promptly back in early 2025!